House of Commons
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone else. The two local enterprise partnerships covering the area—Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP, and Heart of the South West LEP, which includes Devon—are receiving £317 million through the local growth fund to drive regional development. That includes a £3 million investment in the Electronics and Photonics Innovation Centre at the White Rock business park in Paignton, which helps to support skilled jobs in a key local growth sector.
Kevin Foster
As my hon. Friend mentions, Torbay’s £8 million EPIC centre will open later this year, helping to boost our vital photonics industry. What further support can his Department offer to help boost Torbay’s high-tech sector?
Richard Harrington
I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything he does for employment in this area and in his constituency. He knows that my Department is working with Heart of the South West LEP, which is leading the development of our local industrial strategy. Torbay is actively engaged in that work. I believe the strategy will identify the particular strengths of the region and future opportunities for increased productivity, including in sectors such as photonics.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The development of marine industries in Plymouth and across Devon and Cornwall is a really important part of our local economy. Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation from Plymouth to look at how the creation of the UK’s first national marine park could trigger more investment in our marine technologies and industries in the west country?
Richard Harrington
It would be a pleasure. The hon. Gentleman and I have met before to discuss such subjects, and I am happy to do so again.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
In my constituency, 85% of employees are employed in small businesses, which tell me they struggle to find the skilled workers they need. What can my hon. Friend’s Department do with the Treasury and the Department for Education to ensure that small colleges in particular have the funding they need to provide those skills?
Richard Harrington
As my hon. Friend knows, my Department is part of the picture; he correctly says the DFE is responsible for skills, but that is an important part of our industrial strategy, both nationally and locally. We are really pushing to put the skills agenda at the top of LEP programmes and everything else to do with that, because we realise, as he says, that small business will power the economy of the future.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The south-west is one of the fastest growing economic areas in the country, predominantly in tourism and tech. With the devaluation of the pound, many people have decided to have holidays in Cornwall, and we have tech-based businesses such as Microtest, a health-based solutions company in my constituency. People are making lifestyle choices about where in the country they want to live. What more can we do to facilitate moves away from the city to the coast?
Richard Harrington
As someone with previous experience of business in the south-west, in the tourism industry, I understand exactly what my hon. Friend says. The Government’s strategy is very much based on regional devolution—LEPs in particular—and areas such as his will see the benefits of that in the future.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Supply chains between the UK and the EU are vital—they support at least 200,000 UK traders and around 55,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland alone. The deal the Government have negotiated with the EU, by avoiding customs checks, will protect supply chains and jobs right across the UK.
Jamie Stone
I ask this question against the background of yesterday’s unthinkable dry run for a no-deal Brexit— 80 lorries is hardly the same as 6,000. I represent the furthest-away part of the UK mainland. I have mentioned before in the Chamber Mr William Calder, who runs a fish food company in Scrabster. Half a day’s extra delay in getting his fish products to the European market will ruin the gentleman. Does the Minister see just how dangerous the future could be for my constituents?
Greg Clark
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why there has been consistent support, especially in Scotland, from organisations such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scotch Whisky Association. Those who depend on the export trade, including the logistics he describes, have urged the House to back the deal, and I hope he joins us in doing that.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The importance of Dover-Calais is unquestionable. What estimates has the Department made of the implications for the supply network of any reduction in capacity between Dover and Calais?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend knows that much of the just-in-time production goes through the strait of Dover, and estimates suggest an impact of a reduction of about 80% of capacity between the narrow strait. In my view, it is essential that we avoid that disruption, which would have implications right across the United Kingdom, including in Derbyshire and indeed Scotland, as we have heard.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
This week, I received correspondence from a small business owner and constituent of mine who shared his fears about the issues Brexit could cause his chemicals business. The EU is where the majority of his sales are made and where he sources his raw materials. Can the Secretary of State tell us why his Government will not rule out a no-deal Brexit now, which is putting so many businesses in my area and across the country at risk?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady is right that the chemicals industry is a good example of a very integrated industry across Europe. I met the leaders of the chemicals industry in the week before Christmas, and they were very clear that what has been negotiated in the withdrawal agreement and political agreement achieves what they need, which is, first, to avoid no deal and, secondly, to be able to continue what has been a very successful industry, including in the area she represents.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
With the worrying news that German output has fallen by 4.7%, what can Britain do, post Brexit, to help the German economy with a thriving British economy?
Greg Clark
It has always been my view, and I know it is my hon. Friend’s view, that the more we can trade on what has been a very successful model the better. He represents a west midlands constituency and knows how important it is in the west midlands that we have flourishing trade, to the benefit of our economy and those of our neighbours and friends on the continent.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
From Airbus in Bristol to Nissan in Sunderland, millions of British jobs depend upon supply chains that crisscross the channel. Ministers fantasise about replacing them with American or Australian ones, and then, as they did yesterday, hire 80 trucks to drive around Kent in a ghost of Brexit future pantomime of the chaos to come. The Minister for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has acted honourably in saying he will not be part of a Government who allow a no-deal Brexit, so will the Secretary of State reassure Aston Martin, Brompton the bicycle manufacturer, and the other businesses stockpiling parts—spending money that could be spent creating jobs—by saying he understands the requirements of business and geography and rule out a no deal now?
Greg Clark
I completely understand the requirements of business, including the manufacturers the hon. Lady mentions. It is essential that we be able to continue to trade, which is why I have always been clear—representing very strongly the views of small business and large business—that no deal should not be contemplated, but the way to avoid no deal is to do what the motor manufacturers, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and all the business organisations say we should do, which is vote for the agreement that will come before the House next week.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Lang may yer lum reek, Mr Speaker.
One way the Government are looking to maintain cross-border supply chains is by Government tender to shipping companies, but is the Secretary of State happy about the precedent set for UK businesses? His colleague the Secretary of State for Transport has awarded a £14 million contract to a company with negative assets of nearly £400,000, no ships and terms and conditions copied from a takeaway, while the contract itself seems to have been awarded on questionable legal grounds. Is this the standard he expects for all UK businesses tendering for UK Government contracts?
Greg Clark
It is evident that avoiding no deal is an essential task for all of us in the House, and I hope that in the days ahead the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will take the opportunity to obviate the need for those contingencies. The Secretary of State for Transport has an opportunity to come to the House later today, but it seems to me prudent and responsible for every Department to prepare, on a contingency basis, for no deal, while also being firmly resolved to avoid it.
Drew Hendry
The Secretary of State has not answered the question. Will all UK businesses see such largesse from the Government in respect of procurement contracts? One of Seaborne’s directors ran a business that went into liquidation owing HMRC nearly £600,000, using employee benefit trust tax avoidance schemes. According to the director, the Government did not even consider the money owed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be relevant. Is that a sign of a Government who are out of control over Brexit?
Greg Clark
I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that, as I have said, every Department should make preparations against the avoidable contingency of no deal. The Secretary of State will describe the procurement processes for which the Department for Transport opted, but it is fair to observe that not a penny of Government money has been paid to the company, and I understand that it will be paid only on receipt of services provided.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Given that nearly all the roll-on/roll-off lorry traffic between the Irish Republic and the EU travels across the UK motorway network to Dover, what co-operation has been offered by the Republic to mitigate a no-deal Brexit?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the impact of the Dover strait extends to our trade across the Irish sea. He knows that the negotiation has been with the European Commission and the European Council rather than through bilateral negotiations with individual member states, but I agree with him that the disruption that would occur would affect our trade across the Irish sea as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently say to colleagues that we have a lot to get through? We need to speed up.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
We will be undertaking a statutory review of the effectiveness of the pubs code and the Pubs Code Adjudicator. I welcome the recent publication by the adjudicator of arbitration decisions, which will increase transparency in relation to how the code is working in practice.
Toby Perkins
At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on pubs, we heard from many tenants who had attempted to avail themselves of the “market rent only” option under the pubs code, but whose attempts had been frustrated. Will the review to which the Minister has referred involve a full and open consultation to which members of the public will be able to contribute, and which we will all be able to read afterwards?
Kelly Tolhurst
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to this issue. We are currently working out how we will carry out the review, and, under statutory regulation, we need to do that until the end of March. Of course we understand some of the concerns that have been raised by people who have been affected; we will take account of their views, and I will ensure that those views are heard.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
As the Minister will know, in the case of tenanted pubs the rent is partly set according to the volume of beer sold. However, there is a long-standing grievance about a discrepancy between the amount of drinkable beer in a cask and the volume of the cask itself. Will the Minister meet me—and some of my constituents, who are deeply concerned about the issue—to discuss the “72 pints” campaign?
Kelly Tolhurst
We recognise that a number of issues affect the pubs community. The Government have taken some important measures relating to beer duty and business rates to help pubs, but I should be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents to discuss the position.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Between April and September 2018, 33 pubs a week closed and were either demolished or converted to homes or offices. The pub industry is in free fall, and communities are suffering as they see their vital community hubs diminished. What strategy, if any, have the Government to secure a long-term sustainable future for the industry?
Kelly Tolhurst
The Government have taken action to secure the future of pubs. We have frozen beer duty, with the result that a regular pint of beer is 2p cheaper than it would have been if we had increased the duty in line with inflation. We have offered the business rate discount to retail properties, and we estimate that 75% of pubs will be eligible for it. That has cut pubs’ bills by a third for two years. We recognise the importance of pubs to our local communities, and we are taking action. For instance, as I have said, we will be reviewing the pubs code and the success of the Pubs Code Adjudicator.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
All of us in this House should celebrate the UK’s global leadership in decarbonising our economy: we have had the fastest rate of decarbonisation in the G20 since 1990, and part of that leadership has been through very substantial investment in renewable technology, including subsidies totalling £52 billion since 2010 and auction design and research and development investment. It is paying off: in the third quarter of last year we generated over a third of our energy from renewables, and our support is continuing with over half a billion pounds committed to the contracts for difference process and almost £200 million for cost-reducing innovations.
Danielle Rowley
Scottish businesses such as the innovative Artemis in my constituency have developed world-leading tidal and wave energy technologies, but requiring these early-stage businesses to compete with the more mature offshore wind industry for CfD subsidies means there is often no viable route to market for emergent technologies. Will the Minister consider having a three-pot auction for new technologies, including wave and tidal, so there is no direct competition with more established technologies?
Claire Perry
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We want to continue to invest in technologies that have the potential both to decarbonise and drive global exports, and that is certainly an area that could contribute, although not at any price: we will not rerun the debate over Swansea, which would have been the most expensive power station the country had ever built and created just 30 jobs. There are potentially better, more valuable projects and I am always happy to look at innovative proposals coming forward to see how we might support this technology.
Dr Huq
As well as the obvious, 31 March sees the end of the export tariff on electricity exported into the grid by solar photovoltaic systems. After that, big firms will end up receiving free electricity from all new solar PV installations, which are mainly small businesses and individual households, so they will effectively be subsidising the giants. Will the Government consider a net metering scheme, whereby the difference between electricity consumed and exported into the grid only is paid for, to rectify this burning injustice?
Claire Perry
I admire the hon. Lady’s passion. I feel I am rather front-running my answer to Question 9, which I know the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) is teed up to ask, but I will publish today the consultation on the Government’s proposals for a smart export guarantee to bring forward this valuable source of energy at a price so that people are not providing it to the grid for free, and to support its development in what we want to call our smart systems plan going forward.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
While supporting new energy technologies is of course important, so too is supporting technologies that make our energy production more efficient, and many of these technologies are low carbon so they help us meet our climate change targets and cut consumers’ household bills. Can the Minister update us on progress made in this area and on the call for evidence I have asked for on this subject?
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner on this issue and will know that we have contributed almost £20 million to the industrial strategy heat recovery fund, and the low-carbon heating technology innovation fund is also receiving funds of up to £10 million. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s principle. I am not convinced that a further consultation is required, but I am always happy to discuss it with her.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is it fair to continue to subsidise solar panels by charging higher prices to other customers who could not possibly afford that investment?
Claire Perry
No, and that is why the intention to close the feed-in tariff scheme was signalled many years ago: it has cost to date over £5 billion and we have a legacy cost of over £1.5 billion to fund that scheme going forward at a time when the price of solar is tumbling. We know that many companies are bringing forward large-scale solar installations without needing subsidy.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Claire Perry
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary regarding all the support we are providing for the BEIS Scottish energy sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in celebrating the fact that we have opened up the CfD mechanism to the offshore wind provision that is coming for remote island projects—[Interruption.] He used to think that that was a very good thing. We should also never forget that it is UK bill payers collectively who have invested in the success of UK renewable energy. We will continue to review the potential for onshore wind, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Scottish Secretary and I were both elected on a manifesto that said that further subsidy for large-scale onshore wind was not required or necessary.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I very much support renewable energy, but many of my constituents in the Scottish borders feel that we now have our fair share of onshore wind, so can the Minister assure me that nothing in Government policy will promote onshore wind farm developments over other forms of renewable energy sources?
Claire Perry
That is exactly the point about technology neutrality. I refer my hon. Friend to the Scottish Government’s own onshore wind policy statement, which suggests that the number of onshore wind applications is expected to increase by more than 70% on the basis of current planning applications. The current system is clearly working to bring forward onshore wind in the windiest parts of the United Kingdom.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Given how vital offshore wind is to Britain’s future electricity supply, and how it is increasingly providing good value for money, how can the Minister justify allocating just £60 million to next spring’s CfD auction?
Claire Perry
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for recognising the incredible contribution that offshore wind can make, and I hope he will join me in wishing great success to our negotiating teams in bringing forward the vital sector deal. The point is, given that the price has tumbled since he was one of the people who designed the excellent auction structure, that we should be able to bring forward the amount of capacity we have said we need—1 GW to 2 GW—with that amount of subsidy. The system is working to get us to subsidy-free provision of this extremely important offshore wind energy.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the recent EU Court judgment, which effectively freezes the capacity market in the UK, turned substantially on the lack of level playing field access to capacity market support for new low-carbon energy technologies such as demand-side response. Does she intend to respond positively to the judgment by recasting the capacity market to reflect remedies for this lack of equal access, or is she perhaps hoping that, after a decent interval—and a lot of damage to existing participants in the capacity market—normal service will be resumed?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. We have been working on this issue closely with the industry for several months since the judgment came forward, and it is absolutely right that we reassure the industry and investors of our commitment to holding auctions in the near future to ensure electricity supply for next winter, and that we do all that we can to ensure that this market is put back on a legal and orderly basis. It does work—it is the envy of many countries around the world—and we are working closely with Ofgem and the industry to ensure that we can take that market capacity structure forward.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
The Government support businesses throughout the UK by encouraging innovation, investing in infrastructure and skills and, more importantly, building long-term partnerships with businesses as part of our modern industrial strategy. We have demonstrated our support for the importance of our supply chain through the automotive, aerospace and nuclear sector deals.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Fabrication yards in UK ports have supply chains that extend throughout the UK, but there is real concern for their future. Can the Minister confirm that the oil and gas and the offshore wind sector deals will make provision for realising the full potential of those yards and their supply chains?
Richard Harrington
I certainly can, and I welcome the deal proposals that have been put forward by both the offshore wind and the offshore oil and gas sectors.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddle- worth) (Lab)
Richard Harrington
I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that we are working closely with the sector. I have some experience of project bank accounts in the construction sector and I have seen them work. We will look very carefully at this.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Precisely what support is being given to the steel industry and its supply chain?
Richard Harrington
The hon. Gentleman and I frequently speak about the steel industry, and I meet regularly with the trade body, UK Steel, and all the different companies to monitor the future carefully. The industry is important to us, and I am still hopeful that we can work on a sector deal, so I am interested to hear proposals from the various companies.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
The UK plays a leading role in space science and exploration, and our commercial sector is globally competitive, underpinned by Government support of up to £370 million a year. We have further committed £92 million to develop options for a possible UK global navigation satellite system to maintain the UK’s security capabilities, and £31.5 million to kick-start small satellite launch from the UK as part of our modern industrial strategy.
Mark Garnier
I can tell from that answer that my hon. Friend recognises the increasing importance of the space sector in our everyday lives, particularly for communications and broadband. Does he therefore agree that elements of the space sector should be designated and treated as part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure, thus receiving the extra support and potential financing that such designation would provide?
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend is right that space capabilities are fundamental to UK prosperity and security. Every day, we rely on telecommunications, earth observation, position navigation and timing services from space. Many of the parts of the UK’s critical infrastructure—from telecommunications to transport—also depend on services from space to operate effectively, and that is why the space sector is designated as a critical national infrastructure sector, with efforts focused on improving the security of our critical assets.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister not understand that the aerospace industry is crucial to the future of our country? A company that operates in my constituency made components for the Mars probe, and such firms, which are at the leading edge of technology, are terrified by the chaos of the possible no-deal Brexit that the Government are leading. The supply chains are so complex that the company in my constituency faces ruin, as does the country’s whole aerospace industry under this Government’s watch.
Chris Skidmore
I congratulate the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on its success with the Mars landing. I recently went to Imperial College to congratulate the team that created the sensors that detected the first sounds on Mars. It is crucial to say that our commitment to the European Space Agency is independent of our relationship with the EU. We put in support of £370 million a year that allows us access to a market worth £6 billion. When it comes to ensuring that we have stability and security for the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I look forward to seeing him in the Lobby next week supporting the Government’s deal.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Last week, while the Chinese were exploring the dark side of the moon, NASA was 6.5 billion km away on the far side of Neptune taking photos of Ultima Thule, and the sensors that took those images were made in Chelmsford. Will the Minister therefore join me in giving a massive shout-out to everyone at Teledyne e2v and congratulating them on this world-first achievement?
Chris Skidmore
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Teledyne e2v on its involvement in NASA’s New Horizons mission. The stunning image of that distant world showcases UK technology at the leading edge of space exploration. As I said, we have already detected the first sounds from Mars through a project led by Imperial College and the University of Oxford, and Surrey Satellite Technology will unveil tomorrow its completed build platform for the Eutelsat Quantum—the first geostationary telecommunications satellite that will be fully reconfigurable in orbit—which highlights the UK Space Agency’s continual successes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline how many new jobs have been created to meet the need for 30,000 new employees that was highlighted in last May’s “Prosperity from Space” report?
Chris Skidmore
The sector currently employs around 38,500 people and has grown significantly since 1999-2000, when 14,651 were working in the sector—that represents an annual growth rate of 6.7%. The UK has committed to ensuring that we grow our share of the global space market to 10% by 2030. That offers huge potential for increasing not just our share of the market, but the UK’s prosperity and productivity. I hope that the “Prosperity from Space” report, which was published by the space sector and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), whom I thank, will lead to a deal for the space sector and, potentially, to investigation of a national space programme—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do apologise, but progress is not just too slow; it is too slow.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The Government’s good work plan represents the largest reform to employment rules in over 20 years. It includes measures to boost transparency and tackle one-sided flexibility for those in insecure work, and I have already tabled legislation in Parliament to take forward the programme.
Stephen Morgan
A recent Resolution Foundation report shows that barely half of agency workers remain in one job beyond six months, making the Government’s arbitrary timeframe of 12 months before the right to request a direct contract kicks in totally meaningless. Labour has committed to giving all workers equal rights from day one; why have the Government not committed to doing the same?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman will welcome the reforms that have been made to deal with insecure work and, in particular, to do something that has been campaigned for by the trade union movement and supported by many employers, which is to remove the Swedish derogation that has provided a loophole for employers to avoid those rights. That legislation is now before the House, and I hope he will support it.
Janet Daby
Does the Secretary of State agree that the recently introduced right to request guaranteed working hours is not sufficient to protect workers on zero-hours contracts?
Greg Clark
No. This is a very important extension of the rights of people on zero-hours contracts. It is important to recognise, first, that the number of employees on zero-hours contracts remains very small and, secondly, that most of those on zero-hours contracts want to have that flexibility. Those who do not want that flexibility and prefer a longer and more stable contract will now have the right to request one.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady will recognise that our package immediately introduced legislation for those rights that can be legislated for with secondary legislation. Primary legislation will shortly be brought forward for the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which she chairs, and the Work and Pensions Committee to scrutinise.
Mr Speaker
Order. I was not looking for the right hon. Gentleman, although it is always a pleasure to be reminded of the fact of his presence.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I wish you and the Secretary of State a happy new year, Mr Speaker, but the sad fact is that the good work plan does little to change the lives of precarious limb (b) workers, who will still not be entitled to statutory sick pay, maternity pay or the right to claim unfair dismissal. For those on a zero-hours contract, all the requests in the world will not legally oblige their employer to provide more stable employment. I have asked this question time and again to no avail: can the Secretary of State confirm what happens when an employer refuses a request for more stable working hours?
Greg Clark
It is very clear that we are not making it mandatory for people not to have a zero-hours contract. Such contracts are available to employers, but employees will have the right to request. Reasonable employers have offered more stable contracts to employees, but the Taylor report is very clear that the flexibility that zero-hours contracts offer is valued by many of the people who use them.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I am glad the Secretary of State has clarified that the right to request a more stable contract is, in fact, a meaningless proposal on paper. What is worse is that the Government also rejected recommendations from their own director of labour market enforcement to increase fines for companies that breach the minimum wage and for that money to be used to increase enforcement resource. The Government also rejected his recommendation that public procurement contracts should compel compliance with labour market regulations. With reports that the average employer can expect an investigation once in every 500 years, does the Secretary of State really think he is being serious about enforcing workers’ rights?
Greg Clark
I am working closely with Sir David Metcalf, the director of labour market enforcement. On his particular recommendation about increasing penalties, we just have increased the penalties and it is reasonable to look at their effectiveness. I have made the commitment to the House that, of course, we will increase them if that proves necessary, but one of the other reforms that we are making is to boost the enforcement of workers’ rights by bringing together the different enforcement bodies so that such employers—the minority that do play fast and loose with the rights to which employees are entitled—should expect justice to be brought about. This will be part of the package that we have tabled.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I want to pay tribute to our UK negotiating team, which did such a fantastic job at the recent conference of the parties in developing a robust set of rules that will take us forward to achieve what we need, which is further hardcore nationally determined contributions in 2020. We want to use our leadership in this space to continue progress, which was why I was pleased to announce our expression of interest in hosting the 2020 COP right here in the UK. I hope the hon. Gentleman will support that.
Claire Perry
We do not have the power to sanction under international law—or, indeed, under the current United Nations proposals—but we can work positively through initiatives such as the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which I was pleased to set up with my Canadian equivalent last year, to encourage all countries that, like us, are committed to phasing coal out of their energy system in a short period. We now have more than 80 members a year after launch, so we can continue to lead by example.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I want to give the hon. Gentleman the good news that I will be publishing today the next stages of our proposals for a smart export guarantee to reflect two principles: that nobody should be providing energy to the grid for free, or indeed at negative pricing, as has happened in some countries; and that the value of community energy projects, which is real and significant, can be recognised. That consultation will be published later today and I look forward to his response, because I know he is a long-standing campaigner in this area.
Geraint Davies
It would have been useful to have had that publication before Question Time to enable informed questions to be asked. I put it to the Minister that some 60 MW of solar energy in Wales alone rely on the export tariffs. Will she be looking at differential tariffs for existing versus new providers, so that there is no breach of contract with existing providers, and ensure that tariffs are set so as to encourage solar rather than fracking and so that we are in accordance with our Paris commitments, which have just been referred to?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman should know that we have signalled for many years how the closure of the feed-in tariff will work. We have spent almost £6 billion on existing contracts, and those contracts will of course be honoured. We have also announced with the closure of the scheme that there is a limited application period for projects for the next couple of months. There will be some that are brought forward, but it is only right that, as the price of this power provision has tumbled, we stop using other people’s money to subsidise something that we do not need to do in order to bring forward solar.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
While we have been in the Chamber, the Minister’s consultation has gone online, and Members and the public have until 5 March to respond to it. What reassurance can she give that those responses will be listened to? There is concern in the solar industry and among others that 91% of responses to a previous consultation by her Department were against the end of export tariffs, yet that went ahead. Will she meet me and an excellent local business, AES Solar, which has concerns but would like to discuss them with her and community representatives?
Claire Perry
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and I am also very interested in the consultation results. I want to make the point quickly that the era of crude subsidy is over, partly because the price of renewables has dropped so significantly. We are trying to ensure that bringing forward the decentralised energy that we believe is so important to our system is also the objective of this tariff, and I would be interested to hear his views as well as those of his constituents.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
The automotive sector is one of the great success stories of our country, and our sector deal is a good example of how we will continue to support it going forward. We have committed around £1 billion over 10 years up to 2023 through the Advanced Propulsion Centre to research, develop and commercialise the next generation of low-carbon technologies, to keep us at the cutting edge of the automotive industry’s development.
Bridget Phillipson
The UK car industry is under huge pressure, yet far from providing the certainty that the sector needs, we will be debating our trading relationship with the European Union for years to come. Is it not the case that the deal that the Government are putting forward fails to protect tens of thousands of highly-skilled automotive jobs in my region? Not only that, but it is far worse than the deal we have now.
Richard Harrington
I am sure the hon. Lady knows that the deal has been backed by everybody in the automotive sector. I meet regularly with them and they have been outspoken about the perils of defeating the Prime Minister’s deal. I hope that the hon. Lady will think about that when she goes through the voting Lobby.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
What is the Minister’s response to the report published last month by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—the membership of which, by the way, includes the Scottish National party Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—which concluded:
“The consistent and overwhelming message expressed by”
business
“is that to make…decisions they need certainty and it is for that reason they support the Withdrawal Agreement”?
Richard Harrington
As ever, my hon. Friend has absolutely nailed this. The automotive sector, like the BEIS Committee, is totally in favour of the Prime Minister’s deal. I am sure that the SNP spokesman has listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I am sure that he will be supporting the deal next week.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Richard Harrington
I must remind the hon. Lady of my answer to the previous question: the best thing for the Scottish economy is the Prime Minister’s deal. I hope the hon. Lady will consider that when she votes next week.
Mr Speaker
I am very saddened that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) is departing our midst. I know he has many pressing commitments and a very full diary, but if he stayed, he might get called. It would be very sad to lose the right hon. Gentleman’s pearls of wisdom.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
You are racing ahead, Mr Speaker; we had got so far behind.
My hon. Friend should know that we are strongly supporting the aerospace industry through our aerospace growth partnership, which includes supporting business with nearly £2 billion of public research and development funding from 2013 to 2026. The sector deal for aerospace includes £125 million of funding to support the electrification of flight, developing new aircraft technologies and transport concepts. I am sure that will be excellent for your future holidays, Mr Speaker.
Fiona Bruce
What plans do Ministers have to extend the Sharing in Growth scheme in the aerospace industry? It has helped Congleton business Senior Aerospace Bird Bellows to improve productivity and secure new orders. The company is very much looking forward to receiving the Minister on his planned visit to Congleton in March.
Richard Harrington
I am very much looking forward to seeing my hon. Friend on that visit. We are in dialogue with senior management at Sharing in Growth about the scope to extend the programme further, and that will continue ahead of the comprehensive spending review.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Space Studio School in Feltham, started by the Rivers Academy, continues to innovate, bringing about high-quality science education and industry-related work, and engaging with the National Space Centre, the European Space Agency, NASA and the aerospace industry around Heathrow. Does the Minister agree that even stronger relationships between schools and industry are vital to ensure that we stay competitive? Will he agree to visit the Space Studio in west London to see what is being done there and what more can be done to improve opportunities for young people?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware of the problems as well as the possibilities for Bombardier in east Belfast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised them consistently. Given the job loss announcements several weeks ago, will he undertake to do whatever he can on the possibilities for expansion next year?
Richard Harrington
The hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that Bombardier is a company close to my heart. I speak regularly to him and his colleagues and to the company, and I will do anything I can to ensure that company’s prosperity.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The best outcome for Scotland is to deliver the deal that we have negotiated with the EU. That will provide the certainty that Scottish businesses need and protect jobs and prosperity.
Tommy Sheppard
A recent report by the Fraser of Allander Institute found that three quarters of Scottish businesses felt that they did not have adequate information to prepare for Brexit. Given that, do the Government now regret rejecting the Scottish National party’s proposal for a £750 million small business support scheme to help them prepare for the eventuality of Brexit?
Greg Clark
Advice and support is available to businesses right across the UK, but it remains the case that the best certainty that business can have is to know that the agreement that has been reached with the European Union, which rules out no deal and involves a substantial transition period, will be approved next week in the House of Commons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
A total of 390,000 18 to 24-year olds are involved in starting businesses in the UK, and the British Business Bank has provided £52 million in start-up loans to young people since 2012. In December we launched a youth engagement programme, including a celebration of UK science, technology, engineering and maths projects and an industrial strategy competition to inspire 13 to 19-year-olds.
Jeremy Lefroy
I welcome that and I welcome the start-up loans scheme, which has helped a lot of young entrepreneurs, but will the Minister talk with his counterparts in the Department for Education to see how we can embed entrepreneurship and life skills in business into the school curriculum?
Chris Skidmore
Absolutely. Indeed, as a Minister also in the Department for Education, I work with that Department and understand the importance of ensuring that young people develop entrepreneurial skills. Our careers strategy launched in 2017 places a strong emphasis on our interaction with entrepreneurs. We have connected more than 2,000 schools and colleges with enterprise advisers, launched a £2.5 million investment fund to support employer encounters, and created 20 new career hubs.
Henry Smith
Sam’s Kitchen was set up by a young entrepreneur in Crawley several years ago. On meeting him recently, he reported a large number of frequent and, it seems, unnecessary inspections. How can we make sure that we get the balance right between necessary regulation and not imposing too much of a burden on young, growing businesses?
Chris Skidmore
I understand that Sam French is a young entrepreneur selling homemade gingerbread men and women. I congratulate him on his success. Perhaps he may like to send some to you to sample, Mr Speaker. I am pleased that he shares his experience with other young entrepreneurs. It is important, however, that inspections in the food industry are based on a national code of practice and are intended to give the necessary reassurances to business and consumers so that they can buy products with absolute confidence.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Is not part of the problem of encouraging youth entrepreneurship that vocational education is seen as second rate? How will we change that?
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, which is why the Government have commissioned the Augur review to look at post-18 education. In addition, we are developing a full range of T-levels that will soon be operational. It is absolutely important that we level the playing field and ensure that the 50% of people who are not going to university have that opportunity to develop their skills going forward, particularly around technical education.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Since we last met, I have been delighted to be in Bristol, a hub of brilliant technological innovation, to launch the aerospace sector deal with a commitment from business and Government to invest a quarter of a billion pounds in the aircraft of the future. I announced a life sciences sector deal, featuring £1 billion of industry investment from the global biopharmaceutical company UCB. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has been in Katowice representing the UK at COP 24. At home, we published our Good Work Plan, and, just last week, the energy price cap came into effect, ensuring that all customers get a fair deal.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer.
A meeting of stakeholders was recently held in Pollokshields in my constituency to discuss the problems of fireworks in the community, as they really cause local residents a huge amount of distress. The Minister wrote to me last year saying that a meeting would be set up with me and other MPs to discuss the matter further. Will he give me more information as to what progress has been made to set up the meeting, as my constituents do not want to be forgotten about?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady is quite right that the issue is a matter of concern not just in her constituency, but in others. I will ensure that the meeting happens in the next two weeks.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is right that the FRC refers any concerns it has relating to the insolvency case to the ICAEW, which is a recognised professional body that regulates insolvency practitioners. In this case, I understand that the ICAEW has considered the issues put forward and is investigating a number of matters. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue again, as I already have. It is right that we investigate any concerns that British businesses have about the regulations.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I think I have answered a similar question before, although not from the hon. Gentleman. I have absolutely no plans to change the traffic lights system. The current fracking proposals being tested in Lancashire right now were developed with that system. The fact is that that system is working and being triggered even by micro-tremors; the hon. Gentleman will know that we have had some great evidence from the University of Liverpool as to how small the tremors actually are. If we are to take forward what could be a very valuable industry, it is only right that we do so with the toughest environmental regulations in the world, so I say again that there are no plans from the Government to change the traffic lights system.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Kelly Tolhurst
We continue to work closely with the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the needs of high street retailers are understood. In the 2018 Budget we announced a reduction in business rates worth £900 million over two years for small businesses. The digital services tax, a 2% tax on revenues specific to digital businesses, will ensure that they pay tax reflecting the value that they derive from UK users. We have also established the Retail Sector Council, which has now decided on its future work programme, as part of which business costs and taxation are one topic being considered.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
New research from the TUC shows that household debt is at its highest ever level, with average debt per household now at over £15,000. It is blatantly obvious that the cause is years of austerity and wage stagnation. Millions of workers are now reliant on borrowing, making up for low wages by increasing their debt—not for holiday or luxuries, but through using credit cards for everyday essential such as nappies and food. That is so stressful. Will the Minister please explain what the Government are doing to address this crisis, and why Conservative Members refuse to join the Labour party in advocating a real minimum wage of at least £10 an hour and a return to serious collective bargaining for workers in the UK?
Claire Perry
I heard the news reports of this particular analysis, but I also heard that the analysis had been entirely discredited because it included student debt, which does not accrue to every household. If we were to strip that out, the rate of accrual—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Lady like to listen, rather than chunter? I will carry on. If we strip out student debt, which does not accrue to every household, we see that the growth of consumer credit has actually slowed. Once again, I am proud to stand here and represent the Government who finally did what the hon. Lady’s Government had 13 years and did not do—introduce a national minimum wage and ensure that it goes up well ahead of inflation. [Interruption.] A living wage.
Mr Speaker
I call Will Quince. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is delighted to have excited such a reaction, but I would like to hear what he has to say.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Kelly Tolhurst
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming this recent measure, which has benefited small businesses so well. We have cut corporation tax to 19%. As a result of cuts made by this Government since 2017 through the small business rate relief, over 655,000 small businesses—the occupiers of a third of all business properties—pay no rates at all.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Greg Clark
In the “Road to Zero” strategy document, it is very clear that diesel engines, especially the new generation, are a perfectly acceptable choice environmentally as well as economically. The right hon. Gentleman will know that diesel sales are falling across the whole of Europe, but we have been very clear in this country that it can play an important role in the transition to zero-emission vehicles.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Greg Clark
I do indeed welcome the representation from my hon. Friend. The automotive sector is one of our most successful, and it is globally admired. Its success depends on having the just-in-time production that makes it so competitive. In my view, it is vital that we pose no threat to that in our new relationship with the European Union.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Claire Perry
I had an inkling that the hon. Gentleman might ask a question about this, because he has been a long-standing campaigner in this area. I am pleased to report that the programme is accelerating; I know he will welcome that. I welcomed extensively the National Audit Office report on the cost profile, which showed, effectively, a cost overrun but still a very, very substantial net benefit to both consumers and the economy. I believe that we are minded to accept almost all of the recommendations that were made. This is a vital programme for upgrading our energy system. I hope that he has had his smart meter installed. I saw over Christmas quite how much electricity cooking the Christmas turkey cost, and it was a very valuable exercise.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
What role does the Minister see for the push on technical skills in boosting youth entrepreneurship?
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
As I have stated before, technical skills are absolutely important when it comes to boosting youth entrepreneurship. I take this opportunity to mention to my hon. Friend the launch of the new year-long youth industrial strategy competition at the industrial strategy fair that will be held in March this year, with prizes being awarded at the Big Bang fair in March 2020.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbarton- shire) (SNP)
Greg Clark
As I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), that advice is available to businesses right across the country. But in supporting business confidence, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) should reflect on the fact that Scotland has now become the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, and that is, in itself, undermining the confidence that investors have in Scotland.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Associated Waste Management is a successful business based in my constituency. It has recently been acquired by Beauparc, one of Ireland’s leading waste management companies, but it is keeping its head office in my constituency. The new arrangements have secured the long-term growth of this locally founded business. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such investments are a vote of confidence in the UK economy and send a clear message that we are open for business post-Brexit?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right that the fundamental attractions of the UK economy are as strong as ever. We have some of the best skills in the world, some of the most innovative people and some of the best scientists and researchers, but we also have access to a substantial European market that has proved attractive to businesses from around the world. We should continue with that, and we should have both.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Greg Clark
I might ask the hon. Lady what she is doing to address that. The Scotch Whisky Association has been very clear; it has said that the withdrawal agreement is a compromise but a positive step towards much needed business certainty. If she cares about the industry, she should vote for the deal.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Sadly, my constituency has an unemployment rate of 6%, which is twice the UK average. What progress has been made or can be made on the Ayrshire growth deal, which is essential to Ayrshire’s future prosperity?
Greg Clark
I know that my hon. Friend has been a vociferous champion of the Ayrshire growth deal, which was referred to in the Budget. I hope that we will see some progress on it in the next few weeks. For Cumnock in particular, the prospects will be very attractive. For a town that has contributed significantly over the years, including to UK energy supplies and industrial goods, it will be a fitting tribute—
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Association of Accounting Technicians’ recent survey found that 73% of MPs agreed with its recommended changes to the prompt payment code, which are making the code compulsory, ensuring that larger businesses pay in 30 days and implementing a penalty regime. Will the Minister introduce those changes in legislation, to help the many small businesses that will benefit?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As she will know, we launched the call for evidence in October, and it finished in November. We are reviewing the evidence presented. In October we made announcements to underpin, secure and make better the prompt payment code. The small business commissioner has delivered £2 million of collections for small businesses over the first year in his position. We will continue to work to ensure that small businesses get the payments they need when they should.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Prior to Royal Assent for phase 2b of High Speed 2, will my hon. Friend consider establishing a cross-departmental taskforce with the Department for Transport, to provide businesses that are being forced to relocate with the necessary advice and support, including financial support?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
My hon. Friend should know that I have listened carefully to her question. In the first instance, a meeting between myself, herself and a representative from the Department for Transport might be a way to get that moving.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Last week I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State about the taskforce in Liverpool and Birkenhead that wishes to save Cammell Laird from any further redundancies. Will he meet us this week, as a matter of urgency?
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s advice and his advocacy for a solution to the difficulties that Cammell Laird faces. We are meeting the trade unions and others on Thursday, and I hope he will be able to come to that meeting.
Mr Speaker
I will take the point of order, and I would appreciate it if the ministerial team waited to hear it because it relates to Question Time.
Laura Pidcock
Under her breath, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth mentioned the living wage, but of course in practice there is no such thing. The Minister could correct the record in that it was indeed the Labour party that in 1998 introduced the minimum wage, which her party strongly opposed.
Claire Perry
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry; I am blaming the excitement. Of course I am happy to correct the record. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: the Labour party introduced the national minimum wage. It was quite clear that that was inadequate for many people on the lowest incomes, particularly women who were underpaid, which is why we introduced the national living wage—something I wish she would support.
Mr Speaker
I say to the hon. Lady that it must not be a continuation of the argument. I will give her the benefit of the doubt. However, on that matter the Minister has been very clear, and we thank her for that clarity.
Anna McMorrin
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that climate change is the most pressing and urgent issue facing us and future generations, may I seek your advice about how I can ask the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who has responsibility for climate change, to make an oral statement on her recent attendance at COP 24 at Katowice?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has achieved her own salvation. It seems to me that she has used the device of an entirely bogus point of order to register a point that she probably would have wanted to register if she had been called to do so, but could not because she was not.
Claire Perry
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was delighted to answer a question on this very point, because our negotiation team was, as always, excellent. I was also happy to accredit the hon. Lady; I do not know whether she managed to attend our superb stand and entire presence at Katowice. My door is always open to her, as an expert in this area, to discuss this. I do not think an oral statement will be necessary. Perhaps she and I could grab a cup of tea, as this is dry January, and have such a conversation.
Petition
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
What a huge pleasure it is to be here this evening. May I start by paying tribute to some people in the Gallery just above us? Up there we have Paula Hudgell and her family. On her lap, we can see Tony. Tony is four years old, and he is an incredibly courageous young man. He was, sadly, incredibly brutalised by his birth parents, before his real parents took care of him. He was so cruelly treated in their care, and the assault on him was so great, that he lost both his legs. That is an extraordinary situation for anybody in our society to find themselves in, but where it happens to a child, at the hands of their parents, it is a wrong that screams out for justice.
That is why I am here this evening with a petition of 12,000 names—if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will show you just a few of them—that Paula and Tony have collected to ask for a change in the law. How can it be right that, had Tony been an adult, and his attackers been charged with grievous bodily harm, they could have received a life sentence, but because he is a child, and because they were his parents, the maximum sentence was 10 years?
That is clearly wrong, and this petition expresses the wishes of the people not just of Kent, and not just of Kings Hill and Tonbridge and Malling, but of the whole country, who are speaking out for justice, speaking out for Tony, speaking out for the whole Hudgell family and, most of all, speaking out clearly about the wrong that we see today in our country and asking why it is not more severely punished.
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for letting me lodge this petition this evening. This is the first of a long series of parliamentary steps that I shall take alongside the Hudgells to change the law and to see justice done for children.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Tonbridge and Malling,
Declares that the sentence given to the abusers of Tony Hudgell will not act as a serious deterrent considering the life changing injuries Tony suffered at their hands; the reasons for this petition is not to change the sentence already given, but for Parliament to raise the threshold of maximum sentences for future cases.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce tougher sentences for child cruelty offences.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002308]
Speaker’s Statement
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before we proceed to the urgent questions, I would like to say something that relates to the events that unfolded outside this place yesterday.
In the course of proceedings at various times yesterday, the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) all raised with me their very grave concerns about aggressive, threatening and intimidating behaviour by demonstrators at Abingdon Green and, in many instances, between Parliament and Abingdon Green.
To those points of order, I responded, I hope, sympathetically and as effectively as I could. Colleagues will realise that I had not myself witnessed the behaviour, which was taking place while the House was sitting and I was in the Chair, but I was extremely concerned to learn of those developments. Moreover, it was clear beyond doubt both that there was an intensity of feeling on the matter and that that intensity of feeling was across the House. I undertook to look further into the matter.
Of course I am aware—as colleagues will know, for it has been reported—that a very large number of Members have written to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police. I thank them for doing so. I have myself today written to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Cressida Dick, in support of those representations, and my letter has been published. We respect the operational freedom of the police, and we absolutely understand that they have difficult judgments to make in balancing the precious right of peaceful protest on the one hand and the right of Members of Parliament, journalists and others to go about their lawful business unimpeded and unthreatened. My sense of the opinion of colleagues, and they have considerable evidence for their view, is that, as things stand, the balance is not right.
I must say to the House that, frankly, it is intolerable if Members of Parliament and journalists go about their business in fear. This situation cannot stand. I have written with force, passion and politeness to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police seeking a review of policy. I hope that that is regarded by colleagues across the House as helpful. I would like to thank all those Members yesterday—on the Floor of the House and in conversations with me—who registered their concerns. I share them, and I will do my best to ensure that those concerns are properly addressed without delay.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank you very much for your response and the sense of what you have said, which the whole House will have appreciated? However, will you add to the list not just politicians and journalists but ordinary members of the public, who themselves have been grossly abused just by being present?
Mr Speaker
I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In making that powerful point, he prompts me to add a reference to schoolchildren coming on to the estate to visit the education centre, for a wider tour or both. They should not have to witness such insulting and, frankly, toxic behaviour. It is one thing to observe such behaviour, but it is another actually to do something to seek to prevent it, and it is, I think, for the latter that we in this House are looking. I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fully concur with all the things that were said yesterday and, indeed, by yourself just now, but I do not think this is just about policing, if I might say so. The arrangements at Abingdon Green, with the barriers placed in the way they are, mean that Members going from this palace can take only one route. That is making things more difficult and worse. I urge the House authorities to look at how they can relate better with the broadcasters to make sure that that area, which is part of our parliamentary estate, is better protected.
Mr Speaker
It may be, and I say this in all seriousness, with no frivolity or levity, that there is a symbiotic relationship between the House authorities and the hon. Gentleman, for I am able to say to the hon. Gentleman that we are seized of that point. It did not seem to me to be relevant to my letter to the commissioner, and I did not want to give what would, in any case, on that point, be only a holding statement to the House today. If I can say so with great politeness and respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have got that point—he is right—and we are looking to do something about it.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the comments you have made and the action you have taken, and I certainly agree that your view is shared across the House by Members of all parties and all views—nobody wants to see this behaviour going on. May I just add that, of course, threats have also been directed at the police themselves? Earlier this morning, I spoke with some of the police officers protecting us all—they are doing a fantastic job. They, too, are being subjected to racist abuse and threats, and we all saw the tragic events here at the House, with the death of PC Keith Palmer. Nobody wants to see that situation again, so I hope that those conversations will be fruitful and that we can ensure that all of us can go about our business safely.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. It is a type of fascism, let us be quite clear about that—it is a type of fascism. Women and ethnic minority citizens, in particular, are being targeted. I do not say that they are the only people on the receiving end of this completely unacceptable behaviour, but they have been, and are being, deliberately and disproportionately targeted. That is not acceptable, and we have to ensure that something is done about it.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your intervention and for writing to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Is there not also a responsibility among the leaderships of our parties, and among Ministers and shadow Ministers, when they speak in the media, to reiterate what you are saying and not to seek to inflame some of the heightened tensions we are going to witness over the coming days and weeks? If I may say so, I was slightly surprised by an interview this morning with the Secretary of State for Brexit, in that I thought he could have been more forthright in his condemnation of what happened yesterday.
Mr Speaker
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I did not hear that interview. I must, in passing, observe that I was told that the Secretary of State for Brexit—presumably because he was asked about the subject—did reference the concerns that exist about this totally unacceptable behaviour. Beyond that, I think it is fair to say that I should not comment, because I did not hear the interview, but we all have a responsibility to use moderate language and to treat each other with respect. I really do think that this is something that can unite the House, whatever people’s views in this Chamber on Brexit or indeed anything else. We all believe that we and everyone else should be able to go about our lawful business unimpeded. Denying someone’s personal space, shouting abuse, swearing at them, making sexist, racist or misogynistic remarks, or implying or stating directly that someone should lose his or her life because of the view that that Member holds is wrong—period. If there are people out there, as clearly there are, who do not get that point, well, they will have to be made to get it.
Universal Credit: Managed Migration
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on the Government’s plans for the managed migration of people claiming legacy benefits to universal credit.
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
Universal credit is a vital reform that overhauls a legacy system that trapped people out of work; with six different benefits, administered by three different Government Departments, it was utterly confusing for claimants. All new claimants now receive universal credit. In the future, we will move claimants who have not changed circumstances from legacy benefits to universal credit in an approach known as managed migration. It is right that the Government should seek to align provision for all, in order to eventually operate one welfare system. The Department has long planned to support initially 10,000 people through this process in a test phase, before increasing the number of those migrated. The first phase will give us an opportunity to learn how to provide the best support, while keeping Parliament fully informed of our approach. Universal credit is proceeding as planned, with no change to the timetable of completing managed migration by December 2023.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Over the weekend, it was widely reported in the media that the Government had decided to ask for powers from Parliament for a managed migration pilot to move 10,000 people from legacy benefits to universal credit, rather than the managed migration as a whole of about 3 million people. One headline read:
“Threat of revolt forces rethink of ‘catastrophic’ universal credit”.
The Minister’s response does nothing to clarify the situation.
This is a matter of very real concern. Under so-called managed migration, the Government intend to switch off the vital financial support received by millions of people and leave them to apply for universal credit. There are very real fears that vulnerable people will be put at risk of falling out of the social security system altogether. Over a third of these people are currently claiming employment and support allowance because they are ill and disabled. In some cases, they will have been claiming it for a long time and may find it extremely difficult to make a claim for universal credit. A policy change of this significance, which was indicated in the press, clearly should have been announced in the House but the Government failed to do so. The Secretary of State failed to clarify the situation when she was asked to do so yesterday.
Will the Minister—it is disappointing that the Secretary of State is not in her place—tell the House whether the Government intend to ask Parliament initially for powers to carry out a pilot for the managed migration of 10,000 people or for the process as a whole, which would affect nearly 3 million people? Will the Government pledge, as they did before Christmas, to debate the regulations, in whatever form they take, on the Floor of the House? If the Government seek powers for a pilot in the first instance, will the Government address the fundamental concern of numerous voluntary organisations that nobody’s claim for a legacy benefit will be ended until they have either made a new claim for universal credit or have said that they do not wish to do so?
The result of putting back the timetable for managed migration, as the Government already did in the Budget, will mean that many more people will transfer to universal credit through natural migration. Can the Minister tell us how many people the Government estimate will move to universal credit through natural migration, and what savings that will make for the Treasury?
The Government announced in June that those in receipt of severe disability premium would not have to transfer to universal credit without transitional protection. Will the Government compensate those who have already done so and missed out as a result? What action will the Government take to ensure that those affected are fully compensated? The Government have chosen to shift the burden of what should be the Government’s responsibility to ensure continuity of social security on to claimants, forcing them to apply for universal credit. Will the Minister explain precisely what the Government are going to do and will they stop the roll-out of universal credit?
Alok Sharma
May I just clarify, if it was not clear yesterday when we had oral questions, that the Government had previously committed to hold a debate on the affirmative regulations in relation to the managed migration regulations? That will happen in due course, and we will debate them as and when parliamentary time allows. We will of course, as we have set out previously, meet our commitment to severe disability premium recipients. We will also ensure that the start date for the July 2019 test phase involving 10,000 people is voted on.
The hon. Lady raised a number of issues. She raised the issue of vulnerable people. I hope she will have seen our response to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s recommendations, in which we set out very clearly—I am sure we will have a chance to talk about them—how we will be looking to move people across, working with stakeholders to ensure protections are in place for the vulnerable.
The hon. Lady talked about voluntary organisations. We will be working with voluntary organisations. We have already had meetings with 70 stakeholders and we have plans for further discussions. We want to design the process together with them. The timetable is as set out. We will have a pilot phase starting in July 2019. In 2020, we will then move on to volume migration.
I want to end on one point, which is that every time the hon. Lady gets up she talks about stopping the roll-out of universal credit. To be clear, we have now rolled it out across the country. If she wants to support people, she should vote with us when we bring forward support for the most vulnerable. She voted against the £1.5 billion of support. She also voted against the £4.5 billion. When the regulations are debated, she should support them and not oppose them. Let me clarify once more that we will hold a debate on affirmative regulations in relation to the managed migration regulations.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
If the Government do proceed on a pilot basis with moving people across from existing benefits, that would be extremely sensible. Does my hon. Friend share my experience of talking to job advisers and other staff in jobcentres? They are very enthusiastic about universal credit, as opposed to previous benefit systems, precisely because it helps them to better help other people into work in ways they were not able to do before. Can he reassure me that for all the issues with transition, which we all know are there, the Government are as committed as ever to making sure this new and better benefit system is rolled out fully?
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the experience of colleagues on the Government Benches when we talk to people—[Interruption.] Well, I would just say to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that she ought to go out there and talk to work coaches. I would say that to all colleagues, because in my experience they are telling me that for the first time they are doing what they came into the Department for Work and Pensions to do, which is to provide one-to-one support rather than having to explain an incredibly complicated legacy benefit system where people have not been able to claim all the money due to them.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I commend Labour for securing it. It is important because at the weekend, reading any of the papers, it would have seemed that everything had changed in the minds of Ministers on universal credit, with the Work and Pension Secretary’s apparent U-turn. In actual fact, however, nothing had changed. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here to respond, given that the misleading headlines were in her name.
The Government were of course quite happy to ride that wave of publicity, but yesterday at DWP questions the scale of that so-called U-turn became clear. We now know that at present there are no plans to make any changes to universal credit, which is what everyone is really interested in.
Delaying the vote on the managed migration of people from legacy benefits to universal credit is a small acceptance from the Government that things may not be well with universal credit. We have six years of evidence and lobbying to show the Secretary of State that. She knows she cannot get away with kicking the can down the road. She knows that changes need to be made and that what is on the line is not just her credibility but the lives of recipients who desperately rely on that support. After all, we never know when it might be us relying on that safety net.
My question to the Minister is clear and unambiguous, and I hope he will be, too. Will he commit, with the Secretary of State, to putting pressure on the Chancellor to release the money to repair universal credit, starting with ending the two-child policy, stopping the benefits freeze and overhauling the punitive sanctions regime?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) asked earlier why the Secretary of State is not here. The reason is that she is in Cabinet. Her commitment is absolutely clear. She has visited jobcentres and talked to stakeholders and organisations that care about getting universal credit right, so there should be no indication in the House that she is not taking her duties incredibly seriously. She is hugely committed to this.
As I said, earlier this year, we brought forward £1.5 billion of funding to help people by allowing advances of up to 100% on day one if individuals require that and having a two-week run-on for housing benefit, and another £4.5 billion was announced in the Budget. This is all about making a difference and helping the most vulnerable in our society—something the Opposition should welcome.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
We have had a very successful roll-out in Sudbury. I urge my hon. Friend not to pause the overall roll-out of the system. I well remember as an employer the problems of staff who refused to work more than 16 hours under the old system. He is doing the right thing. If this takes a bit longer to introduce, personally, I will welcome that.
Alok Sharma
I have set out our timetable, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the legacy benefits system is incredibly complicated. I mentioned that we have £2.4 billion under-claimed under the legacy benefits system because it is so complicated. That of course is changing under universal credit.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Minister be up front with the House and admit that universal credit has been a disaster right from the beginning? It has been delayed, it has cost money and the Government are having to delay it further because they are worried about its effect. In Wallasey, there was a 39% increase in food bank usage after the roll-out of universal credit. It is causing real distress, and there are still £4.7 billion of benefit cuts to be administered between now and 2020. Will he admit that this is a rolling disaster area and commit to properly reviewing it and doing the right thing?
Alok Sharma
Perhaps the hon. Lady was not listening. I have already set out the extra funding we have brought forward. I wish she would support this. Of course, as we go through this process we learn and make changes as appropriate, but the reality is that we now have a much simpler system, under which people are able to get the one-to-one support they were not able to get before. She should welcome that.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it was necessary in the roll-out of universal credit to learn the lessons of the failed introduction of tax credits, which left many people on low incomes right across the country in a big-bang situation where they were faced with large debts? Does he agree that, contrary to that approach, this Government have taken time and tested the system as they have gone? They continue to do that with the test involving 10,000 people, which I strongly support. I suggest they continue that approach.
Alok Sharma
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his support. We have always said there will be a test phase, and that is what we will have. He is absolutely right to highlight that the introduction of tax credits was not a success, whatever Opposition Members may say. It is absolutely right that we listen and learn, and that is precisely what we will do as we go through the test phase.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Tax credits were a great success. In answering my question yesterday about the five-week wait before claimants are entitled to their benefit, the Minister pointed out that advances are available. That is true, but of course that means people are indebted to his Department right at the start of their claim. Press reports at the weekend stated that the roll-out would be paused because of worries about growing indebtedness. Are Ministers concerned about rising indebtedness among benefit claimants because of universal credit?
Alok Sharma
As I said yesterday, I know the right hon. Gentleman takes these issues extremely seriously, but so do we. That is why we introduced a change last year to ensure that advances of up to 100% are available on day one. Some 60% of those who come on to universal credit now take advantage of those advances. There is also the two-week run-on for housing benefit and, as he knows, we set out in the Budget further measures, which will come into place in 2020, when those moving across from out-of-work DWP legacy benefits will also get run-on.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
We must not lose sight of the fact that inevitably there are problems during the transition phase, but I draw the Minister’s attention to an email I received yesterday from Brian Herzog, one of my constituents, who wrote that
“my mental health did a complete nose dive and it was Universal Credit that saved me in so many ways.”
He added:
“Please trust me…it’s a great system. I’d be happy to be used as an example of why it does work”.
Well, I have done that. Does the Minister agree that we must do all we can to ensure that the transition phase moves smoothly and to support the staff who do an excellent job of delivering universal credit, but we must not lose sight of its successes for the vast majority?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend, who works incredibly hard for his constituents. He is right to highlight that universal credit works extremely well for the vast majority of people, and of course we wish his constituent well, but I accept that we need to get this right for everyone. That is why, when it comes to managed migration, we will have a test phase.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify whether the regulations he proposes to bring forward before July will cover only those encompassed by the pilot, or whether they will be the comprehensive managed migration regulations? Will they also deal with the severe disability premium?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady takes a great deal of interest in this area, so she will have seen the regulations that are currently before the House. If I may repeat myself, we have committed to holding a debate on any affirmative regulations, we have said we will meet our commitment to those in receipt of severe disability premium, and we have said we will ensure that the regulations are in place so we can start the test phase in July 2019.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
In Brentwood, the roll-out of universal credit has been very successful thus far. I congratulate the Government on their use of test and learn to ensure that universal credit learns lessons that previous benefit systems did not. Will the Minister commit to sharing with the House the details of the pilot of 10,000? When does he expect to be able to do that?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about these matters, as a former member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. We are in the process of designing the pilot. As I have said very clearly, we are having discussions with key stakeholders to make sure we get it right. Clearly, there will be plenty of opportunity in the future to debate it. Let me be very clear that we will, at the end of that phase, set out how it went.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have been left without money and food—effectively destitute—for extended periods during the roll-out of universal credit. Can the Minister guarantee that those of my constituents due to be migrated on to universal credit, whether as part of a pilot or more generally, will not be left in this condition?
Alok Sharma
We want to make sure that the process of moving on to universal credit works for everyone. I am sorry if I repeat myself when I talk about the extra £1.5 billion. I said earlier that we brought that forward earlier this year—I meant, of course, during 2018. I have talked about the extra money made available in the Budget as well. Of course, we want to get this right in order to help all our constituents. That is what we are here for: to ensure we help people, but also to help people to progress into work.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in my constituency, which neighbours his, our feedback on universal credit has been generally positive, and would he accept my appreciation for the positive response that he and his colleagues have given to me when I have raised implementation problems with him as we have gone along?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I hope it is clear to colleagues on both sides of the House that my door is open. When colleagues come with individual cases, I do take them up. I am always open and ready to have meetings on individual cases, and I will continue to be ready to do that.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When universal credit was initially rolled out some time ago, people living in the highlands were the unwitting guinea pigs in this experiment. Now that some of the flaws in universal credit are becoming apparent, is there not a case for financial compensation for these people for all they have undergone?
Alok Sharma
As I have said—I am sorry if I have to keep repeating myself—we want to make sure that universal credit works for absolutely everyone. Wherever we sit in the House, we want our welfare system to work for everyone. We will continue to work with stakeholders and others to make sure we get this absolutely right.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Piloting managed migration for universal credit is an entirely sensible approach, as it means that lessons can be learned, but can the Minister assure me that, when learning those lessons, he will consider the evidence from charities and other experts so that the best possible evidence base is available and we can have the best possible system?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We talk about stakeholders. We held an event for 70 stakeholders in October. We are working on work streams with stakeholders looking at how to create a successful claimant experience, what the role of delivery partners and external organisations might be in migration, how we communicate and engage with claimants, and how we identity and support our most vulnerable claimants. That work is going on right now. We will continue to do that to get this right.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The Minister says he wants to make sure universal credit works for absolutely everyone, but there are still 2.4 million households that will be more than £2,000 a year worse off under universal credit, of which 1.6 million will be moving on to universal credit in the next 12 months, under natural migration. What will the Government do to support those people and make sure it works for them?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady will know, once universal credit is rolled out, there will be £2 billion more in the system than under the legacy welfare system. I know she cares deeply about these matters, but if she wants to support her constituents, she should have voted to support the measures we introduced to help people—I have talked about the extra money. Unfortunately, she has not been able to support them.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How does the generosity of the Minister’s arrangements compare internationally?
Alok Sharma
Different countries will have different welfare arrangements. It is important for us to have a welfare system that not only provides support but is sustainable and ultimately helps people into work. That the employment rate now is at a joint record high is testament to the work the Government have done, including on welfare reform.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem is that the individual cases keep coming and coming because of the Government’s failures on universal credit. A constituent contacted me because of an issue about early payment from her employer before Christmas. She was forced to go to a food bank—over Christmas! Surely, the Minister does not think that that situation is acceptable.
Alok Sharma
As I have said, we want to get this right for everyone, and where there are individual cases, of course we will take them up, but the hon. Gentleman seems to imply that, under the legacy benefits system, the world was entirely rosy. He and I know, as Members of Parliament, that the legacy benefits system is inferior to universal credit.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the tone of the response from the Minister so far—it is always good to see him at the Dispatch Box—but could he confirm how the Department will go about selecting the 10,000 to take part in the pilot, how it will monitor it and how it will report back on its evaluation?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point. During the test period, we will be testing a number of approaches to moving claimants on to universal credit safely and in the most effective way. This will include testing a non-mandatory approach, where claimants will be invited to go through the process. We will be testing claimants on all benefits and in a range of circumstances to make sure that we move all claimants on to universal credit safely.
Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The reality for many people in my constituency is that universal credit is plunging them deeper into poverty. What specifically will the Minister do about this, and when?
Alok Sharma
I visited Liverpool last year and talked to colleagues in jobcentres who told me that universal credit was working well, that they supported it and that it enabled them to offer help. The hon. Lady talks about providing support for individuals. The best support we can provide is helping them to get into work, and that is what is happening under universal credit.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Universal credit is solving some serious problems in the benefits system. It is helping people to move into work more quickly and, together with the national living wage, is helping to drive down unemployment. The Minister is right to take a cautious approach to rolling out universal credit but, further to the question from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), can he assure me that he will move as quickly as possible to introduce regulations that solve the problem for people on severe disability premium? I have a constituent whose disabled son has lost money because he has moved local authority. It is obviously an indefensible situation. He will want to fix it. Can he assure me that we will move quickly to solve this problem?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of the recipients of severe disability premium. We recognise that issue, which is why we have committed to putting in place a hard gateway so that people are not naturally migrated across.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
If there is to be a pilot, will the Minister look again at the advice of Sir Ian Diamond, the chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee, who says it is not necessary for all those on legacy benefits to make fresh universal credit claims, which is bound to increase administration costs and undoubtedly will result in some of the most vulnerable losing out on the benefits they are entitled to? He says it is not necessary because the Department already has the key data for most of those claimants.
Alok Sharma
Of course, we are in regular contact with the Social Security Advisory Committee and the hon. Gentleman will know that in our response to it we highlighted the limitations of pre-population, which I think is what he is talking about. I ask him to look at when we moved people from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. We did not have all the appropriate information and this led to the Department estimating the need to spend about £1 billion on historical underpayments. We want to ensure we get this right, but of course it is important to build in safeguards, particularly for the vulnerable, and that is what the test phase is all about.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
One of the aims of universal credit is to more accurately target financial support to the most vulnerable people, who need it most. As I understand it, when fully rolled out, up to 1 million disabled people will be able to claim something like £100 a month more than they currently receive. Is my understanding correct?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be that extra money. As I have said, this is about making sure that we target funds at those who need it most. That is why we introduced changes in work allowances in the Budget, which will make a difference to people with children and, of course, those with disabilities as well.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Will the pilot just move 10,000 people on to the existing system, or will there be meaningful changes before it begins, as requested by the Select Committee and by stakeholders? Will the Minister look at the position of individuals who turn down jobs involving zero-hours contracts, who are liable to be sanctioned under universal credit but would not be sanctioned under legacy benefits?
Alok Sharma
I am always happy to have a detailed discussion with the hon. Gentleman on any issues, but let me commend to him our response to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s recommendations. As he will see, we have taken on the vast majority of those recommendations—and, of course, we have committed ourselves to working with stakeholders, which we are already doing.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
On Friday, it was great to be interviewed by a university student from Corby, Bethany Kilgallon, about universal credit. What message would my hon. Friend want me to pass on to her about the successes of universal credit so far, and the way in which the roll-out will be handled in future?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend has raised a fundamental point. Universal credit replaces a very complicated legacy benefits system, and is ensuring that people get into work faster and stay in work for longer. That, ultimately, is what we should all be trying to do, as well as helping people to progress when they are already in work.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
For the record—I know that you are aware of this, Mr Speaker—tax credits lifted 1.1 million children out of poverty, whereas the Government’s policies are set to increase the number of children in poverty by more than 1 million. We know that disabled people who are out of work will be worse off even after the Budget. The High Court decided last summer that transitional protections were needed, and that the Government were acting unlawfully and discriminating against disabled people. The Minister has been asked this three times: when will those transitional protections be put in place?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady talks about poverty. May I point out respectfully to her that since 2010, 1 million fewer people are living in absolute poverty, including 300,000 fewer children? [Interruption.] The hon. Lady may not like the answer, but she cannot argue with the facts. As for the regulations, we have been very clear about them, as was the Secretary of State yesterday.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Five years after the roll-out of universal credit and two years after it was meant to finish, it is costing three times as much as the legacy benefits, and the Government have had to announce a pilot to test whether it even works. Is this not an admission of colossal failure, with equally colossal human and financial costs?
Alok Sharma
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing against our conducting a pilot, but that would be irresponsible. We have always made it clear that we need to get this right, which is why we will organise a pilot.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he would listen to what is said about the changes that will have to be made. Does that mean that he will accept the necessity for a guarantee that vulnerable people on existing legacy benefits need not apply, that there will be some way of ensuring that they are being moved successfully on to universal credit before their legacy benefits are stopped, and that someone from the DWP will visit them at home to ensure that they are receiving what they are entitled to, and are completely aware of the changes?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady will know, home visits are already available under the welfare system and the universal credit arrangements. However, she has raised an important point about the need to ensure that no one who is vulnerable falls through the cracks. We want to ensure that as well, which is why we are working with health charities and others to make certain that we get this absolutely right.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
A quarter of households in receipt of universal credit are lone-parent households, and we know that as people move on to universal credit, 50% more of those households will lose rather than gain. Given the tax cuts that the Government have handed out to the richest households, can the Minister give me a single reason why any lone-parent household should be worse off rather than better off? Can he give me a single justification for that?
Alok Sharma
If the hon. Lady is so keen to support lone-parent households, she should have supported us and voted for the work allowances that we introduced in the Budget.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It has long been the Department’s intention to allow universal credit applications to be made through the medium of Welsh in Welsh-speaking areas, particularly in north and west Wales, but that facility has been denied to people so far by deficiencies in the computer system. What will be the impact of the “managed migration test phase”, restricted to 10,000 claimants, on that rather larger and more long-term policy intention?
Alok Sharma
I will double-check and write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong, but I believe that we have put in place the arrangements required to enable people in certain jobcentres in Wales to communicate in Welsh.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It sounds as if the Minister thinks that all the lessons have been learnt and all the problems with universal credit have been solved, but let me tell him that in Leicester, one of the areas in which the roll-out has occurred later, too many people are still waiting too long. They are getting into debt, and there has been a huge increase in demand for food banks. May I urge the Minister, even before any pilot involving people on existing legacy benefits, to stop and carry out a fundamental review with all the experts and charity groups, so that we can secure the reform that we need and my constituents do not have to fear the future?
Alok Sharma
Payment timeliness may be one of the issues to which the hon. Lady refers. The position has improved. When people cannot receive their full payments at the end of the first period, it is often because we have been unable to obtain verification because no information on housing or childcare costs has been provided, but support is available in the system. If there are individual cases in which the hon. Lady thinks that things have not gone well, she should come and talk to me: I would be very happy to have that discussion.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Yesterday, during DWP questions, the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) said that he struggled with online applications, which caused some mirth on the Government Benches. May I pursue the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)? I tabled some written questions about the number of requests for face-to-face assessment interviews. I was told that since March 2015 there had been 144,000, of which only 308 had been home consultations. Can the Minister explain why so few people have been offered home assessments? If he cannot do so, will he conduct an investigation in the Department to find out why so many sick and disabled people are being denied such assessments?
Alok Sharma
There are a number of ways in which people can claim universal credit. There is, of course, the online process, and help with that can be provided in jobcentres. There is also the Freephone telephone line, and people can also have appointees. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there are home visits, but, again, I would be happy to discuss the issue with him.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Many people going on to universal credit find it difficult to manage their finances. May I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to local working with credit unions? I am a director of NE First Credit Union for the North East, which offers people simple bank accounts and affordable finance. Would the Minister consider linking credit unions with the DWP so that people can not only receive advice, but stop getting into the hands of loan sharks?
Alok Sharma
I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that suggestion and see what is possible, but, as he will know, we have a new arrangement with Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland to ensure that advice is given to people to help them as they move on to universal credit. That arrangement will kick off formally in April. We have made £39 million available, and of course we want the process to work well.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister must accept that he is kicking the can down the road and that managed migration is of no comfort to people in Glasgow North who are making new claims, are on a natural migration waiting weeks for the first payment or are subject to the mendacious two-child policy. If the UK Government cannot fix the flaws they themselves admit exist in UC, is it not time to devolve these powers fully to the Scottish Parliament and Government, who will put fairness and dignity at the heart of social security?
Alok Sharma
I would like to think that I have a good working relationship with my opposite number in the Scottish Government and of course we will continue to work with them on a range of issues. It is important that we get this process right for everyone and that is our intention.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I served in 2011 on the Welfare Reform Bill which paved the way for UC, and it is clear that the questions the Government could not answer then about UC they still cannot answer now, eight years later—and a little humility on the part of the Minister would be very welcome. Does he recognise that managed migration clients will not for the most part be the same as roll-out clients? There will be a higher level of vulnerability, with many people unable—and will continue to be unable—to work because of sickness and disability? What extra provision is he building into the system to make sure even this pilot does not leave people with a debt crisis and at risk of losing their home?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady gets to the point of the pilot phase, as that is precisely what we want to make sure happens: we want to get this right particularly for the most vulnerable. We are working with a range of stakeholders. I set out in an earlier answer the work-streams we are working on, and we will continue to do that until we get this right.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
In an area such as mine where UC has already been rolled out, if somebody on legacy benefits who has more than two children reports a change of circumstances, they are told they must migrate on to UC only then to be told that because they have more than two children that migration cannot take place. By the time they have been told that, their housing benefit and council tax benefit and other benefits will have been stopped. It takes weeks to sort that out and real hardship is caused in the meantime. Small wonder therefore that food bank use and indebtedness are rocketing. Can the Minister say plainly that there are practical problems with the current system of roll-out, and what will he do to sort it out?
Alok Sharma
We have been fixing problems, and we will continue to do that. Again I say—I make this offer in all sincerity, not least because this is how we will learn in this process—that where the hon. Gentleman has a specific case I will be happy to sit down with him and talk it through and see what we can do to make sure that the system works for others who come after his constituent.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Government always try to individualise our constituents’ problems, but these are systemic flaws in the system. People every single day are made deliberately worse off under this scheme which makes them wait five weeks. Deep design and administrative flaws have been listed exhaustively in numerous reports. Is it acceptable to continuously test and learn on people? Is it acceptable that every single day we have people naturally migrating on to UC, because they are no less vulnerable and deserving of protections than those on managed migration? Will the Minister please halt the natural migration and the managed migration?
Alok Sharma
The roll-out of UC has already taken place across all jobcentres. UC is continuing; I have set out the timetable, as the Secretary of State did yesterday. But the hon. Lady is right that we need to make sure we get this right and that is why we have the test phase. I am pleased that at least some colleagues on the Opposition Benches have acknowledged that this is an important part of making sure we get this right in terms of managed migration.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
There is a fundamental flaw that I think is utterly pernicious in terms of UC—the first five-week wait. I had a constituent in my surgery before Christmas who was in tears, because, she explained, “I have never been in debt in all my life, and now I have had to go into debt, and it is the system that is encouraging me to do that. In fact, I heard the Prime Minister on television last night say that it is a good thing that I can take out a loan which I pay back.” We must stop pushing the poorest people in our country, who are often the proudest people in our country, into debt.
Alok Sharma
Of course we do not want to push anyone into debt, but may I just be clear that these advances are interest-free, so over a—[Interruption.] Over a 12-month period people will get their monthly payment and then their additional advance which they pay back over that period, and of course we will be extending that to allow people to pay that back over 16 months. Many people have welcomed the advances and now about 60% of those coming on to UC are taking out advances.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Will the Minister look at a serious flaw in debt repayment between legacy systems and the UC system? A constituent of mine has been diligently repaying an historical tax credit debt but that debt also moved when she moved on to UC. HMRC deducted £11 a month, but the DWP wants to take £79.46 from an income of only £317.82 per month after housing costs. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this case and the unfairness in the system, because people cannot live on this amount of money?
Alok Sharma
Of course I will meet with the hon. Lady, as I have done previously on issues she has raised. As a general rule, one would not expect deductions to be more than 40% of a standard allowance, and of course that figure will come down to 30%.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I express to the Minister my concern about the worry and anxiety that people face when making UC claims? We had the roll-out in December in Hull. If there is a pilot from the middle of 2019 will some of the pilot numbers come from Hull, and will people in Hull be in any way penalised if they do not make a claim in time?
Alok Sharma
Of course we want to support people as they come on to UC, whether they are naturally migrating or in the test phase. We have now put in place a provision with Citizens Advice to make sure people are provided with that consistent support across the country and I want that to work well.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent lost his job in October and waited five weeks for his first payment of UC, receiving £149 at the beginning of December, which has to last him until the middle of this month. He received an advance payment of £549.79 in November which he used to pay for his rent. This has been deducted from his future payments, hence causing hardship to him, and the DWP is unable to reduce the repayments during the current assessment period and has not agreed to do so from January. However, he was left over Christmas with no money to live on and no access to other possible funding. What will the Minister do to make the assessment period more flexible in order to protect claimants from suffering such obvious hardship?
Alok Sharma
The assessment period is five weeks. We of course did away with the seven-day waiting period that was in place previously, and of course 100% advances are available on day one if people require them. The hon. Gentleman raises a detailed individual case, however, and I would be very happy to talk to him about it, perhaps after this urgent question.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Nearly 30% of eligible households in my constituency are already on UC, but many cases that I deal with involve people whose legacy benefit was incorrectly withdrawn and who are then forced to apply for UC and find themselves with a lower award, and there is no transitional support for these people. What will the Minister do to address that? Surely at a minimum they should be allowed to stay on the legacy benefit?
Alok Sharma
Without knowing the individual cases the hon. Gentleman raises I cannot comment in any detail—[Interruption.] I have been asked to answer on policy, and that is precisely what I am doing. The reality is that we have now rolled out UC across the country, so new claimants or those who have a change of circumstance will move on to UC. But again, I am happy to discuss individual cases.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The regulations that the Government intended to lay did have provision for back payments for those who transitioned through natural migration and lost their entitlement to severe disability premium. Given that both women’s aid organisations in my constituency, Clydebank Women’s Aid and Dumbarton District Women’s Aid, are gravely concerned about the impact of transition not just on those vulnerable women fleeing domestic abuse but those who have children who are disabled, will the Government now bring forward regulations to initiate these back payments and ensure no one loses out in the future? A yes or no answer would be helpful.
Alok Sharma
I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about this. I assume that he refers to the run-on of the DWP legacy benefits from 2020, and of course this will apply to claimants on managed migration and to those who naturally migrate, provided that they do not have a break in their claim.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Since as far back as 2013, Inverness and then the rest of my constituency suffered through the pilot and on through the full-service roll-out of universal credit. The new year front page of The Inverness Courier newspaper described the rise of poverty in our community, and that was directly attributed to universal credit. Over nearly six years, the UK Government have failed to listen to any of the agencies, the charities, the council or the people who have been affected. What does the Minister say to those people who have suffered directly over all that time from having their plight ignored by this Government?
Alok Sharma
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that we are ending this urgent question on a discordant note, but respectfully, I do not agree that we have not listened. That is precisely what we have been doing, and we will continue to do so through the test phase and beyond.
Seaborne Freight
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the awarding of a contract to Seaborne Freight as part of his no-deal contingency planning.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Government are working towards ensuring that we leave the European Union in March with a sensible agreement for the future, through the withdrawal agreement that the House will consider next week, but any responsible Government need to plan for all eventualities. As part of that work, the Department for Transport has been undertaking a wide range of activities to mitigate the impact on the transport system of a potential no-deal EU exit, particularly around the movement of freight. For example, my Department has been delivering measures such as the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, which puts systems in place if a permit system is required to ensure that UK heavy goods vehicles can continue to be used in the EU.
We have also put in place Operation Brock as a replacement for Operation Stack, in order to deal with disruption at the channel ports. This is not simply a Brexit-related measure. We do not want to see any repeat of the issues that Kent faced in 2015, with the closure of the M20. If there is any disruption at the ports, for whatever reason, Operation Brock should keep the motorway open while we prepare the long-term solution of a lorry park. Yesterday, Kent County Council and my Department carried out a live trial of one part of Brock, on the route from Manston. We were satisfied with the number of vehicles that took part, which was more than enough to determine a safe optimum release rate from Manston to the port of Dover via the A256 and caused minimal traffic disruption along the route.
This is a range of examples of the sensible contingency planning that a responsible Government are carrying out to ensure that we are prepared for a range of outcomes. We remain committed to ensuring that movement across the UK border is as frictionless as possible, whatever the outcome. However, without planning, there could be significant disruption to the Dover strait, particularly if no agreement is reached. Given the importance of these routes to the UK economy, it is vital that we put in place contingency plans to mitigate any disruption that might occur in a no-deal scenario.
The Department is working with the port of Dover and the channel tunnel—as well as with our French counterparts, at both official and ministerial level—to ensure that both operate at the maximum possible capacity in all instances. Those discussions are positive and I am confident that everyone is working constructively to ensure that the Dover-Calais route—particularly at the port of Dover—and the tunnel continue to operate fluidly in all scenarios. However, in order to ease any pressure on those routes, my Department has completed a proper procurement process to secure additional ferry capacity between the UK and the EU. Following this process, three contracts were awarded to operators, totalling a potential of £103 million. Almost 90% of that was awarded to two well-established operators: £46 million to Brittany Ferries and about £42 million to DFDS. These contracts provide additional capacity on established routes, and through additional sailings and, in some cases, additional vessels, into ports in northern Europe and other parts of France.
A third, smaller contract, which is potentially worth £13.8 million, was awarded to Seaborne Freight, a new British operator, to provide a new service between the port of Ramsgate and Ostend. Let me stress that no money will be paid to any of these operators unless and until they are actually operating ferries on the routes we have contracted. No money will be paid until they are operating the ferries. No payment will be made unless the ships are sailing, and of course, in a no-deal scenario, money will be recouped through the sale of tickets on those ships.
As I believe the House knows, Seaborne is a new operator looking to reopen that route, which closed five years ago. As a result of this, we ensured that its business and operational plans were assessed for the Department by external advisers, including Slaughter and May, Deloitte and Mott MacDonald. These included Seaborne’s plans to charter vessels for service, as is common across many transport modes including airlines and rail operators. We also conducted searches on the directors of Seaborne via a third party, and found nothing that would prevent them from contracting with the Government.
I make no apology for being willing to contract with a new British company, particularly one that has a large number of reputable institutional backers. We contracted with Seaborne Freight because the service it proposes represents a sensible contingency in the event of disruption on other routes. I am also pleased that this award supports the port of Ramsgate, which operated as a commercial ferry port as recently as 2013 and has taken roll-on roll-off services as recently as last year. I am looking forward to seeing ferry services resume from this port. The infrastructure work required to make that possible has already started, and it is one of the most visible and symbolic elements of how seriously my Department is taking contingency planning for all Brexit eventualities.
Andy McDonald
The Transport Secretary has awarded a £14 million contract to a company with no money, no ships, no track record, no employees, no ports, one telephone line, and no working website or sailing schedule. Two of Seaborne Freight’s directors would not pass normal due diligence requirements. One of them, Ben Sharp, is already under investigation by a Government Department. Did the Department for Transport consult other Departments about Mr Sharp’s fitness as a company director? Ben Sharp quit his business activities in the Gulf leaving a trail of debt behind him. His company, Mercator, was merely a shell finding vessels for security companies. Is it correct that he operated without the licence he needed pursuant to the Export Control Order 2008? Did he operate without that licence? Yes or no?
It is abundantly clear from the promissory note published by “Channel 4 News” that Sharp owed and still owes Mid-Gulf Offshore more than $l million, and many more companies besides. How is it that Slaughter and May, Deloitte and Mott MacDonald were instructed to restrict their due diligence examination to the face value of the presentation put to them by Seaborne? Why on earth have they been allowed to restrict their investigation to the present company and not to consider the trading history of the individuals concerned, particularly Ben Sharp? The mayor of Ostend has made it clear that Seaborne cannot berth at his port as it has no bank guarantees and no contract with Ostend. It is without capital. Who is investing in Seaborne? Who is paying for the dredging of Ramsgate?
This is a shoddy and tawdry affair, and the Secretary of State is making a complete mess of it. This contract is likely to be unlawful and it violates every current best practice guidance issued by Whitehall. When will he realise that this country cannot continue to suffer the consequences of his gross incompetence? Why is this calamitous Secretary of State still in post?
Chris Grayling
I am not even going to address the idiocy that the hon. Gentleman has just come up with. He has made a number of allegations, which I suggest he goes and makes elsewhere. I am simply going to say this: the Government have let a contract for which we will pay no money until and unless ferries are running. That is responsible stewardship of public money. On other matters, from the due diligence we have done, there is no reason to believe that anyone involved in this business is not fit to do business with the Government. I say this again: we are not spending money unless these ferries operate.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Many of us would agree that much the best end solution for the talks between the Government and the EU would be a wide-ranging free trade agreement, as offered by President Tusk in March, with zero tariffs. However, to bring the EU to the table, to counter the arrogant boasting of Mr Selmayr in the Passauer Neue Presse, which many of us have been reading since we heard about it yesterday, and to show that we are deadly serious, it is obvious that we must prepare for World Trade Organisation terms. I therefore commend the Secretary of State for his various actions to show that we are serious about preparing this country to work under those terms, through which we work with the rest of the world.
Chris Grayling
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is absolutely right and proper that we prepare for all eventualities. The sad thing is to see the Labour party trying to destroy Brexit and taking a destructive approach to any sensible measures that this Government take to prepare for all Brexit eventualities. Frankly, Labour is not fit to be in opposition let alone in government.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Seaborne Freight has no boats, negative equity of £374,000 and no history of running ferry or freight services. The current director, Brian Raincock, and chief executive Ben Sharp both had companies liquidated owing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs money, with Raincock’s debt at £600,000. HMRC is us, the taxpayer, so what constitutes due diligence? What red flags were identified? How did that company get handpicked for direct negotiations for operating out of a port that is not even ready?
The Secretary of State’s written statement indicated that direct negotiation was possible under regulation 32 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which relates to emergency situations brought about by unforeseeable events. However, the Government claim to have been planning for no deal for over two years. What legal advice was provided? What level of madness exists to contract contingency planning to a company with no track record of such service?
Saying that the company will get paid only if it can deliver misses the point, because if it does not deliver the so-called emergency contingency service, that would leave us high and dry. Is that the project for which the ministerial direction was required? Is there a central Government instruction and process for the awarding of such no-deal Brexit contracts? If so, can we see it? Does this contract comply with that guidance? If so, that highlights the shambles of this Government’s no-deal preparations. When will the Secretary of State do the right thing and go?
Chris Grayling
This procurement was done properly and in a way that conforms with Government rules. It secures the position of the taxpayer by ensuring that no money will change hands unless and until the ferries are running. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to listen.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) in supporting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s determination to be prepared for all eventualities. He has succeeded on aviation services, the transit convention and other things that will ensure that trade keeps flowing. However, what lessons can be learned from this situation? No matter how good this company might be, this is a difficult contracting environment in which things must be done quickly under intense political and public scrutiny. Will my right hon. Friend ask the permanent secretary to conduct a quick lessons-learned exercise so that companies with which the Government are contracting are better prepared than this one for the scale of public scrutiny to which it has been subjected?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about public scrutiny. This contract was properly signed off by my Department’s accounting officer, and it was done in the best possible way when dealing with a new business, which is to ensure that the business will be paid only when it delivers the service. That is a responsible use of taxpayers’ money.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I have already written to the Secretary of State with a long list of questions about his Department’s procurement of additional ferry services as part of no-deal planning, and I look forward to receiving his response. Yesterday, however, Lloyd’s Loading List reported some extraordinary remarks from the CEO of Seaborne Freight, Jean-Michel Copyans, about the proposed Ramsgate to Ostend route. He said:
“Then we’ve had to identify the vessels best suited to the type of crossing, which we’re keeping a secret for the moment.”
With no crew, no signed contracts in place with Ramsgate or Ostend, no clear plans to bring the infrastructure back into service and now “secret” ships, is there not a huge question mark over the deliverability of the service?
Chris Grayling
My officials and I have confidence in the deliverability of the service, but if the firm fails to deliver it, we do not pay.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that no-deal contingency planning is very much in the national interest? Will he join me in condemning those who want to try to prevent no-deal planning through parliamentary wrecking tactics and sabotage, and through Trump-style Government shutdown threats? Does he agree that such tactics from the Labour party would make problems in Kent and elsewhere more likely, and that they are irresponsible, reckless and wrong?
Chris Grayling
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He will agree that it is right and proper that we do everything we can to keep trade flowing through the port of Dover and the channel tunnel as smoothly as possible. We are taking prudent measures to ease potential pressures on those ports, which is the sensible thing to do. The risk to the taxpayer is not there, because we will not pay unless the service is delivered. The Labour party does not seem to believe in no-deal Brexit planning.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State takes a rather unusual approach to contract letting, because as soon as he is questioned about the ability of the firm with which he has contracted to deliver on what it has promised, he tells the House, “If they don’t do it, we won’t pay.” He said a moment ago that he is confident that the company will be able to run the service, so will he answer a very simple question? Has Seaborne Freight told the Department which vessel it has acquired in order to provide the service, which could be needed in just over two months’ time?
Chris Grayling
The company has told my Department in great detail about its plans, which are being finalised commercially. We are confident that the firm will deliver the service.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Seaborne Freight has had it in mind for well over two years to start the Ostend-Ramsgate route. Does he agree that the constant denigration of the contract, which means that the contractor will not get a single penny of anyone’s money until it fulfils the contract, is damaging to sensible work? Finally, if we were—God forbid—to crash out on WTO terms in the extreme circumstances mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he would have any arrangements to take up shipping from trade?
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. There seems to be visceral hatred of small business on the other side of the House and a visceral belief that the Government should not be willing to contract with small business. The Government are told time and again that we should contract and work with small business, and help small businesses to develop, but when we do so, we get nothing but a wall of criticism from Opposition Members. The Labour party hates business. This new Labour party is very different from the one of 10 years ago—it simply hates business.
I say to my right hon. Friend that if we find ourselves in a no-deal situation, there are other measures that we can bring forward. We are actively looking at how we would do so.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have never seen a Minister bluster and bluff quite as much as this Minister has today. Following everything that the Secretary of State has heard from the shadow Secretary of State and the Chair of the Transport Committee, does he not have one iota of concern about the contract being let to this shyster?
Chris Grayling
Mr Speaker, that is an inappropriate thing for any Member to say, and I am not going to respond to it.
Mr Speaker
I simply say that the Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to his assessment of whether it is appropriate in political terms. No breach of order has taken place procedurally, but the Secretary of State has made his judgment, and I accept that.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I am glad to hear the Secretary of State confirm that no money will change hands, but there will undoubtedly be vast manpower and bureaucracy costs in no-deal planning, and we know that there are actual costs when it comes to commissioning refrigerated warehousing and special air freight. All that could be avoided if the Government ruled out no deal. No deal would be catastrophic, and no sensible Government should inflict that on their people.
Chris Grayling
Of course, the best way of avoiding no deal is to ensure that the deal passes through this House, and I will vote for it next week.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It feels like we are on the set of a film called “Carry On Brexit”. Le Figaro described the contract as ferries “sans bateaux”. The firm’s terms and conditions are from a pizza delivery company, so we wonder whether the MV Hawaiian and the MV Pepperoni will be sailing the route. To get away from “Carry On Brexit”, the serious point is that the Secretary of State is saying that if the company does not deliver ferries, there will be no payment, but if it does not deliver the ferries, what will be the fall-back, stopgap or contingency? If there are no ferries, the whole thing falls apart—it is “Carry On Brexit”!
Chris Grayling
What a load of absolute tripe. I can tell the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to me. Ninety per cent. of this contract has been awarded to substantial and established ferry operators—DFDS and Brittany Ferries. We did not have a reason to exclude a small business from taking a small part of the contract with a legitimate, valid bid.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
It is remarkable, is it not? If the Government were to do no planning for all Brexit eventualities, they would be condemned. Now they are doing sensible planning, they face derision. I have met Seaborne Freight, which has shown itself, over a number of years, to be the only party interested in running new services between Ramsgate and Ostend—that was even before this contingency planning. Personally, I welcome the dredging and improvements now taking shape at the port of Ramsgate at no cost to local taxpayers. We will have a regeneration bonus, no matter what, and I welcome that.
Thanet District Council and the people of Ramsgate will do all they possibly can for Brexit provision, so I welcome the measures the Secretary of State has taken, but there are people in this House who do not seem to be listening. Will he say once more that there will be no cash for Seaborne Freight if it does not run the services?
Chris Grayling
I am very happy to reiterate that. It is a responsible approach to a new contract with a new business that we will pay when the business delivers. It is disappointing to hear that the Labour party is so opposed to the regeneration of the port of Ramsgate. It was not so long ago that the Labour party represented Ramsgate in Parliament but, given this negative attitude, it does not deserve ever to do so again.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the directors of Seaborne Freight has been named by the Financial Times as Brian Raincock, whose previous company went into liquidation in April 2017 owing £585,000 to its main creditor, HMRC, which is essentially the British taxpayer. Is the Secretary of State content that this excruciating fact apparently did not come up during his Department’s due diligence on Seaborne Freight before it awarded the contract? Whether or not Seaborne Freight delivers the ships, it has still been awarded a £14 million contract, so hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly have an issue with the Secretary of State and his response today.
Chris Grayling
I keep telling the hon. Lady that the £14 million will not be paid unless Seaborne Freight delivers a service. I will not comment on the tax affairs of an individual, and nor should she. The due diligence on all those participating in the company found no reason why they are unfit to do business with the Government.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his detailed preparations, but will he also consider how south Essex can support those preparations at Tilbury, London Gateway and London Southend airport? London Southend airport has experience of just-in-time delivery to Dagenham and is run by Stobart Group, an excellent freight haulage firm.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree. Of course, if we find ourselves in a no-deal scenario, a number of other ports, including Tilbury, will play a part. I hope we do not reach that point, and I think we all agree that we want a sensible free trade agreement with the European Union after 29 March, but the reality is that we need to make sure we are prepared for all eventualities. In such a situation, many of our ports up the east coast and along the south coast will play an important part in making sure that trade flows freely.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am very concerned about the legality of this procurement process. In his statement yesterday, the Secretary of State said that he had proceeded under regulation 32 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which allows the Government to circumvent the normal, transparent and EU-mandated procedures. I have a copy of the contract notice here, which is freely available on the internet, and it says that the basis for proceeding under regulation 32 is “extreme urgency.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, the idea that no deal is a possibility and, to quote the Prime Minister, that no deal is better than a bad deal has been around for some time, so how can the Government, at this late stage, justify proceeding with procurement that is appropriate only in the case of extreme urgency?
I have two questions for the Secretary of State and, just for once, my constituents would like to hear an answer. First, will he release the legal advice that permitted him to proceed under regulation 32? Secondly, as he will be aware, if he has proceeded wrongly under regulation 32, his Department and the Government are open to legal action. How much money has been set aside for the contingency of court action about the illegality of the procurement process and a claim for damages?
Chris Grayling
It is my view that, as we move towards leaving the European Union, preparing for all eventualities is a matter of extreme urgency, which is also the advice that my Department has received and has given to me.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
If Opposition Members had an ounce of sense and concern for the national interest, they would welcome the fact that the Department for Transport is preparing to leave the European Union under all circumstances and they would recognise the courage of the Secretary of State, his Ministers and his officials in testing and operationalising their plans. Does he share my disbelief at the policies that are being urged on him by Opposition Members, and will he reassure me that he will continue his excellent work to prepare this country for leaving?
Chris Grayling
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I give him an absolute assurance that I will continue that work. Frankly, the tragedy is that the Labour party seems to have abandoned interest in the national interest.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The train timetable fiasco, the drone disruption, the Manston lorry park carry-on and, now, ferrygate—the Secretary of State is the embodiment of the Peter principle.
On the earlier point about competition, can the Secretary of State explain the
“extreme urgency brought about by events unforeseeable by the contracting authority”?
Can he explain what was unforeseeable about no deal, for which the Government have been planning for the past couple of years and to which they have referred many, many times in this place? What was unforeseeable about that?
Chris Grayling
Sadly, what was unforeseeable is the attitude of many hon. Members, mostly Opposition Members, towards the Prime Minister’s sensible agreement. The agreement meets all their requirements, and they are now saying they oppose it anyway.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State and I both represent Middlesbrough, which voted overwhelmingly to leave, so I found his comments attacking the Secretary of State for making robust preparations for no deal very surprising.
Will the Secretary of State commit to engaging Teesport in the preparations for any scenario that may arise from Brexit? It is important that we make all the preparations required for all contingencies.
Chris Grayling
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. I reiterate that we are looking to involve other ports across the country as we make preparations for an eventuality that I hope will not happen. The reality is that the people of Middlesbrough voted clearly to leave, and they will not understand why the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) is letting down their 2016 vote.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
If this contract fails, our country will have even greater problems with the continuity of trade, so it will be the public who pay the price—it will not be just the central contractor that loses money.
I seek a bit of accountability from the Secretary of State. The front page of today’s Financial Times says that the Department for Transport commissioned a study showing that just an extra 70 seconds of analysis or discussion of each truck crossing the channel could lead to a six-day queue for vehicles getting on a ferry. Has he seen that study? Is the study accurate, and will he publish it now?
Chris Grayling
We have made it very clear to the House that queues will be caused if the French seek to impose maximum control and put in place limited checks. Why on earth does the hon. Gentleman think we are putting some of these contingency measures in place? He asked what happens if the contract does not go ahead, but I have said that 90% of the extra capacity is being provided by two established operators that will continue to deliver the services we have contracted.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel are making detailed contingency plans in case of no deal?
Chris Grayling
I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are working with both organisations, and we are also having detailed discussions with the French. The leadership in Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Paris, and the leadership of the port and the tunnel on the French side, are as keen as we are to see fluidity continue through those ports. We are taking contingency measures, but our prime focus is on making sure that trade flows freely, whatever checks are required.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Transport Secretary’s colleague the Home Secretary has been trying to stop people getting across the channel while the Transport Secretary is busy contracting with companies that have no ferries at all. Is his next whizzo move to contract people who are doing people smuggling in dinghies?
Chris Grayling
That is an absurd question that does not merit an answer either.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
If there are delays in processing freight through the channel tunnel in my constituency or the port of Dover, is the Secretary of State convinced that his contingency planning means that we will not see a return to Operation Stack and that the M20 motorway will remain open in both directions if there are delays? Will he also update us on when he expects his Department to produce its site list for the potential long-term off-road lorry parking solution in Kent?
Chris Grayling
It is my belief that Operation Brock will prevent the closure of the M20. That is my prime concern—what happened in 2015 should not be repeated. I think there is sufficient capacity to ensure that that will not take place. We have completed the infrastructure works that are necessary on the motorways to ensure that the flow in both directions can continue, and we are now doing the detailed testing to understand flows of traffic and how to manage them to make sure that we do not see the kind of disruption we saw in 2015. I am hopeful that we will move quickly from the consultations we are having now to being able to decide a permanent location and get the thing dealt with once and for all.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Any members of the public watching this debate will be absolutely amazed. They will think it is bizarre that we have a Transport Secretary who signs a shipping contract with a shipping company with no ships. Given that the company is going to hire in ferries, does he have any idea what plans it has to crew its ferries and whether UK crews would be used?
Chris Grayling
There is a complete lack of understanding of business models on the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members should understand that when they go on holiday next summer there is a fair chance they will be flying with an airline that owns no planes. The reality is that transport operators do not always own their own assets; they contract or charter them in and they operate the service. I do not think that Opposition Members understand that. As to the crewing of the ships, that is a matter for the company itself.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm to me that it is normal to award contracts, in a small part, to new operators and that while perhaps 90% of operators used by the Department are established, it is perfectly normal for the Department properly—acting legally as part of its procurement process—to include new operators as part of the consideration?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is normal, and we do not actually do enough of it. The Government are frequently criticised for contracting only with big business and not with small business. Ironically, now we are contracting with small business for a small part of a package we need, we are getting criticised for it, so we cannot win either way.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), will the Secretary of State confirm that one director of this company owes £580,000 to HMRC from a previous failed administration? Will he say what due diligence was undertaken on that contract? Will he also tell us how we are going to repay that money to the Treasury?
Chris Grayling
I am not going to comment on individual tax affairs. All I am going to say is that due diligence was carried out into the participants in this business and no reason was found why they should not contract with Government.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
It is very reassuring to hear about my right hon. Friend’s discussions with the ports of Dover and Calais and the contingency plans that he is putting in place. Will he tell us more about how companies can get to know what they have to do to make sure that their declarations are appropriately communicated to the port? That seems to me to be a potential pinch point that we need to look at.
Chris Grayling
Certainly one part of the no deal preparations that we are now going through—HMRC is very actively engaged in this—is about the declaration processes that businesses would need to go through. The reality is that this happens already. Goods are shipped from this country to Switzerland, for example, through established processes in this country and on the continent. We will need to ensure in the run-up to a no-deal Brexit that business is up to speed with what it needs to do. A huge amount of work in this respect is already happening.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Things are getting bad when a former Conservative party chair accuses this Government of using Dr Strangelove tactics. This is a perfect example. Instead of trying to prepare for a no-deal scenario, why do the Government not just look at extending article 50 so that we can avoid this catastrophe?
Chris Grayling
Two things: first, I think it would be wrong to block Brexit. Secondly, I think it is right that the Government prepare for all eventualities. They would be accused of being irresponsible if they did not do so.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The view from my constituency, which has the M20 and the M2 running through it, is that we must not have another Operation Stack, so I welcome all contingency measures that my right hon. Friend is taking, but the reality is that whatever happens, the vast majority of our freight will have to continue to go through Dover-Calais. Therefore, the flow of that route is absolutely critical. Will he advise us of how ready the French are to carry out any customs checks that might be required in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
Chris Grayling
We have had detailed discussions with the French. I am very optimistic that they have the same ambition that we do, and they are putting in place plans to ensure that happens. I have had personal commitments from the leadership in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and of course there is a legal requirement for them put those plans in place, particularly with regard to the tunnel, as the treaty of Canterbury requires them to keep trade and traffic flowing smoothly through the tunnel. I have every reason to believe the French will uphold that commitment.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
In April 2018, Seaborne Freight issued in writing an investor briefing that claimed:
“Detailed port agreements with Ramsgate and Ostend negotiated and agreed”,
but it is now clear that no such agreements exist to this day. Indeed, the Mayor of Ostend has given an interview in which he said:
“A start-up in March is simply impossible. There is currently no agreement with Ramsgate and also with Ostend”.
If the Secretary of State has satisfied himself that due diligence checks have been carried out that confirm the suitability of Seaborne Freight to receive a £13.8 million Government contract, will he tell us what weight he has attached to the fact that Seaborne Freight has issued inaccurate investor briefings? Will he also finally answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chair of the Brexit Committee, and name just one ship that due diligence checks have revealed Seaborne Freight is likely to be able to bring into service by March?
Chris Grayling
I am not sharing, nor is it my responsibility to share, the company’s commercial information. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that no money will change hands unless the company is running this service. That seems to me to be the best possible protection for the taxpayer’s money.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend expand on the discussions he has had with the management team and what expertise and experience they are bringing to the table to operate this service?
Chris Grayling
My officials have had detailed discussions with the management team and have gone through their plans in detail. My hon. Friend might have seen the article in Lloyd’s List, which has also been shown the business plan and gave it a thumbs-up as being a viable option. This is a team of people who have experience in this industry and who we believe will deliver this service, but of course they will be paid only if they do so.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Some 95% of fresh produce in the Channel Islands gets there via Portsmouth international port. Delays at our port would mean empty shelves in the Channel Islands in 48 hours. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give today to ensure uninterrupted delivery from all our ports of critical goods such as fresh food and medicine?
Chris Grayling
On incoming freight, we intend not to put in place complex checks at the border. We have been clear all along that the Government’s priority, apart from security, will be to ensure free movement of trade. Of course, goods arriving from the Channel Islands will not be subject to the kind of constraints we might see going in at Calais, and the issues around transport blockages really relate only to the short straits around Dover and the tunnel, not to other ports, where the movement of ships is not on a sufficient scale to cause significant blockages.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
It would be irresponsible not to prepare for no deal, of course, but would it not be even more irresponsible to be spending money where we did not need to?
Chris Grayling
That is why we are not going to spend the money until the ships are available and running. The reality is that we do need to spend money to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. I hope that money proves not to be needed—I want us to have a sensible partnership in the future—but believe me, if we were here now facing a no-deal Brexit and no preparation had been done, the shouting from the Labour party would be enormous.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State talks about supporting entrepreneurialism. I am a big fan of “Dragons’ Den”, and I think this is one of those pitches that everybody would have been cringing at had they actually seen it, but it seems to be good enough for the Secretary of State. He talks about a no-deal Brexit. I think the Government should rule out a no-deal Brexit, but if he is insistent on planning ahead for it he needs sure delivery of freight capacity on shipping routes. The Ministry of Defence has immediate access to four roll-on roll-off ferries. Why on earth has he not committed to using those assets, which are immediately available to him, instead of insisting on a highly risky contractual arrangement with a dubious private contractor?
Chris Grayling
What I have done is insist on a highly substantial commercial arrangement with two very established cross-channel ferry operators and given a small amount of business to a new operator. If there is a no-deal Brexit, which I hope will not happen, we have several other measures that we can bring into place.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is in consultation with not only Dover and Calais but other ports about what would happen in the event of no deal, which I sincerely hope will not happen? The way to avoid no deal, of course, is to vote for the deal. In Taunton Deane, many businesses, lots of them small, rely on exporting and ferries. They must not be hampered and we must act responsibly to give them assurances.
Chris Grayling
The clearest assurance that I can give is that I have been to Calais and met my French counterpart to talk about this issue, I have met the president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and officials have had discussions, and I have had no sense from any of those conversations that the French want anything other than to maintain the fluid movement of trade through the channel ports. That is something to which we should all aspire.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Does not this sorry episode clearly indicate that the absurd mantra of a managed no deal is a contradiction in terms?
Chris Grayling
As I say, the Government do not aspire to a managed or an unmanaged no deal—we want to secure a deal—but it is not responsible not to prepare for all eventualities.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for recognising that it is absolutely in the national interest to make preparations for a no-deal Brexit, not least because it strengthens our negotiating hand, even at this late stage. Will he tell the House what the common transit convention is, not only for the benefit of the House but in particular for the benefit of those on the Opposition Front Bench, and explain how it will mitigate the worst effects of impeded traffic flows in the event of no deal?
Chris Grayling
The common transit convention is the international agreement by which trade flows across multiple countries. It has already been announced that in leaving the European Union the United Kingdom will remain part of that convention, which will play a significant part in ensuring that trade flows freely in all situations. None the less, we need to make sure that we cannot get blockages at key ports, and that is what we are working to do.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In the interests of transparency, will the Secretary of State indicate to the House which companies were considered for the contracts?
Chris Grayling
We received three compliant bids, all of which we judged acceptable and accepted. Two of them were from major operators that will provide around 90% of the capacity, plus there was this small additional contract. Should we choose to return to the market, there is also potential interest in the provision of extra capacity. I hope we will not need that, because I hope that we will have a proper deal come next week.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
It has certainly been an “I see no ships” sort of week, but what consideration has the Secretary of State given to utilising ports in other parts of the UK—namely, the high-exporting country of Scotland? I hear really good things about the potential for a Rosyth-Zeebrugge ferry link, for which potential ships have actually been identified. Is not Scotland losing out? How can we realise Scotland’s potential in this Brexit fiasco?
Chris Grayling
I appreciate that the Scottish National party does not support Brexit and, indeed, would like to do everything it can to stop Brexit, but we will work to make sure that every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, is able to continue to trade freely around the world and gain from the benefits that will be achieved in this country in a post-Brexit world.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I see no ships, but I do smell something fishy, and I think other colleagues do as well. Is the Secretary of State really saying to the House that the best choice for the contract was a company that cut and pasted its terms and conditions at the last minute from a fast-food company? Is his new Brexit mantra “A meal deal’s better than no deal”?
Chris Grayling
Of course, it is not a single contract. There are multiple contracts, of which 90% is going to two of the biggest cross-channel operators—something the Labour party appears to be completely ignoring. The fact is that we have chosen to give a small proportion of the business to a legitimate bid from a small start-up business, and I think that is something the Government should do more often, not less.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I think our plea to the contractors is that we want these ships, not excuses. Quite astonishingly, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), we heard from the Secretary of State that there will somehow be driverless ferries—that there will be no staff—so presumably there is no national minimum wage requirement in the contract. First, will the Secretary of State publish the legal advice that he says he was given? That seems sensible, given the House’s concerns. Secondly, will he tell us what were the procurement requirements in relation to equipment, such as ferries, or indeed in respect of the socioeconomic impact in relation to wages, for example?
Chris Grayling
In effect, what we are doing is buying tickets in advance on cross-channel ferries on a number of routes around the country. That is what we are doing. It is no more and no less than that.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is quite incredible that the Secretary of State has awarded a contract to a company with no ships, no investors, no customers, no credible business plan, no employees and no premises. Is he aware that Seaborne Freight tried to get an option to purchase the following four ships: the Hartmut Puschmann, the Espresso Catania, the Espresso Ravenna and the Via Adriatico? They all operate in the southern Mediterranean and would need a complete refit to be able to operate in the channel. In addition, two of the ships failed EU safety inspections. On top of that, Tirrenia, which owns the ships, said that it would not sell them because it did not believe that Seaborne Freight had the money. I visited Tirrenia’s website and found that I could go on a Mediterranean cruise on the four vessels in April. Was the Secretary of State aware of that?
Chris Grayling
I am not going to comment on the commercial plans of Seaborne Freight. I am satisfied that it will have the ships necessary to operate the service, but if it is not able to deliver them, it will not be paid.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Brittany Ferries has been awarded a no-deal ferry contract but, unlike Seaborne, it actually has ferries. No-deal sailings into Millbay port in Plymouth will increase traffic by 50%. Will the Secretary of State point to where on the 200 metres of tarmac between the ferry port and Plymouth city centre he expects facilities to be built for the lorry park, the customs checks, the veterinary checks and the environmental health checks?
Chris Grayling
Let me say two things. First, I thought it would be good for the port of Plymouth to have more traffic; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not agree. Secondly, the reality is that, as I said earlier, we do not intend to impose a hard border for traffic coming into the United Kingdom. We intend to focus on the fluidity of trade as our priority. It will be security first and fluidity second, and other matters will come well afterwards. We are not imposing a hard border on this side of the channel.
Points of Order
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the revelation by a former universal credit helpline employee that call handlers are instructed to use “deflection scripts” to hurry people off the phone when they have phoned up for help with universal credit, my office submitted a freedom of information request to the Department for Work and Pensions to ask to see the scripts. The response I received was that there are no scripts, but that there are “agent-led processes” and “supportive lines available”. The Department did not provide any detail of those lines, which was the clear intention of the FOI request. I do not think that the Department should be able to use semantics to avoid scrutiny. I have requested a review of the response and asked whether I could be provided with the relevant materials.
The code of practice on FOI rules states that requests should be acknowledged and replied to within 20 days. Even accounting for the Christmas break, that date has now passed and I have not received a response. The Government appear to be flouting the mechanisms set up to ensure that they are transparent and can be held to account by Parliament. Will you please advise me, Mr Speaker, on what I should do to receive this important information, to which I am entitled under freedom of information legislation, as the Government have not complied?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. I am sorry to disappoint her, but I am not sure that I can help her today. The reason is that responses to freedom of information requests by Government Departments are a matter for those Departments; the Chair has no locus in relation to the subject. It is perfectly open to the hon. Lady to continue to pursue the matter, but she does so under a regime that is informed by statute and in relation to which she will, I imagine, have rights, and quite possibly rights of appeal. As I am sure the hon. Lady will know, the issues fall within the purview of the Information Commissioner. However, whereas in relation to answers to parliamentary questions there is a direct parliamentary ownership and the Chair does have locus, in this case I do not. That said, the hon. Lady has made her point with force and alacrity, and it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely certain that if in the urgent question anything disorderly had happened you would have immediately corrected it, but I wonder whether there is any way that the House could be asked to reflect on how much longer privilege can survive in a democratic society if it seems to appear that privilege is used for party political purposes to smear those who, perhaps, do not deserve to be smeared.
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I thank him for his courtesy in accepting that I would rule out of order something that, under our procedures, warranted such a decision.
The hon. Gentleman, who is both a noted intellectual—sometimes an iconoclastic intellectual—and someone who always likes to explore new subjects, has raised a most interesting matter appertaining to privilege. He could usefully busy himself by reading the literature on the subject of privilege. There is, for example, an ongoing debate about whether the House should work, as it does, using traditional methods in relation to privilege, or whether there is a case for a modern statute on the subject. I do have views on that matter, but I will not burden either him or the House with them at this time, but I just have this image of him beetling off to the Library and reading scholarly tomes on the subject, and ere long we will probably hear his thoughts on the future of privilege.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions this morning, the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who is no longer in his place but who has been notified that I am making this point of order, asked the Minister what his response was to the conclusion of the report of the BEIS Committee, published last week, which includes myself as a Front-Bench spokesman. The report said:
“The consistent and overwhelming message expressed by these sectors is that to make business decisions they need certainty and it is for that reason they support the Withdrawal Agreement.”
What he failed to do, I am sure inadvertently, was to add that it said:
“Leaving the EU without a deal would have catastrophic consequences and must be avoided. That said, no businesses that we have taken evidence from held the view that—from an industry perspective—the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration provide a deal as good as the one we already have with the EU.”
How do I go about correcting the record, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that he has found his own salvation—he has just done that. I am bound to say to him—I hope that he will take this in the right spirit—that over the past three and a half years or so, certainly since the 2015 election, spats between members on the Scottish National party Benches and on the Government Back Benches, particularly involving those on the Scottish Government Back Benches, have become an increasing sport. They have become not merely an increasing spectator sport, but, increasingly, a participant sport. The hon. Gentleman has corrected the record as he sees it, and I hope that, as a consequence, he will go about his business for the rest of the day with an additional glint in his eye and a spring in his step.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) about parliamentary scrutiny. I tabled a written question to the Government—in this case the Home Office—asking them when they intend to announce the new contracts for the asylum seeker accommodation in Scotland and I received a reply yesterday saying that they would be announced in “due course”. I have now heard through the press and through social media that they have in fact announced the contracts today, and the Mears Group will take over from Serco. Surely that sort of ambiguity and obfuscation is really disrespectful to Members. It also flouts the whole process of having written parliamentary questions if the Government can be so vague in their responses.
Mr Speaker
I will go so far as to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the answer to his question was not helpful. Moreover, I hope that he is with me when I say that, ordinarily, the deployment of the three words, “In due course,” tends to suggest and to be interpreted by Members to mean not for quite some time. It is therefore at least mildly surprising that the hon. Gentleman got such an uninformative response, but one that perhaps suggested that progress would not be speedy only to discover indirectly, rather than at first hand, that the announcement had in fact been made. I do understand his discontent, and I can only repeat my view that ministerial replies to parliamentary questions should be both speedy and substantive. In providing such replies, it would always be helpful if Ministers saw it as a proper courtesy to answer Members first. If there are no further points of orders—
Sir Desmond Swayne
If I might offer an observation, Mr Speaker, on your response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker).
Mr Speaker
I am now all agog. I am always excited and in a state of eager anticipation to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on everything.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I just wish to offer the opinion that, with respect to the answer that you gave to my hon. Friend, Mr Speaker, change is always for the worse.
Mr Speaker
I cannot say that I am entirely surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman volunteer that view. He and I came into the House together in May 1997, so I have known him for nearly 22 years. I think that he is probably well familiar with, and even given to regularly reciting to himself, that old adage of Lord Falkland, which is that if it is
“not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
I think we will leave it there for now, but I will always profit from the right hon. Gentleman’s counsels.
International Development Assistance (Palestinian National Authority Schools)
Tuesday 8th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate International Development Assistance (Palestinian National Authority Schools) Bill 2017-19 View all International Development Assistance (Palestinian National Authority Schools) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit international development assistance to schools operated by the Palestinian National Authority that do not promote values endorsed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; to require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the extent to which such development assistance for schools operated by the Palestinian National Authority supported the promotion of those values; and for connected purposes.
I know from the many speeches that I have delivered in this House on this topic that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians provokes strong passions. Tragically, the past five years have seen the total absence of a political process that brings both sides together to make painful but necessary compromises to resolve this conflict. There is still vital work that we can do to strengthen the civic society foundations on which any lasting settlement must be built. We must recognise the threat posed to these peace-building efforts by those who incite hatred, glorify violence and promote terror. The reality is that the Palestinian Authority is at the heart of this threat. We can no longer turn a blind eye to what British aid is helping to foster: not the infrastructure of a democratic, independent and peaceful Palestinian state, but a body promoting values that are inimical to the establishment of that state.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) suggested in her debate last July that
“it is vital that old hatreds and prejudices are not passed on to new generations of children and young people.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 165WH.]
The Palestinian Authority is acting as a transmission belt for those very hatreds and prejudices.
The focus of my Bill is education, which is crucial in shaping young minds and it is the focus of the Department for International Development’s aid to the Palestinian Authority. The memorandum of understanding that governs this British aid is explicit: as a condition of funding, the PA must adhere to the principles of non-violence and respect for human rights. Ministers tell us repeatedly that their unpublished reviews suggest that the PA upholds those principles. The facts show otherwise.
For example, take the naming by the Palestinian Authority of schools, summer camps and sports tournaments after terrorist murderers and Nazi collaborators. At least 20 PA schools in the west bank and Gaza are named after terrorists, and three after Nazi collaborators. Those include Salah Khalaf, the head of Black September, a terror group whose name will forever be associated with the torture and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at Munich in 1972; Nash’at Abu Jabara, a member of Hamas, who built the suicide belts used by bombers in numerous terror attacks on Israeli civilians; and Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the British mandate, a Nazi collaborator who moved to Berlin during the second world war, was responsible for an SS division and fought against the release of 5,000 Jewish children who perished in the gas chambers. These are not choices made by obscure local officials. They are deliberate decisions taken by the Palestinian Authority at the highest levels.
Ministers in this country do not appear concerned. Last year, the Department for International Development claimed ignorance on whether any of the thousands of teachers and public servants whose salaries it pays work in schools named after these purveyors of hate, whose names should be consigned to the history books. Outside the classroom, too, children are subjected to a barrage of vicious antisemitic propaganda. Children’s programmes on official PA TV feature children reciting poems calling Jews “barbaric monkeys”, “the sons of pigs” and the “most evil among creations”.
According to the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education, or IMPACT-se, the reformed school curriculum for primary and secondary schoolchildren introduced last September is
“more radical than ever, purposefully and strategically encouraging Palestinian children to sacrifice themselves to martyrdom”.
Five-year-olds are taught the word for “martyr” as part of their first lessons in Arabic, 11-year-olds are taught that martyrdom and jihad are
“the most important meanings of life”,
and teenagers are taught that those who sacrifice themselves will be rewarded with
“72 virgin brides in paradise”.
Arabic language books describe terrorists such as Dalal Mughrabi—who led the infamous coastal road massacre in which 38 Israelis, including 13 children, were massacred—as “heroes”.
These lessons in hate are all-pervasive, infesting every aspect of the curriculum, and this curriculum drips with vile antisemitic tropes—that Jews sexually harass Muslim women and that they attempted to kill the Prophet Mohammed. There is no suggestion that peace with Israel is desirable or possible. References to peace agreements, summits and proposals previously present in school books have been expunged. In their place are lies about the al-Aqsa mosque being under threat and calls to “eliminate the usurper”—to conquer Haifa and Jaffa.
Young Palestinian minds are being poisoned. The opportunity for Britain to help promote the values of peace, reconciliation and coexistence is being squandered. This is not about a peaceful future. It is a scandal.
DFID Ministers were warned 18 months ago about the content of the new curriculum. They dismissed those concerns. Promised reviews have never materialised. Last September, the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), claimed that the PA had
“taken action to help address concerns raised”.
IMPACT-se research shows that there have been no major changes in the current school year. Indeed, the PA has deceived international donors for nearly 20 years with the suggestion that controversial schoolbooks are simply being “piloted”. Ministers have been repeatedly asked to suspend all aid to the PA that directly or indirectly finances those teaching and implementing this curriculum until fundamental changes are made. They have refused to do so. It is now time to require them to act.
My Bill calls for two actions: first, that teaching programmes in Palestinian Authority schools financed by the UK should promote common values such as peace, freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination; and secondly, that Ministers should conduct and publish an annual review to ensure that UK funds are spent in line with UNESCO-derived standards of peace and tolerance in education. British aid should support the goal, shared by Members across this House, of a two-state solution. It cannot and must not make that goal harder to achieve, but that is precisely what our support for these lessons in hatred is currently doing. It is time to stop this pernicious policy that works against a peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I rise to oppose this Bill and start by drawing the attention of the House to my chairmanship of the Conservative Middle East Council. Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to the effect of any provision of the Bill on child poverty or equality Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to the subject matter of any of Clauses 68 to 78, 89 and 90 Three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to tax thresholds or reliefs; new Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to tax avoidance or evasion; remaining new Clauses, new Schedules and amendments to Clauses and Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order
The British Government have already agreed to a proper review of the Palestinian curriculum that is due to report by September this year. Surely, it makes sense to wait for that investigation to run its course and only then to consider—when we have seen all the evidence—whether there is any need to legislate on this difficult matter.
It is worth reminding the House that, according to DFID,
“no UK taxpayers’ money to the Palestinian Authority goes to schools or to fund education materials that incite violence.”
I do not completely understand where the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) is coming from—whether she wants to assess the overall curriculum and textbooks used by the Palestinian Authority, or whether she wants to assess each individual’s teaching and interpretation of the curriculum. In 2013, a team of American, Israeli, Palestinian and international education experts carried out a study funded by the US State Department, finding that dehumanising or demonising is rare in both Palestinian and Israeli textbooks.
With the United Nations Relief and Works Agency facing its greatest financial crisis ever and the PA nearing a financial breakdown, surely this is not the time to add pressure by making further cuts. Both the PA and UNRWA are in serious financial trouble after the completely misguided recent US termination of support for UNRWA and of its wider assistance to the Palestinians, as well as new Israeli legislation aiming to withhold Palestinian clearance revenues as of 2019.
According to DFID,
“UK financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority…has paid the salaries of up to 39,000 teachers, doctors, nurses, midwives and other health and education public servants”
in the west bank and Ramallah in 2018. These staff have
“immunised up to 3,700 children and provided around 185,000 medical consultations annually; and educated around 24,000 young Palestinians.”
If the Department for International Development—I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s answer to this point—were to withdraw funding for education, as is suggested, this would inevitably create a vacuum. Given the law of unintended consequences, I think that people need to be very aware of who might fill that vacuum. For example, countries such as Qatar could well exploit the vacuum created if DFID were to withdraw its funding, and we all know what the inevitable results of that could be.
No one in this House would doubt that education is a major tool for international development. Most Israelis I know pride education above almost everything else, not least because of its ability to transform lives, and many of the moderate Israelis I know would be appalled by the suggestion that this funding should be cut.
Once, when I was a Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, we took a group of former loyalist paramilitaries to Jerusalem to talk about reconciliation and people living together and alongside each other. I took time off and visited the Hand in Hand school—the Max Rayne-funded school in Jerusalem where Jews and Arabs are funded and educated alongside each other; they have a shared education. That, surely, is something we should be concentrating on, rather than penalising the Palestinians, who, after all, are penalised enough as it is at the moment.
For those of us who are genuinely committed to a two-state solution and genuinely concerned for the plight of the Palestinians, not least in Gaza—we will talk about that at some other point—this Bill would be a regressive step. We really do fundamentally believe that the best hope for the people of that region, and indeed for peace in the wider world, is a two-state solution. Those of us in this House who are genuinely committed to justice for the Palestinians alongside justice for the Israelis want some kind of solution rather than just subscribing to the vague concept of it by kicking the ball ever forwards to avoid having to address it. We should be looking towards better ways of supporting a stable Palestinian Authority that can act as a creative partner for peace with Israel in preparing the ground for a two-state solution before it is finally too late.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dame Louise Ellman, Joan Ryan, Ian Austin, Theresa Villiers, Stephen Crabb, Jim Shannon, Rachel Reeves, John Howell, John Spellar, Andrew Percy, Guto Bebb and Bob Blackman present the Bill.
Dame Louise Ellman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March and to be printed (Bill 311).
Finance (NO. 3) Bill (Programme) (NO. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 12 November 2018 (Finance (No. 3) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
3. Each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
4. Proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Mel Stride.)
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Tuesday 8th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 January 2019 - (8 Jan 2019)
16:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 296 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Review of public health and poverty effects—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty in the UK,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and
(c) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.’
Peter Dowd
I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Members.
In opening for the Opposition today, I shall start with a few general comments on the Bill before moving on to my substantive remarks on child poverty and equality. First, I must mention the new schedule the Government have tabled, at this late stage, on intangible fixed assets. It is yet another example of the Government’s absolute contempt for parliamentary processes—a result of their desperation to cling to power. Although the Chancellor announced this proposal at the Budget, the introduction of this detailed schedule at this stage of the Bill guarantees that Members are denied the opportunity to scrutinise it properly. It circumvents the Public Bill Committee process, which was created to ensure that technical measures such as this one receive forensic and detailed analysis. This is no way for any Government to conduct legislation. With that in mind, perhaps the Minister could explain why this measure has been included at the final stage of this Bill, denying Members the opportunity to properly scrutinise it. Is it a deliberate decision to once again circumvent parliamentary process? Will he consider withdrawing the schedule and including it in the next Finance Bill later this year, ensuring that it receives the proper parliamentary scrutiny it actually warrants?
It appears that Ministers are hellbent on starting this new year in the same fashion that they ended the last—by treating Members of this House as a peripheral part of the law-making process, bypassing parliamentary processes and breaking long-established conventions. The vast majority of Members in this House are fed up to the back teeth with the Government’s attempts to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Given the heinousness of the charges that the shadow Minister has laid against Her Majesty’s Government, I presume that this is further grist to his party’s mill for a no-confidence vote. When will that be tabled and debated in this place?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are here debating the Finance Bill and the Government’s dreadful performance in bringing legislation to the House for much-needed scrutiny. They seem to be incapable of doing that. They seem to be incapable of doing very much these days.
Has it not occurred to the Government that had they entered this place in a spirit of co-operation, they might not have suffered defeat after defeat on this legislation? This Finance Bill is the product of a Government on the run—a Tory party totally consumed by its Brexit civil war, unable and unwilling to posit even the feeblest domestic agenda here for fear of upsetting its nasty, hard-right faction. The Prime Minister’s speech about fighting burning injustices has turned to ash. Her claim that she would end austerity lies in tatters. She occupies our highest public office, and yet the public have no confidence in her—neither do many of her own Back Benchers, for that matter.
Meanwhile, the view is even worse from the Treasury. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Chancellor was gambling with the public finances at this Budget, and it seems that even before the Bill has left this place, he has already lost that bet. The Office for National Statistics recently blew a £12 billion hole in the Chancellor’s spreadsheets by returning student debt to the Government’s books.
So one has to wonder, what is the point of the Tory party—unable to deliver a competent Brexit deal, unable to secure our economic future, unable to meet its own fiscal rules, and unable to deliver a domestic policy programme? It is a party still reliant on the old dogmas of neoliberalism and austerity, unable to see the evidence of its failures. An example of this absurd neoliberal dogma came over the break when, as we heard today, the Transport Secretary awarded a ferry contract to a company with no ferries. If he is looking for expertise in this matter, perhaps I can invite him down to Merseyside, where we have been running ferries since 1330, very successfully—and they are publicly run, I have to say. I invite him to have a go on a ferry up the River Mersey and get the feel for how it works, basically. He will have diplomatic immunity and will not be thrown overboard—I can guarantee that as well.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend notice yesterday that the Government are beginning to backtrack on universal credit? Although they say they will introduce it for 10,000 people, in essence they are backtracking. He may also have noticed the announcement today by an independent organisation that we need to build something like 3 million social houses, not in the private sector, over a 10-year period. Does he agree that that should be looked at and done through council housing?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is right, and the reality is that we are not going to get it from the Conservative party—it is as simple as that. It seems incapable of doing anything that is in any way constructive for the social fabric of our country.
The Government now pick and choose whichever target provides cover for their devastating treatment of children across the UK, including—when it suits them—using the very targets that they themselves scrapped. That is why new clause 1 is so important. The Government can no longer be allowed to ignore the plight of millions of children across the country.
The statistics do not lie. They show quite clearly that, prior to the Conservative Government coming to power in 2010 with their Liberal Democrat partners, child poverty in the UK was falling. The new Social Metrics Commission, which draws on the widest possible set of poverty measures, states concretely that there are now half a million more children living in relative poverty than there were just five years ago. The whole country knows that austerity is to blame, and we all know who introduced austerity—it was the Government.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I completely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that the two-child cap, which will apply to all new universal credit claimants from 1 February this year, and other measures that the Government are pushing mean that up to an additional 3 million children will apparently go into poverty?
Peter Dowd
The hon. Lady is right. The Government appear to want to put misery upon misery on families and children.
Despite the claims from Conservative Members, austerity was not some necessity nobly chosen by the Government of the day, but a political and ideological choice—it is as simple as that. If it was the only option, why did the United States not embark on a similar venture? Why did the likes of Germany and France not undertake a similar level of spending cuts, or Japan, or, for that matter, Australia? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are chuntering, but those are the questions that we need answering.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The shadow Minister referenced public spending in the United States of America. Is he seriously arguing that we should look to adopt its system of welfare and healthcare spending?
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not saying that. He can twist his party’s policies if he wants, but he should not twist Labour’s policies.
Mr Jim Cunningham
We should remind those on the Government Benches that the crash, if we want to call it that, actually started in America with the Lehman Brothers and that the Obama Administration pumped $80 billion into the motorcar industry. The rest is history, as we say.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and backs up the point that I was making.
Those countries acknowledged a hard economic fact that appears to have stumped this Government: we cannot cut our way to growth. That has failed repeatedly, from its early use under US President Herbert Hoover, which turned the stock market crash into the great depression, to the International Monetary Fund programmes that have been imposed in developing countries and the economic and social devastation inflicted on Greece. This Government’s austerity agenda is yet another failure to add to that list. They have missed every economic target they have set, and it is the poorest in society who have paid the price.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is interesting to listen to my hon. Friend’s informed explanation of how austerity has not worked across history. Does he agree that up until the 2010 general election, because of the fiscal stimulus put in place by the Chancellor Alistair Darling and the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, those first two quarters were successive periods of growth, and the economy fell off a cliff because of the austerity introduced by the Conservative party?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is right. The economy thereafter, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, started to go down the pan. To this day, we have not recovered, and the Government’s own figures indicate that this will go on for many more years. We will have more of the same, and it is not working. When will they learn the lesson? They seem to be incapable. Even the IMF recognises the failure of austerity and has called for increased public spending to offset the negative economic effects of Brexit.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this fascinating tour de force on the period since 2010. If the Labour party in government was doing so fantastically well, growth was going so well and its economic management was prized highly by the electorate, why did it lose the general election in 2010 and then in 2015? If all was going so well, why did it lose?
Peter Dowd
I am sure the House would be delighted to hear my psephological analysis of the general election, but we are talking about the Finance Bill. You are very generous, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do not think even you would be sufficiently generous as to hear my psephological comments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It gives me great pleasure to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He was doing very well on new clause 1.
Peter Dowd
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The UN special rapporteur has concluded that the rising level of child poverty is a result of political choices, underpinned by the Government’s callous austerity agenda. I will draw my comments to a conclusion because I know that lots of Members want to comment on how dreadful the Government are, how they try to stitch up Committees, how they do not allow us to have proper debates and how—for the first time since Winston Churchill introduced the notion—they have circumvented the amendment of the law motion. They talk about bringing back control to the House of Commons, but they are bringing back control to about two or three people on the Front Bench, and that does not include the Treasury Ministers.
The Finance Bill before us is yet another Bill of broken promises. It offers further tax reliefs for the rich and for multinational corporations, and it prolongs austerity for yet another year, condemning many families and many children to abject poverty. Labour’s new clause 1 would require the Government finally to assess the impact of their economic policies on the most vulnerable in our society. It would require the Government to face up to their responsibility to come and explain to this House why they are not yet changing their economic policies, despite the obvious evidence that they are doing dreadful—I repeat, dreadful—damage to this country and to our communities.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak at this stage of our proceedings. I am extraordinarily concerned about new clause 1, because it would delay the implementation of clause 5, which is a key part of the Bill because it sets the very level at which people in this country start to pay tax. If we are to address the issues that affect those in our country on the lowest incomes, the best way to help them will to be allow them to keep more of their money in their pockets.
That is why a key part of this Government’s economic strategy has been to make sure, year after year, that those on the lowest incomes are able to keep more of what they earn and to help themselves to build their way out of poverty. That means that 34 million people in this country are paying less tax than previously, and many millions of people have been taken out of tax altogether. This was the No. 1 recommendation of the tax reform commission, which I worked on back in 2006, and I am absolutely delighted that it was among the first steps taken first by the coalition Government, then by the 2015 Government and now by the 2017 Government. This Finance Bill means that raising the level before anyone pays tax to £12,500 is being introduced faster than we ever thought possible.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Given the Front-Bench speech that we heard from the Opposition, it is worth noting that the allowance was only £6,475 when Labour left power, but is now £12,500 under this Conservative Government.
Vicky Ford
Absolutely. That is exactly the point, because we know that the best way to address poverty is to make sure that more people can earn their way out of poverty. That does not work for everyone, but for those who can do so, this makes a significant difference, and that is exactly why poverty is now at record lows.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
According to Department for Work and Pensions figures, there are 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty since 2010, with 300,000 fewer children in the same situation.
Vicky Ford
Absolutely. That is exactly the point: absolute poverty is now at record lows. That also has an impact on children—my hon. Friend made that point— because the number of children living in workless homes has fallen to the lowest level since records started.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Would not the situation for working families be even worse under a Labour Government, with the proposal announced at the Labour party conference of £500 billion of public spending, which would mean a doubling of VAT, a doubling of national insurance, a doubling of income tax and a doubling of council tax? They are not my words, but those of a Labour MP, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie).
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for that precise contribution. I cannot understand why the Labour party has voted against increases to the level at which people start to pay tax, because helping people to keep more of their earnings in their own pockets is fundamental to increasing house ownership and to building a fairer economy.
Simon Hoare
I trust that my hon. Friend’s question was not a rhetorical one, but perhaps I can try to answer it. As far as socialism is concerned, it is absolutely fine until Labour Members have run out of other people’s money to spend. That is why they are opposed to these things.
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
I also want to talk about fairness. Yes, it is true that the provision also increases the rate at which people start to pay a slightly higher rate of tax, but the biggest impact is on those on the lowest level of tax. That is why the tax gap—the difference between the highest and lowest levels of income—has actually fallen. The ratio of the average income of the top fifth to that of the bottom fifth of households has fallen, after taking into account all benefits and taxes.
Peter Dowd
The hon. Lady has got two facts wrong. First, we did not vote against these proposals, as she suggested. Secondly, I was actually talking about the new schedule, not clause 5. If she is going to attack us, she should get her facts right, for goodness’ sake.
Vicky Ford
Perhaps this should be better drafted on the amendment paper, because the Opposition’s explanatory statement clearly refers to the “impact of clause 5”.
I agree that one should always take impacts into consideration, but I strongly believe that the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman of needing to address poverty is best addressed by allowing this Bill to go forward today, especially the elements that involve raising the level at which people start to pay tax, so that they can keep more money in their own pockets. That is fundamental to building a fairer economy, to having a lower gap between those on the highest incomes and those on the lowest incomes, and to encouraging more people in this country to take up the work opportunities available to them under this Conservative Government, with the continuing growth of the economy.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It gives me great pleasure to speak to new clause 5, which is in my name and those of colleagues. As I have previously stated, I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on health in all policies, and as a fellow of the Faculty of Public Health, following 20 or so years of national and international work in this field.
Under new clause 5, the Chancellor
“must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act…A review…must consider…the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty in the UK”.
There has been a lot of talk about absolute poverty levels, and we would of course welcome any reductions in absolute poverty levels. Those are the most severe levels of poverty, when people are unable to meet basic physiological needs, such as for food, water and shelter. However, relative poverty is a really important measure that we must reflect on, so I want to stress that the review would look at both relative and absolute poverty in the UK. I also want the review to assess
“the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and…the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
Yesterday, the Government announced their new 10-year plan for the NHS. In his statement to the House, the Health Secretary talked about the importance of reducing health inequalities—absolutely, I could not agree more—and how we need to reduce the demands on health services. I do hope that the Government will take new clause 5 seriously as an opportunity to ensure that their policies actually meet the objectives they have set out, because it will help to do exactly that.
As important as the 10-year NHS plan is to improve our nation’s health, overwhelming evidence shows that the most important thing we can do is to reduce the poverty and inequality that too many of our citizens face today. The most effective way to do that is to focus upstream by assessing policies, as they are developed, for their effects on poverty, inequality and, ultimately, the health of our citizens. That was why I tabled the new clause.
As the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights said recently, the cuts and reforms introduced in the past few years have brought about misery and torn at the social fabric of our country. There are 14 million people living in relative poverty in the UK, 8 million of whom are working. That is the highest level ever—I advise those who may not be familiar with the most recent data to refer to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published last month. Two thirds of the 4 million children living in poverty are from working households. How are young people who are living in extreme poverty and who are hungry going to excel at school?
What about disabled people? They are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people, because of the costs associated with their disability. As we heard from Labour’s Front-Bench spokesman, policies on not just taxation but public spending and particularly social security are having a devastating impact on disabled people, and that includes universal credit. More than 4 million disabled people are living in poverty today. They are increasingly isolated and confined to their homes, and I am afraid that the situation is going to get worse, because we have had no real confirmation from the Government of how they will protect disabled people in relation to universal credit.
As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others has shown, the lowest income decile has lost proportionately more income than any other group since 2015 as a consequence of personal taxation and social security changes. Last autumn’s Budget had only marginal impacts on the household income of the poorest, while reducing the number of higher rate taxpayers by 300,000. The Government’s regressive measures have done nothing to reduce the gap between the rich and poor.
Last week’s Fat Cat Friday heralded the fact that top executives now earn 133 times more than their average worker; it was 47 times more in 1998. In the first three days of January, FTSE 100 bosses earned what an average full-time worker will earn in a year. That is the unequal society that this Government have allowed to run rampant.
When cuts to household incomes are combined with the cuts to public spending and services, the impact is even more dramatic. We have seen disproportionate cuts in Government funding to towns and cities across the north. The effects of all this on life expectancy are now being seen, with gains made over decades falling away. Life expectancy has been stalling since 2011 and is now flatlining, particularly in older age groups, for older women and in deprived areas.
The regional differences in how long people live reflect the socioeconomic inequalities across the country. People may be aware of these figures, because I mentioned them when I spoke in November, but life expectancy for men in the Windsor and Maidenhead local authority, which covers the Prime Minister’s constituency, stands at 81.6 years, while in my Oldham and Saddleworth constituency, it is 77 years.
Even within those areas there are differences in how long people will live. In Windsor and Maidenhead, the life expectancy gap is 5.8 years for men and 4.8 years for women, while in my constituency there is an 11.4-year difference for men and a 10.7-year difference for women. We should really concentrate on those figures. Those health inequalities are reflected across the country.
Inequalities in life expectancy are mirrored by inequalities in healthy life expectancy—how long somebody can be expected to live in good health. Healthy life expectancy at birth across local authority areas varies by 21.5 years for women and 15.8 years for men. In addition, according to the Office for National Statistics, women’s healthy life expectancy at birth decreased by three months between 2009 and 2011. How have the Government responded? They have actually increased the state pension age: people are living shorter lives, and living shorter lives in good health, but we are increasing the time they will be expected to work.
The gains Labour made in reducing health inequalities are now being reversed. The recent Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report showed that infant mortality has started to increase for the first time in 100 years. Four in 1,000 babies will not reach their first birthday in the UK, compared with 2.8 in the EU. Those are the unacceptable consequences of austerity.
Last month’s report by Public Health England investigating these inequalities in life expectancy confirmed what many of us have been saying: austerity has wrought misery and poverty, and has ultimately brought an early death for too many. If the Prime Minister is committed to tackling burning injustices and ending austerity, she needs to commit to her policies being independently assessed for their effects on poverty, inequality and public health, as my new clause outlines.
Reducing the gap between rich and poor benefits not just those who are lifted out of poverty. As the International Monetary Fund’s report five years ago showed, if we increase inequality, we reduce growth, and if we reduce inequality, we increase growth. Trickle-down economics has been shown not to work. As evidence from totemic reports such as “The Spirit Level” shows, society as a whole benefits from decreased inequality, with increases in life expectancy, educational attainment, social mobility, trust between communities and much more. Fairer, more equal societies benefit everyone. Inequalities are not inevitable; they are socially reproduced. They are about political choice, and they can be changed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should take the opportunity to inform the House—this is not very exciting; it is just to set the record straight—that some names that were intended for amendments to the Agriculture Bill were added in error to amendments to this Bill. [Interruption.] I did warn the House that it is not very exciting, but it is important to keep the record straight. For the sake of clarity, let me tell the House that the name of Mike Gapes should not appear on new clause 1, and the name of Kerry McCarthy should not appear on new clauses 10, 17, 8 and 18, and amendments 39 to 41. Having got that important matter straight, I will happily call Mr Kevin Foster.
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hearing your announcement that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is not in fact a signatory to new clause 1 has, of course, completely changed my view. Clearly that has changed the whole speech I was about to give.
It is useful to be here for this debate on new clauses 1 and 5. I found the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) of interest, as always. I know from one of our previous exchanges in the Chamber he will be very disappointed to hear that I am not going to give that promised talk on unpacking the holy trinity today. Even in the two hours available, that is probably not quite something that I can effectively manage. I am, however, going to go through an issue on which Members across the House generally have strong views and about which they are passionate: how we best tackle equality issues so that our policies are effective in ensuring that those who are in poverty have a route out of it.
It was not in pure jest that I made a comment in my intervention on the shadow Minister about spending levels in the United States. People talk about the US not having gone down the austerity route, but instead having had a spur or fiscal stimulus. To spend the same as the US, we would have had to make significant cuts to the public sector to get down to US levels of social spending, and in particular healthcare spending. The US has bizarre outcomes from its healthcare system: it spends more of its GDP on healthcare while achieving worse outcomes. No one in the House would wish to implement that system in this country given that failing of spending more and, bluntly, getting a lot less. It is therefore bizarre for that spending to be cited as a great stimulus. It most certainly was not. The US was still spending far less than us after our programme of austerity to bring the deficit under control.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Is that not a slightly bizarre argument? I think the Opposition are trying to ask the Government to take into account in the review the priorities we have, rather than the Government’s priorities. For example, they may be putting policies in the Finance Bill to raise taxes to do something specific, whereas we are asking them to look at public health impacts.
Kevin Foster
New clause 1 says what it says: it asks the Chancellor to produce a review of the impact of provisions and to lay a report of that review before the House. It does not require anything to be done. It does not set out a detailed list of policy changes and how they would be paid for. I do not really see where the hon. Lady is coming from. Members can generally debate all matters that are put before the House, what they believe their impact will be and whether they will make a difference.
I have to say—my Scottish colleagues like to raise this point—that in some areas, for example the Scottish education system, it would be interesting to look at how help is being provided to children so that they have a route out of poverty. In the past, the Scottish education system was one of the highest rated in the world, but I think the Scottish National party has now pulled Scotland out of the global rankings—not because it is going up them, it is safe to say. We can certainly have reviews both ways, and it will be interesting to hear whether comments from SNP Members reflect the impact that aspects of Scotland’s domestic policy, for which it has been responsible for most of the past decade, have had on some of the statistics they wish to complain about.
I welcome the fact that the Bill again increases the earnings that someone can receive before becoming an income tax payer.
Kevin Foster
In a moment—I did not intervene on the hon. Lady.
Again, those with the lowest incomes will be able to keep more of what they earn. The days when earning £6,500 was considered enough for someone to start paying tax have disappeared. We were actually able to bring forward the increase in tax-free earnings for millions of people. That is a positive measure, which really makes work pay and helps the lowest earners the most.
Debbie Abrahams
What will be the effects of the Government’s increase in the personal allowance on the life expectancy of citizens of this country?
Kevin Foster
Any policy that encourages people to be in work and keep more of what they earn, and allows them to save, will help improve their overall health. One of the things that most improves someone’s life outcomes is being in employment. [Interruption.] It is bizarre to be heckled for saying that.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving an insightful speech. One impact of the Government’s policies is the improvement in our Gini coefficient, which is widely recognised as an objective international measure of inequality. According to that objective international measure, our inequality has reduced since 2009-10. Nothing is perfect, but it seems that the direction of policies is working.
Kevin Foster
As always, my hon. Friend makes a well argued and succinct point. He demonstrates the positive difference that Government policies are making for his constituents and the UK as a whole. It must be said that that difference is being made by a whole package of policies, not just by the Bill. I know that a range of measures will help tackle the health inequalities in my patch, including intervention, better services, better urgent care, ensuring that we realise the benefits of technology in primary care, dealing with things such as rising obesity, ensuring that people have proper diets and continuing the welcome decrease in the smoking rate. It is bizarre that those who can least afford to smoke end up being impacted most by it, worsening already poor health inequalities.
The Bill is welcome. I do not think either new clause brings much to the debate, other than highlighting that people want reviews and statistics. With a genuine review, we think about our policy conclusions at the end, yet we hear Opposition Members say, “We want a review—but by the way, here are all our conclusions about the policies we believe should be adopted, even though we can’t really outline how we would pay for them, other than with a massive borrowing splurge that would need to be paid for by a future generation.”
It is welcome that, as has been pointed out, the number of people in absolute poverty is at a record low —1 million fewer people overall and 300,000 fewer children are in absolute poverty. [Interruption.] We hear a groan, but those are the statistics—the sorts of statistics the Opposition seek through their new clauses. The number of children living in workless homes has fallen to its lowest since records began. Being in work makes a positive difference to people’s lives.
Kevin Foster
If the hon. Lady wishes to argue with that, I am only too happy to give way.
Debbie Abrahams
No, I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he believes in policy-based evidence or evidence-based policy. He seems to be talking about policy-based evidence. His argument is absolutely facile. He has no evidence to support it. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Kevin Foster
For policy-based evidence, we need only look to those who continue to argue that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor should be leading this country, despite the increasing evidence of what their economic policies would do to this nation. Anyone who takes a trip to Caracas will see the outcome there, and still some argue that we should bring those policies to this country. [Interruption.] It is lovely to be heckled all the way through my speech. I sometimes do it myself.
It is somewhat strange for the Government to be accused of not basing their policies on evidence by a party that crashed the UK economy eight years ago, and to continue to hear the excuse that the financial crash merely happened because of bankers in the United States, despite it being a former Labour Prime Minister who, just before the problem with the banks, predicted that a golden era for the City of London was about to start and set up the regulatory system that so badly failed to prevent this country from being exposed to the financial risks and shockwaves. It is somewhat strange to get that lecture on evidence, when there is plenty of evidence of what went wrong a decade ago, when we were left needing to make savings that Labour was planning to make anyway.
Kevin Foster
Absolutely. We could spend a long time analysing the decision to flog the gold reserves. It was the same Chancellor who claimed to have abolished boom and bust—to be fair, he was right: he managed to end the boom at the end of his term, although he did very little to take us away from the bust. The economic cycle is still there, and those who pretended it did not exist were deluding themselves. They kept betting that things would always go up and then things started to go down.
The other thing that has made a difference in Torbay, whose economy has many jobs in the service sector, the hospitality industry and the care sector, is the introduction of the national living wage, because of which many people have had a salary increase. It is easy for an Opposition to pledge all sorts of things, but it is very different to actually deliver in government an income rise for the lowest earners. More people are being paid more than the national living wage—local employers in Torbay are paying beyond that level to attract the staff they need, given the fall in unemployment. We cannot say that the Government’s fiscal policies have had nothing to do with that; they have made a positive difference to the lives of people in my community and others across the UK.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is this Government who are trying to build a fairer economy and that, in my constituency and his, the gap between the highest and the lowest incomes has fallen since 2010?
Kevin Foster
Absolutely. It is worth remembering, when we hear how the Opposition want to tax people and what our tax policies are, that the highest earners in this country are paying a higher percentage today than they did for all but the last few weeks of the previous Labour Government. The claim that the Government are being much more generous to the highest earners through income tax is completely false. Sadly, my hon. Friend now represents the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. I refer to the work of the SNP in making Northumberland a tax haven from its policies, which have hit a range of people on middle incomes. I am concerned that the impacts in Scotland of that policy will see its representatives here in Westminster blaming those impacts on Bills such as this one, when they are due to policies that the SNP, not this Parliament, has imposed on the Scottish people.
Kirsty Blackman
The Scottish Government’s Budget ensures that 90% of businesses will pay less in business rates than they would if they were anywhere else in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that his Government should change their policies to match Scotland’s?
Kevin Foster
I certainly do not believe that the Westminster Government should change their policies to match the SNP’s income tax raid on middle earners and those who drive the economy. On business rates, anyone who has sat through my speeches on the high street will know that I have taken the view for some time that we need to look at how we tax the high street in future. The era of large corner premises being the most profitable place to sell goods and wares is long gone. I have to say that I do not think I will be looking at the SNP’s record for much inspiration when it comes to the question of how to stimulate the economy and boost people’s earnings.
Luke Graham
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made a point about being able to lower business rates in Scotland. That has been fantastic. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the Chancellor for putting more than £40 million into the Scottish budget so that we could fund such a business rate cut?
Kevin Foster
Absolutely. That support was very welcome. However, one of the issues that I am surprised SNP Members do not want to be raised—although perhaps it is not a surprise, when I think about what would be said—is what the impact would be in all these areas if the Bill included a border between England and Scotland, making it harder for business to be done between those two parts of our great United Kingdom. What would be the impact on the economy if Scotland had to experience SNP Members’ overall economic and fiscal policies? Surprisingly, I do not think that they want that kind of analysis to be included in the review.
Colin Clark
I was quite surprised by what my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said. She is well aware that the north-east of Scotland—its very engine room, and the area that she represents—has ended up picking up half the business rates in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous for business rates to damage particular parts of the economy and to unbalance it disproportionately, whether in Scotland or in England?
Kevin Foster
I could not have put it better myself. If business rates unbalance the economy, that is clearly a real issue. It is no surprise that two years ago, when voters in the north-east of Scotland—which is, as my hon. Friend says, the powerhouse of Scotland’s economy—had to decide which party would be the best to drive forward economic policies and represent their interests, the area, funnily enough, suddenly turned quite a pleasant shade of blue, with only a dot of yellow in the middle. That reflected the confidence of those voters in this Government’s policies.
I am conscious that I have been speaking for a little while, and that others wish to contribute. Let me end by saying that I do not believe the two new clauses add anything to the Bill. They were tabled by Members who regularly like to give us policy-based evidence, and who advocate a form of economic management for the country that has failed many times in other countries. There is no reason why it would not fail again here if they were given the chance to implement it. I hope that the House will not accept the new clauses, but will accept that the Bill will make a difference to working families across the country, will help to drive our economy forward, and will have a positive effect on the country overall.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I support the two new clauses. Unlike the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), I think that they are very measured. They simply ask the Government to review the impact of the Bill on poverty and inequality.
I do not know what other Members think, but let me describe what I think the vast majority of people in all our constituencies believe, and what they believe this Parliament should be saying and doing. They believe that the current levels of inequality in our country are simply and utterly unacceptable. They believe that the levels of child poverty are simply and utterly unacceptable. They are not interested in someone being able to tell them that there are 2 million children living in terrible poverty, or 1,850,000 children living in absolute or, indeed, relative poverty. That is what those people are sick of, and what I am sick of, and what this Parliament should be reflecting.
Across the country, people are asking, “Can you not do any better? Can you not do something about the fact that there are still pensioners in one of the richest countries in the world who cannot heat themselves properly in cold weather, including at Christmas?” They are asking, “What is Parliament doing when we see children living in absolute poverty who cannot afford to go to school, with shoes and clothes and food being given to them as an act of charity by people in those schools?” They are not interested in whether the figures have gone up by 0.5% or down by 1%. They are interested in what this Parliament is doing about it, and what we are saying.
All these new clauses do is say to the Government, “If you believe, for example, that clause 5, through allowing people to keep more of their income when in work, addresses some of those issues, let’s have a review to see whether or not that is the case.” That is what people would expect.
I am sick of this myself. When I drive around, not just my constituency but the country, I see enormous wealth. I am not talking about people who have worked hard and done well, which we all want to see; I am talking about massive accumulated wealth—not just income—with people able to afford to pay astronomical sums on different ways of life, while half a mile down the street there is a kid in a household that cannot afford to put any proper food on the table.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is terrible to think of all the many places in the country where there are so many more food banks, and that the year-on-year increase the Trussell Trust has told us about is deeply worrying?
Vernon Coaker
That is right. Every Member of this House would no doubt say, “Isn’t it great that there are food banks and so many volunteers at them?” I agree with that; I agree that it is good to see in communities across this country, in every part of the UK, so many people who volunteer their time with others donating to them. What I object to is that food banks, which are there as a charity, are used as an instrument of public policy—they are used as a way of tackling poverty. What on earth have things come to in 2018 and 2019 when food banks are a public policy mechanism for dealing with poverty? They are supposed to be charitable organisations for people who have somehow slipped through the net, not places where someone at the DWP sends people with tokens. That is an absolute outrage, and this Parliament should be seething about it. In saying that, I do not decry the volunteers; this brings the very best out of people, but—goodness me—is that public policy now?
That is what the Minister should be addressing. The challenge that I think every Member of this House would make to the Government would be to ask what is being done to address these issues. We do not want some academic debate about a bit of research here or there which means that the hon. Member for Torbay can say, “There’s 1,000 fewer here and 2% less there.” The levels of poverty and inequality in our country are a fundamental disgrace; why are the Government not raging about that and doing something about it through their Budget?
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when he speaks to the food bank volunteers they say to him that they do not want to be doing this work as it should not be necessary because people should be able to pay for the food for their families without having to rely on handouts? They do not want to be volunteering for this because this problem should not exist in 2019.
Vernon Coaker
I agree with my hon. Friend.
In my relatively brief contribution I just want to ask the Government why there is disagreement about these perfectly reasonable new clauses that ask the Government to review the impact on poverty and inequality. When the Minister responds, will he say whether he refuses to keep under review any of the budgetary measures to be implemented through this Finance Bill to see whether they impact on poverty and inequality? Is that honestly what he is saying? If he is not saying that, why cannot he accept a new clause that is asking him to review this? Who disagrees with looking at whether our Government’s policies are actually tackling poverty and inequality? I find this absolutely incredible.
The Minister can say that this is all rhetorical nonsense, but let us see what he says about how he intends to review the impact of the Government’s policies. For example, he knows that one of the key challenges for Government policy is that, despite what they have tried to do, the number of working people in poverty is increasing. That is a policy challenge. It is not a Labour-Tory thing; it is a policy challenge. If the Minister simply retrenches on this, he is not acting as a Minister of the Crown or a Government Minister responsible for our country; he is acting as a Tory party politician, and that is not what a Minister of the Crown should be doing.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I find it sad to have to ask this, but does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the reason why the Government will not accept the new clauses is that they would provide the evidence that these policies are wrong and that they are harming our citizens?
Vernon Coaker
I agree. I am not sure if the Minister is listening, but that is the point. Surely the Government would want to know whether their policies were working, so that they could do more of them. And if their policies were not working, all of us would want the Government to change tack.
Poverty and inequality should be at the heart of everything the Government do and of everything this Parliament demands. All that the new clauses and amendments are doing is saying to the Government, “Look at what your policies are doing. Look at the impact out there. What are you doing to tackle the utterly unacceptable inequality, child poverty and increased use of food banks that we see in our country? How are your policies going to address this?” That is the purpose of the new clauses, which I totally support.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). In fact, I agree with some of the sentiments that he has expressed. The level of poverty is still unacceptable, and that makes me unhappy. I am also unhappy about the level of inequality across the country and in my own constituency, but I want to support a Government who are doing something about it, not just through words but through actually taking steps to make these things better.
I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who introduced her new clause 1 earlier. It proposes a review of the impact of clause 5 on child poverty and equality—that is, the impact of raising the level of the personal allowance after which people start paying tax. She also spoke to new clause 5, which proposes a review of the public health and poverty impact of the whole Act. It is enormously tempting to say yes, we should do this. All of us in this Chamber care enormously about poverty and inequality levels. I have a background in healthcare, and I feel very strongly about reducing health inequalities. I am also conscious of the different life expectancies within my own constituency, which are substantial, but we must be careful not to be lured into a sense that reviewing a specific part of an Act will give us an accurate picture of all that is being done and of its impact on, for example, reducing health inequalities.
Debbie Abrahams
I want to reciprocate by expressing my respect for the hon. Lady and for the work that she does in this place on mental health. I have huge experience in this area. I spent more than 20 years working on health inequalities and specifically on the assessment of policies to ensure that we get them right. That is part of the reason that I came into Parliament, and I know that this can be done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, if we are all so committed to reducing poverty and inequality, let us assess our policies before they are implemented, to ensure that they do just that.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but we should be a little cautious about assessing a particular bit of policy in isolation without considering other policy areas, because that might result in false information. For instance, if we examined a specific bit of Government spending, it may appear to be doing a fantastic job, but if we do not consider the counter-effect and the money that is being taken away from people elsewhere, it does not provide the whole picture and might lead to poor policy decisions.
I want us to look at the overall impact of Government policy in the round. For example, we should look not only at the impact of raising the personal tax allowance, which is positive because it enables people on low incomes to retain more of what they earn, but at where the Government are investing money. For health inequalities, we should look harder at the extra £20.5 billion going into healthcare and the impact of the NHS long-term plan, published yesterday, which has a particular focus on directing funding to reduce inequalities and increasing funding for primary and community care. Those things will particularly help those in the most deprived areas and those with some of the worst health outcomes.
I know that it is enormously controversial, but universal credit—I will probably get booed by the other side of the Chamber—is helping people into work and is doing so hand in hand with an economy that is strong overall, leading to unemployment in my constituency halving since 2010.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I totally support what the hon. Lady is saying about importance of inequalities and health inequalities, but does she not recognise that two thirds of children in poverty have a working parent? People are trapped in low-paid work, and they are still poor, and she knows from her time on the Health and Social Care Committee that poverty is the biggest driver of ill health and health inequalities.
Helen Whately
I recognise that there is poverty in working families, but I do not agree with her use of the word “trapped”. It is important to ensure that people are in work, because that is the best way out of poverty, and then to ensure that we support people to raise their earnings. One way of doing that is through the support available through the jobcentre when people resume universal credit, which now tends to help people to move up and earn more money, and the other is by looking at the wider economy. As the hon. Lady will know, the minimum wage has risen and is rising, but we are also seeing wages rising independent of the minimum wage as a result of a more productive economy. What is actually key to a better level of wellbeing and fewer people being in poverty is having more people in work, which is the case, and a more productive economy, which means that people earn more. We can achieve that through driving up skills and technology, increasing exports and a swath of other things that would take me into a whole other conversation.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the benefits of having a working parent or family member, but it also sets an enormously good example for the children. Children brought up in workless households have low aspirations and ambitions when it comes to obtaining work themselves, so somebody being in work is not just about money, it is about psychological and educative factors, too.
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While education standards are rising in our schools—readings levels, for example, are increasing substantially, leading to better opportunities for children—low levels of aspiration are still a problem and, as the teacher I was speaking to at a primary school in a deprived area said the other day, raising young people’s aspirations is key.
Laura Smith
I am completely insulted by the point made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). I grew up in in-work poverty. My parents were working, and I saw them struggle day in, day out, but I assure the House that my aspirations were not stopped. It may do some Members good to understand what people living in such conditions have to go through day in, day out, and Members should not patronise people when they simply do not understand the situation.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution and for the example she sets. Although she has described a very tough childhood, she is a role model and is playing her part in Parliament.
To be clear, what I said was from a conversation with a teacher, who is doing a very good job in a very deprived school, about her experience. The hon. Lady’s experience might be different but, from this teacher’s experience, although there is so much she can do to help children learn to read, write and perform better in their education, what would make the next difference for those children is for their aspirations to be raised and for them to have a sense of the opportunities for them beyond their needs and environment.
Helen Whately
I have already taken an intervention from the hon. Lady, so she has had a chance to make her point.
Vicky Ford
Does my hon. Friend agree that making sure people can keep more of their earnings before they pay tax, introducing the national living wage and reducing the very high taper rate for people on legacy benefits will all contribute to helping people to get out of the in-work poverty trap?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she reminds me of a constituency case, before universal credit, of a mum who was looking to raise her income but who was coming up against a threshold. If she worked more than 16 hours a week, she would not benefit, so she was trapped in poverty—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) used the word “trapped” earlier—because it did not make sense for her to increase her hours of work.
Luke Graham
My hon. Friend is making an important point about aspiration. In this House we often get caught on economics and money, but social capital is just as important. In many communities right across the United Kingdom, we need to be helping people to see the true opportunities, both inside and outside their communities, to allow them to realise their true potential. It is important that we consider the social alongside the monetary in all these debates.
Helen Whately
I absolutely agree and that is one reason why we have to look at policies in the round. I completely support the policy of taking people out of income tax, but let us look not just at that. Let us look, for example, at the strong economy, at the opportunities that gives people and, beyond that, at the strength provided by having a family and community around people, which also provides the social capital to be able to make the most of their lives.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenge for Parliament changes over time? In the Labour years we were very concerned in Parliament about the number of workless households—there were 3 million then. There are now a lot more people in work, but there is this issue, which has been rightly raised, of the quality of that work, of the skills involved and of whether it rewards people adequately. That is the new challenge, but we are making progress.
Helen Whately
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention.
The hon. Member for Gedling spoke earlier of his frustration. He did not want people to talk about changes in percentages and there being perhaps a few fewer people in poverty, but actually the numbers do matter. The numbers tell us what is happening, and the numbers are moving in the right direction, which is really important. The fact that the numbers are moving in the direction of our having fewer workless households should not be sniffed at or dismissed. Achieving that has been a challenging job, and it has involved a significant effort from many people.
Helen Whately
I think I should conclude my remarks, as I am aware that I have been speaking for a while.
New clauses 1 and 5, which call for reviews on specific aspects, have been advocated in a way that suggests that one side of the House cares more about poverty, for instance, than the other, but that is not the case at all. Members on the Conversative Benches care very deeply about poverty and equality within society.
What really matters is the track record of governing parties in these areas. I would raise these questions with the House. Which party in government oversaw an increase in unemployment from 5% to 8%? Which party left office with nearly 4 million workless households? Which party left office with rising absolute poverty? All of us know that it was Labour.
In contrast, under this Government, we have more than 3 million more people in work, the lowest unemployment since the 1970s, 600,000 fewer children living in workless households, falling absolute poverty and rising wages. When it comes down to it, this is what matters—getting right those policies that improve people’s lives, reduce inequality, reduce poverty and make life better for everybody. That is what we should all be backing.
Simon Hoare
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately).
I rise to oppose new clause 1, and I do so for these reasons. If any Members were so inclined, they should please come and visit my constituency of North Dorset. If they visited North Dorset, they could easily be forgiven for thinking that everything in the garden was rosy. There are pretty villages, attractive market towns, lush fields, healthy-looking cattle grazing and a strong local economy where unemployment is virtually zero. If Polly Toynbee or the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) were to arrive in North Dorset and say to me, “Simon, would you take me to your most deprived ward?” I could not, because I do not have one, but I know that I have pockets of deprivation and of poverty in each village and market town in my constituency.
One of the big challenges facing any suite of financial policies is recognising that poverty manifests itself in various ways and guises, but right the way across our nation. It is, I would suggest, far easier to identify large pockets of urban deprivation and poverty. The real public policy challenge is also to recognise and address those of rural poverty, often in sparsely populated areas where the instinct—maybe it is part of the rural community DNA—is slightly to shy away from asking the state, either local or national, for support and to demonstrate a strong sense of resilience and smaller communities trying to work together, although that is no excuse for any Government to shy away from focusing like an Exocet on trying to deliver policies that help to address rural poverty.
I am motivated by this every day. I know the figures move around, but the average national salary for the UK is in the region of £24,000 or £24,500 per annum, as I understand it. In North Dorset, when I was first elected in 2015, the figure was £16,500 and it has just risen to about £18,000, but rural jobs always pay less, if people are in the agricultural sector, food production or the hospitality trade. In those rural areas we do not have those big, high-paying employers. That is why we should always focus on trying to deliver support.
Laura Smith
I find myself agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about rural poverty. I am an MP in Cheshire, and our local food bank expresses real concern about the rise in the number of people who live in rural areas having to access the food bank. He is right about pride, and another relevant group is elderly people, who often will not access help and support, so it is important to mention rural poverty.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not entirely sure whether her support of me or my support of her has damaged her career more than it has damaged mine. We will leave our respective Whips to adjudicate on that. Nevertheless, she is absolutely right, and she is absolutely right to highlight that often incredibly annoying sense of pride when a retired person comes to an advice surgery. I say, “Look, we can try to help you to get this, that and the other,” and they say, “No, I don’t want to, Mr Hoare. I don’t think it is right. I have never asked the state for anything.” There is some locked-up pride among some of our retired citizens and we must forever say to them that the state in all its manifestations is there to provide. The second duty of the state, after keeping the country safe, is to provide that safety net that delivers self-respect and the opportunity for people to live with some semblance of dignity and happiness, particularly in their later lives.
Those in later life are a group that is often hard to reach. They will never be contacted through the digital economy; they need to be outreached to. I make the point again—I know the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) will agree with me—that one of the great challenges in sparsely populated rural areas is that outreach is often harder, because there is not that dense concentration such that at almost every door one knocks on in an area one would say “Yes, this is the area that requires most attention.”
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for painting this clear picture of rural poverty, but pockets of poverty occur in urban constituencies such as mine, too. Does he agree that poverty is about not only how much someone earns but the cost of living? That is why it is so important that we focus not just on the relative poverty measures that the Labour party focuses on, but on reducing absolute poverty, which is the measure that this Government have succeeded in dealing with.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pinpoint the cost of living. Opposition spokesmen sometimes dispute this, but it is more expensive to live in a rural area. It is more expensive to heat one’s home. Travel costs are higher, usually in the absence of public transport, meaning that the running of a car is not a luxury but a necessity if one is to access even the most basic of public or retail services.
Simon Hoare
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because I want to refer to the speech by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I hope that he will not think it is untoward for me to say this, but the passion with which he delivered his speech was powerful and incredibly compelling. He struck on a point that I was going to make and on which I had jotted down a note or two, and it is a point I have been making in recent speeches around the place. I often admire the Labour party—
Simon Hoare
There is always a “but”, though. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that my career has definitely gone now. I did not even know that I had a career, so that is going to be interesting.
There is usually no embarrassment on the Labour side at talking with passion about the burning injustices that we see in all our constituencies and having a clear determination to do something about them. There is no inhibition at all on the Labour side. On my side—I say this as somebody who has been a member of our party since 1985—I occasionally find that we get slightly inhibited about talking from the heart. Other Members have referred to this. We can bandy the statistics about—relative or absolute, percentage this versus percentage that, up, down, more in this, fewer than the other—but it does not matter, because if someone is poor, the statistics do not affect them: they are poor. They want to know that their elected representatives, locally, in this place and those in Whitehall are doing their damnedest to make their life just a little better.
I make this plea to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench: we on the Conservative Benches do not talk enough about the whys of politics. We talk a lot about the whats, but we do not say why. We find homelessness gut-wrenchingly upsetting. We find the closing down of hope, aspiration and life expectancy intensely moving, and we burn with the desire to help. It certainly motivates me every morning to get out of bed and to do my best for my constituents in whatever way I can by supporting policies that I fundamentally believe have the power to make our local economy, and therefore my constituents’ lives, better. If anybody in this House is not motivated by that fundamental political passion to stir up the soul to go and do something about it, I say to them with the greatest of respect that they should not be here. That, I think, must be our principal function. Members from both sides of the House want to arrive at a place where aspiration, hope and opportunity are available for as great a number of our citizens as we can possibly facilitate.
We also want to make sure that the economy is buoyant. Why? Because warm words butter no parsnips. The emotional speeches may salve our consciences, but we need the economic policies that deliver the taxes and pay for the safety net below which, I am determined, none of my constituents should, or will, ever fall on my watch. We need to be ever vigilant to make sure that our economic policies are delivering that growth.
Martin Whitfield
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I say with the greatest respect that he is making a very good speech for the two new clauses. The knowledge gained from reviewing policy implementation feeds into the decisions that go forward, so, at this stage, I invite him to support the two new clauses.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman is—what’s the phrase?—pushing his luck on that. I think that the divide here will be on the theoretical and the practical. I am always conscious that we can go to any Minister’s office, or any Department, or any local council, and find gathering dust, spiders and dead flies on many a window sill reports, reviews and assessments of this, that and the other, and they have a pretty short shelf life. I would much prefer to spend Government time focusing on delivering those policies of hope and growth.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady has winked at me in such a beguiling way that of course I will give way to her.
Laura Smith
I would just like to put it on the record that I absolutely did not.
Laura Smith
It was just a northern smile; that was all.
Does the hon. Gentleman not see that he has massively contradicted himself? His speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) has said, would indicate that he should really be supporting these new clauses, and yet, when pushed on it, he is not. Does he not agree that that is why people in the outside world become frustrated with politicians who are very good at speaking in one way, but who act in another?
Simon Hoare
It was all going so well, wasn’t it? I agree with the hon. Lady that many people become incredibly frustrated when a Minister of any political persuasion delivers a speech that makes them think, “Something good is going to flow from this”, but then very little has actually happened when they come to think about it.
I would prefer to do the doing rather than the reviewing. I do not need a whole series of reviews to tell me that there are poor, deprived people who live in North Dorset. I do not need tables of statistics to tell me that I am going to hold the Government to account to ensure that policies are delivered to provide support for those who need it, to encourage a ladder of expectation and aspiration for those who wish to scale it, and to put policies in place to ensure that we remain a civilised and humane society. I do not need a whole bookcase of learned treatises to tell me this. It was strange that the hon. Member for Gedling made exactly that point—that he did not need a whole load of statistics and reviews—when that is actually what new clauses 1 and 5 are calling for.
I do not need these pieces of paper to tell me that it is the first duty of a Government of any colour—even if it were the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) sitting on the Government Benches and my right hon. Friend the Minister sitting on the Opposition side—to try to ensure that the economy grows and that opportunities are presented.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
As well as not needing to do these reviews, does my hon. Friend agree that we should be looking at our track record—at what has actually happened when it comes to getting the deficit and the debt down? Surely that is what people will be looking at. What gives them the most comfort that we will be able to deliver on our promises in the future is that we have delivered on them in the past.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is right, but I think people will look at it differently. I think that most people in this country come to an evaluation of an Administration, irrespective of which party happens to be in power, based on whether they and their family group feel more secure, more prosperous and more confident about their opportunities, and on whether they can see that the opportunities for the next generation of their family are going to be deeper and wider than those presented to them when they were making their first choices.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
If I may say so, my hon. Friend is making the speech of his life. In a finance debate, it is particularly good to hear a speech about burning injustices, and I agree with him that this is the right place to be having this debate. In turn, does he agree with me that employment is at the base of dealing with all those injustices?
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is right. I think that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) slightly misheard my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans said precisely what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, which was that although the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was in a tight or low-income household, it was a house of work.
Simon Hoare
Of course, but let me just finish this point with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis).
Where did we all learn that it was normal and expected to get out of bed in the morning, have a bit of a wash and a tidy-up, get ourselves to school and then on to work, and all the rest of it? It was from our parents. Growing up in Cardiff, I can remember large council estates where worklessness was endemic, and where the welfare state had not been that support, safety net or springboard, but had instead become a way of life for too many people. If that is the case, how on earth can we expect anybody to learn the work ethic?
I chaired the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis, which two years ago held an inquiry into people with MS who were in work and wanted to stay in work. Without reducing employability to a utilitarian argument, for people to feel that, even with a painful degenerative condition, they could still play an active, productive role in their family’s life, in the life of their community and thereby in the life of the economy nationally, had a huge impact on their mental health. I therefore entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, who speaks with great passion on this issue.
An understanding of employment and the benefits that flow from it has to be rehearsed again and again by Treasury Ministers and other Ministers. We take this for granted, possibly because it is in our DNA and possibly because it is the only thing that we have ever known, but we must be conscious that there are others in our country who have not. We should be advocates, apostles, evangelisers and any other word one could think of in shouting from the rafters the strong benefits of employment.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only has employment benefited but, since 2010, this Government have delivered a reduction of 661,000 in the number of children living in workless households—so over half a million young people are now growing up in a home where they are getting those lessons on the importance of work—and have also reduced the number of children living in absolute poverty by 200,000?
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend helps me and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury by amplifying the point.
I said earlier that I was born and brought up in Cardiff. One of my abiding memories was of my late grandmother, who was born in 1908, and what motivated her throughout the whole of her life. She was the daughter of Irish immigrants. When she was at school—a Catholic primary school called St Patrick’s in Grangetown —a teacher brought a child to the front of the class, theatrically held their nose, and said, “Boy, go home, you smell.”
I can remember, in different circumstances in the 1970s, my Catholic primary school in Cardiff called St Mary’s. It was the school that my mother had gone to as well. It drew from a mixed economic demographic. There was a family with three children—I can see them now. If I sound emotional on this point, it is because I am. I am emotional because I can remember—although this may sound entirely preposterous and pompous—how I felt as an eight or nine-year-old, as I was, seeing this family. The mother always looked underfed. The father always looked harassed to death. The children, one of whom was in my class, had a colour of poverty. They had a smell of poverty. Poverty has a smell about it. It has a posture about it. It says, “We are beaten.” At the age of eight, nine or 10, I can remember looking at my classmate and thinking, “What can I do?” I realised that I could do nothing apart from provide a bit of friendship and support, and I did it as best I could, as I am sure that anybody would.
But that impotence of an eight-year-old has disappeared, and I can now stand here as a 49-year-old—[Interruption.] Yes, only 49—I know. I have had a hard life—that is what I tell my wife, anyway. I burn with the sense of injustice that the hon. Member for Gedling expressed. We are all in a position in this place where we are not impotent—we can actually do something about this. If I thought that Her Majesty’s Government were not as committed as I am on this issue, I would be in the Lobby with Opposition Members, but I do not think that. I think that the strategy of the Finance Bill is right. Our values and our principles must shine through. I urge Treasury Ministers and other Ministers to talk a little more about the why of what we are doing in our politics and a little less about the percentages and statistics.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to talk about a few issues, many of which have been brought up during the debate. The first is the subject of new clauses 1 and 5, both of which I support, and the way in which they have been written. I stress to the Government, and particularly to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), that the reason why the new clauses call for reviews is that we have no amendment of the law resolution, which means that we cannot put forward more robust amendments that ask the Government to do things. If we could have tabled more robust amendments, we would have done so, and I am sure that the Labour party would have done so as well. The Government have chosen to hamstring us and, as I have said before, when Conservative Members are sitting on the Opposition Benches, they will regret this behaviour. The fact that they chose not to move an amendment of the law motion makes it much more difficult for us to table any substantive amendments, but we are doing our best.
The things that we have managed to do during these Finance Bill debates are unparalleled in the Scottish National party’s history. We have managed to have two substantive amendments accepted to the Bill. I had two amendments accepted to the previous Finance Bill, but they were particularly minor. These ones are much more substantive and call for reviews. One of those amendments fits nicely in this section of our proceedings, as it relates to the public health effects of gambling. I am pleased that that amendment continues to be in the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister bringing forward that review in the next six months, as we have called for him to do.
There are various reasons why a Government can choose to change or introduce taxes. They can choose to have a tax to raise funds for the Government. They can choose to have a tax relief to encourage positive behaviour, or a tax to discourage negative behaviour. They can choose to have a tax to do one of the things that the Opposition and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) have been keen to talk about. They can choose their priorities. They can choose to have a tax system that aims to reduce child poverty, reduce inequality and increase life expectancy, and we are asking for that to be the Government’s focus when they are setting taxes.
The Government should be looking at the life chances of the citizens who live on these islands and doing what they can to improve those life chances. That is the most important thing—it is why these reviews are being asked for. Whether or not the taxes that the Government have set are appropriate, we are asking for a change of focus and a change of priority, and I think the hon. Member for North Dorset was agreeing with that.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Forgive me if I am stating the obvious, but do we not also need these reviews because we have Brexit coming up, and we have to be able to reflect on and evidence things?
Kirsty Blackman
That is correct. One of the difficult things about looking at the potential outcomes of Brexit is that those stats do not exist. It is all well and good to talk about the fact that there are reviews sitting on shelves gathering dust, but we need stats. We need stats to be able to prove that Government policy does what it says on the tin.
The Minister can stand up and say, “This policy will raise £100 million for the Government,” but I would like to see not only the working beforehand, but the review afterwards that proves that the policy did what the Government intended it to do. I have been clear on a number of occasions that I do not think the Government do enough of that evidencing. The reviews being asked for would allow the Government to provide us with that evidence. Evidence written by the Government, rather than an independent individual, is still a legitimate thing that we can look at. The hon. Member for Torbay seemed to suggest that we would doubt information were it to come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—surely not! It would be good for him to provide that.
I want to talk about a few things that the SNP has been doing in Scotland and the changes we have chosen to make to not only our tax system, but other systems, and particularly those that affect the issues raised in new clauses 1 and 5. We have mitigated the bedroom tax, which has been a major factor in us having the lowest child poverty rate of any country in the UK. We have increased the number of people from disadvantaged areas who are going to university. We are making major changes to the care system for looked-after children. Those young people have had some of the poorest life chances in the past, and what the Scottish Government are doing on that is hugely important for ensuring that their life chances are improved.
We have increased the pregnancy and baby grant to £600. We are improving access to childcare, and we have the baby box scheme. We are the best country in the UK at paying the living wage—not the pretendy living wage, but the real living wage. People working in Scotland are more likely to be paid the living wage than those working in England. About half of taxpayers in England pay more than they would if they lived in Scotland, and that is the half of taxpayers who are earning the least. We think that that is a progressive measure that is assisting people to get out of poverty.
Luke Graham
The hon. Lady is bringing out the successes of the SNP Administration in Edinburgh, but does it not still stand that, after a decade in power and with powers over taxation and healthcare, men and women in Scotland live for two years less than other people in the United Kingdom? In fact, we have the lowest life expectancy in the whole United Kingdom. There may be some successes—I support those on care—but certainly on the one thing that matters most, which is keeping people alive the longest, the SNP is an abject failure.
Kirsty Blackman
We have not had taxation powers for 10 years, and we do not have the full range of powers. For example, we do not have the full range of powers over public health, so we do not have in Scotland powers such as the public health taxation measures—the sugar tax—that were brought forward in the previous Budget. We do not have the full range of powers, and if Scotland were to be an independent country, with the full range of powers, we would be putting the things we are discussing today at the heart of our Government’s agenda. Our Government have done this and we will continue to do this—we are pushing for fairness.
I will wrap up, because I am aware that I am relatively short of time, but I want to talk about the people who are the poorest and, by the way, the most disadvantaged by the way in which this society is set up. Following the changes to universal credit, those in the bottom 30% of incomes will gain less from the work allowance than they will lose in the benefit freeze. The benefit freeze is costing them more than the changes to the work allowance will give them. Those people, who have no recourse to public funds, are the poorest individuals I see coming through my door, and this Government have caused that situation. This Government have caused a situation in which asylum seekers have got absolutely nothing. This is about the very poorest people, who have got the worst life chances as a result, and this Government are completely failing to do anything to support them or to improve their life chances. This is about people on disability benefits, who are really struggling, and at every turn, this Government have made their lives worse, rather than better. This is about lone parents, who are disadvantaged as a result of universal credit. This is about the increases in food bank usage.
The Government talk about people working their way out of poverty. I do not understand how people can have hope when they do not have enough to eat.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I thank everybody who has made a contribution in this very important debate. There have been some extremely passionate and well-argued speeches.
Part of the debate has been exemplified by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who spoke in effect about who cares about these issues. We need to recognise that Members on both sides of this House—I include the Opposition in my remarks—care very deeply about whether our fellow citizens in our great nation are impoverished, are in dire straits, do not have enough to make ends meet, do not have enough to feed their children, or have children who do not have the opportunities in life that we wish for our children in turn. Those things matter considerably, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the quality of the speech he delivered, particularly in that respect.
Something else that lay at the heart of the debate between the hon. Member for Gedling and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, is whether the numbers matter. Do the figures matter? I think it was the contention of the hon. Member for Gedling that, in a sense, the figures do not matter. In a curious way, that is rather at odds with the notion of supporting new clause 1, because it calls for more figures to inform our decisions. In one sense, of course, the figures do not matter, because what matters is the condition of the people who live in our country. However, figures do matter when it comes to formulating the policy responses we need to address the situation, and if we are, in any meaningful way, to chart the progress, or otherwise, that Governments—ours and the Labour Governments who preceded us—have made on this extremely important issue.
Debbie Abrahams
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this, but the European Commission does this sort of analysis every year on its programme of policies, so it is not that this cannot be done. Its work covers not just quantitative but qualitative data, which relates to the points my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made. There needs to be more than what the Government are doing—they do not know what the impacts of their policies will be.
Mel Stride
I think I have been misunderstood, and I apologise to the hon. Lady if I was not clear enough. I am certainly not saying that data does not matter—quite the opposite. What I am saying is that we need to have the right kind of data for the exercise to be meaningful and worth while.
New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to report on the impact of changes to the personal allowance and the higher rate threshold on households of different levels of income, on child poverty, on equality and on those individuals with protected characteristics. New clause 5 would require the Chancellor to report on the Bill’s effect on child poverty, life expectancy and public health.
Let me first address the question of the Treasury’s compliance with its public sector equality duty, as referenced in new clause 1(2)(c). Equality and fairness continue to lie right at the heart of the Government’s agenda, and we take our compliance with this duty deeply seriously while deciding policy. That means that Government decisions are explicitly informed by the evidence available of the implications of those decisions for those sharing protected characteristics. I have no hesitation in saying that the Treasury complies with the public sector equality duty.
Further provisions in new clauses 1 and 5 call for the publication of different forms of analysis for clause 5 and for the whole Bill in turn. The Government have been, and continue to be, transparent—more transparent than any other. Changes to the tax system are always accompanied by a tax information and impact note, and each Budget is accompanied by detailed distributional analysis.
TIINs, in particular, are relevant to the questions discussed today. These notes provide Parliament and taxpayers with information on the expected effects of changes to the tax system, and form a vital part of the Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability around tax decisions. In the context of clause 5, for example, the TIIN already sets out the impact on groups of taxpayers according to their age, gender and income tax band, and this data is readily available to HMRC through tax returns.
Vernon Coaker
That is the point: the assumptions on distributional analysis are assumptions. What we want is to see whether those assumptions turn into reality.
Mel Stride
I will come to the very issue that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises.
Clause 5 will benefit households across the UK. Due to the information collected by HMRC through tax returns, we have various pieces of information on geographical distribution, as sought under new clause 1(2)(d). That is an important point, because much of the information being requested is actually already available.
In addition, the distributional analysis published by the Treasury already sets out the impact of tax changes on households with different levels of income. To be completely clear, the analysis shows how the living standards of households in each tenth of the income distribution will be affected by the decisions the Chancellor and Prime Minister have taken since they took office in 2016. Not only does the analysis meet the intention of new clause 5(2)(a) regarding the effects of the Government’s tax changes on different households, it actually goes beyond that by including changes to welfare and spending on public services, and by considering changes in addition to those announced at each fiscal event since the autumn statement in 2016.
There is, as I suggested at the outset of my remarks, much that we can agree on across the House. Child poverty, public health, life expectancy and inequality are among the greatest issues of our age. We have got on with the job. Absolute poverty rates are at record lows. One million fewer people are in poverty now than under Labour. I say to the hon. Member for Gedling that 1 million is indeed a number, but for every one of those million, their lives have been enhanced. That includes 300,000 fewer children in poverty than under Labour. As we know, the best route out of poverty is through work. There are 3 million more people in work now than in 2010, with 637,000 fewer children in workless households. That is a record of which we should be proud. I urge the House to reject the new clauses.
Peter Dowd
If I may rephrase St Augustine, who said “O Lord, make me chaste, but not yet,” what we have here is a Government saying, “O Lord, make me charitable and compassionate, but not just now. Let’s do it in the future.” It comes to something when the British Government, with an expenditure of approximately £840 billion a year, say that it will be difficult to get statistics, either qualitative or quantitative, from which they can make policy. That is how it seems to me, but I tell you what: every day when I am in my constituency I see people who are homeless. What have the Government done about that? Nothing. I see food banks opening up all the time. What are the Government doing about that? Absolutely nothing. What are the Government doing about the 24% of homeless people who are from the LGBT community? Absolutely nothing. And then we heard the dross coming out—that is what it is, dross—about intergenerational worklessness. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation—through evidence, through statistics, through analysis—found that that was not a significant factor in homelessness. So we hear all this talk about charity, compassion and working together, but I am afraid it does not wash when it comes from the mouths of Tories.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Review of effect of carbon emissions tax on climate targets—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effect of the carbon emissions tax on the United Kingdom’s ability to meet its internationally agreed climate targets and lay a report of that review before the House within six months of the passing of this Act.”
New clause 12—Review of expenditure implications of Part 3—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expenditure implications of commencing Part 3 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) No regulations may be made by the Commissioners under section 78(1) unless the review under subsection (1) has been laid before the House of Commons.”
This new clause would require a review within 6 months of the expenditure implications of introducing a carbon emissions tax. It would prevent part 3 (carbon emissions tax) coming into effect until such a review had been laid before the House of Commons.
New clause 13—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 2)—
“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) sections 68 to 78,
(b) section 89, and
(c) section 90.
(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—
(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,
(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft,
(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”
This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of the Bill – alongside New Clause 11, New Clause 14 and New Clause 15.
New clause 19—Review of powers in consequence of EU withdrawal (No. 2)—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than a week after the passing of this Act and before exercising the power in section 89(1), lay before the House of Commons a review of the following matters—
(a) the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of the powers in section 89(1) and of the outcome of negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union giving rise to their exercise;
(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects if a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the EU had been agreed to;
(c) any differences in the exercise of those powers in respect of—
(i) England,
(ii) Scotland,
(iii) Wales, and
(iv) Northern Ireland;
(d) any differential effects in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) in relation between—
(i) England,
(ii) Scotland,
(iii) Wales, and
(iv) Northern Ireland.”
This new clause would require a review of the economic and fiscal impact of the use of the powers in section 89 in the event of no deal and in event of a withdrawal agreement passing.
Amendment 16, in clause 78, page 51, line 32, after “may” insert
“(subject to section (Review of expenditure implications of Part 3))”.
See New Clause 12.
Amendment 1, in clause 89, page 66, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than a week after the passing of this Act and before exercising the power in subsection (1), lay before the House of Commons a review of the following matters—
(a) the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of those powers and of the outcome of negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union giving rise to their exercise;
(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects if a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the EU had been agreed to;
(c) any differences in the exercise of those powers in respect of—
(i) Great Britain, and
(ii) Northern Ireland;
(d) any differential effects in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) in relation between
(i) Great Britain, and
(ii) Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of the powers in subsection (1) before exercising those powers.
Amendment 13, page 67, line 7, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) No statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would make Clause 89 (Minor amendments in consequence of EU withdrawal) subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 7, page 67, line 19, at end insert—
“(7) The provisions of this section only come into force if—
(a) a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, or
(b) the Prime Minister has notified the President of the European Council, in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, of the United Kingdom’s request to extend the period in which the Treaties shall still apply to the United Kingdom, or
(c) leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would prevent the Government implementing the “no deal” provisions of Clause 89 without the explicit consent of Parliament for such an outcome. It would provide three options for the provisions of Clause 89 to come into force: if the House of Commons has approved a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship; if the Government has sought an extension of the Article 50 period; or the House of Commons has approved leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship.
Amendment 8, page 67, line 19, at end insert—
“(7) The provisions of this section shall not come into force until the House of Commons has come to a resolution on a motion made by a Minister of the Crown agreeing its commencement.”
Amendment 14, in clause 90, page 67, line 22, after “may” insert
“(subject to subsections (1A) and (1B))”.
See Amendment 15
Amendment 15, page 67, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Before proposing to incur expenditure under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) a statement of the circumstances (in relation to negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union) that give rise to the need for such preparatory expenditure, and
(b) an estimate of the expenditure to be incurred.
(1B) No expenditure may be incurred under subsection (1) unless the House of Commons comes to a resolution that it has considered the statement and estimate under subsection (1A) and approves the proposed expenditure.”
This amendment would require a statement on the circumstances (in relation to negotiations) giving rise to the need for, as well as an estimate of the cost of, preparatory expenditure to introduce a charging scheme for greenhouse gas allowances. The amendment would require a Commons resolution before expenditure could be incurred.
New clause 18—Review of effects on measures in Act of certain changes in migration levels—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on the provisions of this Act of migration in the scenarios in subsection (2) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one month of the passing of this Act.
(2) Those scenarios are that—
(a) the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union,
(b) the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement,
(c) the United Kingdom leaves the European Union following a negotiated withdrawal agreement, and remains in the single market and customs union,
(d) the United Kingdom leaves the United Kingdom on the terms of the draft withdrawal agreement of 14 November 2018.
(3) In respect of each of those scenarios the review must consider separately the effects of—
(a) migration by EU nationals, and
(b) migration by non-EU nationals.
(4) In respect of each of those scenarios the review must consider separately the effects on the measures in each part of the United Kingdom and each region of England.
(5) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a review of effects on measures in the Bill of certain changes in migration levels.
Jonathan Reynolds
This group of amendments relates to the tax and fiscal implications of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
Throughout the last year Parliament has been asked to approve a series of Bills giving the Government the power to deliver every type of Brexit deal conceivable, and this Finance Bill is no different. I said when closing the Second Reading debate on the Bill for the Opposition that this approach was one of “give us the powers now and we will make the decisions later,” and as it currently stands Brexit represents the biggest transfer of power to the Executive in modern constitutional history. That is disappointing for anyone who thought Brexit would see greater powers for this Parliament, but it is also a recipe for very bad decisions, and there is a classic culprit in this Finance Bill in the form of clause 89. Innocently named “Minor amendments in consequence of EU withdrawal”, it gives the Government power to amend tax legislation without any of the usual due process in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
The Government always tell us—I am sure they will do so again—that this is simply a safeguarding provision that we will never have to use, but all of us here today know that as it stands the Government have absolutely no chance of getting their deal through, because that deal does not deliver the basics of what this country needs. It does not deliver smooth, low-friction borders for manufacturing and supply chains, nor does it deliver market access for financial services. It also fails to resolve the big question: after we leave the EU, will we prioritise market access or trade autonomy? Because of that, we will almost certainly end up in the backstop arrangements, a halfway house without any say for the UK—the very worst of all worlds.
The new clauses and amendments are therefore of seminal importance, and I am extremely grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for laying amendment 7 before the House today. It is clearly a cross-party amendment, supported by the Chairs of the Treasury, Exiting the European Union and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committees, but it has the Opposition’s support because it offers Parliament a chance to make a clear statement rejecting a no-deal outcome—a statement that cannot come soon enough.
Anyone pretending that crashing out without a deal is simply about resorting to World Trade Organisation schedules is dangerously misinformed. As The Economist magazine said last month:
“A no-deal Brexit is about a lot more than trade—it would see many legal obligations and definitions lapse immediately, potentially putting at risk air travel, electricity interconnections and a raft of financial services”.
It would mean tariffs on trade with the EU, but it would also affect trade beyond the EU as all our current trade agreements negotiated as an EU member would immediately cease to apply. Agriculture, aerospace, the automotive sector—all these major sectors of our economy—would face potentially irreparable damage, and while tariffs may be reduced over time, excise duties and health checks on food, plants and livestock cannot be reduced so easily. Researchers at Imperial College London have calculated that just two minutes more transit time per lorry at Dover and the Channel tunnel translates into a 47 km traffic jam, and for perishable items like food, delays of that magnitude simply could not be sustained. When we add to that higher prices through tariffs and further inflationary pressure from another inevitable fall in the value of the pound, it is a recipe for significant pressure on living standards. That is why the Opposition say that no deal is not a real option.
There has been some suggestion that the Government might accept amendment 7.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that by ruling out preparations for no deal one is in effect tying the hands of one’s negotiating team, which in effect makes a trade deal—which we all, I think, would prefer to leaving on WTO terms—more difficult to achieve and therefore makes leaving on WTO terms more likely?
Jonathan Reynolds
The facts are as they are. It is far too late for that. Everyone knows the position that this country is in. The Government have run down the clock. They lost their majority through a general election that they did not need to call, and it is far too late to start applying the logic that might have applied several years ago. Because of that, our vulnerability is evident for everyone to see. No one should underestimate the likelihood of a no-deal outcome at this stage. No one should be pretending, through semantics or parliamentary chicanery, that we might be able to present no deal as a way of giving us greater leverage in negotiations. I am afraid that the Government have got us to the point of ruin if that is the strategy that Conservative Members wish to pursue.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Given that the Business Secretary said in the House earlier that no deal should not be contemplated, and that my hon. Friend is outlining the possibility of the Government accepting amendment 7, would it not be right for the Government to say clearly at the end of business today that they are ruling out no deal because it would be so damaging to this country?
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We all know that several members of the Government take that view, even though they may not be able to say it on the record. They are quite clear as to what no deal would mean, and they would not contemplate going down that route. It would be far simpler and far better to get to a position where ruling out no deal was clearly the Government’s intent.
New clause 3 would oblige the Government to publish a review of the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of the powers in clause 89, as well as the differences between exercising those powers in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. As we edge closer to the reality of crashing out without a deal, clause 89 is not simply hypothetical. We are now just two and a half months away from the UK’s exit without an agreement. It is therefore of critical importance that we have a full and transparent view of the implications of a clause of this kind.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going to have to do a bit better than this. He talks about crashing out without a deal, but he needs to get into the detail of the implications. Perhaps he is going to start talking about planes, but amazingly, the planes are going to keep flying. Amazingly, we are still going to have drugs supplied into the United Kingdom. He needs to get down into the detail of exactly what the implications will be, because if we are faced with the reality of no overall agreement, there will be a barrow-load of minor agreements to ensure that the common interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union survive the transfer to WTO terms on 29 March with minimum impact on the citizens of the EU and the UK. It is time he got real and stopped this nonsense—
Jonathan Reynolds
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have just talked about some of the consequences of crashing out without a deal. I have talked about relationships, about tariffs on products and about the legal definitions under the common agreements that this country has undertaken with other European countries. We all know this—the information is readily available—so I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. I think he is aware of the dangers of taking this course of action.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
With respect, it is quite right to concede that some of the fears being raised about no deal are grossly exaggerated, but the problems are quite real enough. If we leave with no deal, we will be the only developed country in the world that has no trade agreement at all with anybody and that is having to fall back on WTO rules, which are made to sound marvellous by the Brexiteers but which do not actually amount to very much. We will also be erecting new barriers to trade and investment around the borders of the United Kingdom, including along the Irish border, and that is bound to disadvantage our economy very seriously indeed.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Father of the House is as accurate as ever. Some colleagues are pursuing a dangerous argument that all our trading relationships with countries that are not in the EU are somehow currently under WTO terms, which is an absurd misconception. We have entered into trade agreements as a member of the EU that account for something like 16% of our goods exports.
Regardless of the significant impacts of a no-deal outcome, we could go further and say that to leave the EU having not secured a deal—an acrimonious departure —would damage our relationship with our most important trading partner for years to come and fundamentally undermine our credibility on the world stage. I cannot see how any serious-minded Member of this House could understand that that would not be of severe consequence for the United Kingdom, which is why it is so important that this House makes a clear statement today about the dangers of no deal.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can the hon. Gentleman name a single country that has a free trade agreement with the EU that will not transfer it to the UK under the novation procedures?
Jonathan Reynolds
We simply do not know the answer to that question. I always listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in Treasury and Finance Bill debates, but he is one of the archetypal Members who come to the House and pursues what I call the BMW argument: “Everything will be fine because we buy BMWs and everyone will give us what we want.” That argument is still being pursued in these debates, but it has been proved completely untrue by the stage of the negotiations that we are at. It is simply not good enough to say, “It will all be alright on the night. Everyone will transfer over the benefits we currently have. It will be as straightforward as that.” If that were case, the Government would not be in this morass and the country would be in a far better position.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
First, is it not the case that the UK and, indeed, the entire EU currently trade with major economies, such as the USA and China, under WTO terms? Therefore, while not desirable, they can be made to work. Secondly, if we adopt the shadow Minister’s approach and rule out no deal, we have no choice but to remain in the EU or to accept whatever the EU sees fit to give us, which is not a great negotiating position.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly agree that what the Government have got us into is not a great negotiating position, but that is because the negotiations have been driven by the best interests of the internal politics of the Conservative party. If the national interest had been considered, we would be in a completely different place.
Trade can exist on WTO terms. It is not that the UK would somehow no longer be a trading nation, but that is not the test of good Government policy. The test is to consider the ramifications of that decision and to decide whether it is in the UK’s best interests, but I cannot believe that anyone would look rationally at what a no-deal outcome means and say, “I would find that acceptable for this country.”
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does not my hon. Friend think that it would be irresponsible for any Government not to be making contingency plans for WTO rules in these circumstances? Does he also agree that the Irish Taoiseach has in the past few days looked for the first time at making some changes to his intransigent approach to the backstop, precisely because the Republic of Ireland would suffer so much more from WTO terms than the United Kingdom?
Jonathan Reynolds
The merits of the Government undertaking contingency measures are different from the political case that we must consider, which is whether we would find it desirable to undertake a course of action that would mean that we had to use those contingency measures. The focus of the debate in this Finance Bill should be a seriously hard-headed look at the consequences of no deal, and there should be a statement from Members on both sides of the House that that is not what we seek for the UK and that we do not believe that it is possible.
Jonathan Reynolds
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), and I may come to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) if the intervention is good enough.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. My concern is with how he can support undermining the making of contingency preparations that are in the national interest, which is the effect of amendment 7. It is just the wrong thing to do, and the Labour party ought to be more responsible than that.
Jonathan Reynolds
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and a little humility from Conservative Members on the point about responsibility for the Brexit negotiations would be appreciated. For my entire lifetime, this country’s European policy has been dictated by the internal politics of the Conservative party. Every Conservative Prime Minister in my lifetime has been brought down by the issue of Europe. To suggest that any other political party or actor in this country needs to have more regard for the national interest, when it is the Conservative party that has never been able to do so, is not something I will take.
Daniel Kawczynski
Bearing in mind that 95% of the world’s growth over the coming decades will come from outside the European Union, what assessment has he made of the opportunities that will be afforded to the United Kingdom by our being able to tailor-make bilateral trading agreements?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely glad that that issue has come up, because the opportunities created by growth outside the EU have no relationship to our membership of the EU, and could possibly be undermined by our leaving the EU. If we want to compete in competitive emerging markets around the world, what better way is there to do so than from within the single market? I would wager with the hon. Gentleman that a country like Germany will do far better from that growth around the world through its continued membership of the European Union than we will. I am afraid that it is because of such statistics, which have no bearing on serious Government policy or reality, that this debate has got to where it is, but I will move away from a wider debate on Brexit and return to the Finance Bill before you tell me to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I will now come to clause 89 and the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Under the draft withdrawal agreement it is widely accepted that, under the backstop arrangements, Northern Ireland will remain in regulatory alignment with the European Union, which would be particularly the case for EU customs law but it would also apply to compliance with elements of EU single market regulation in the technical regulation of goods, state aid and other areas of north-south co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Of course, Northern Ireland would be included in parts of the EU VAT and excise regimes and in the single electricity market.
With that in mind, it is clear that the powers handed to the Treasury by this Bill may not be applicable in Northern Ireland in the legal and regulatory areas under which EU authority would remain. We are therefore seeking a review that clearly sets out any difference in application of these powers in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I urge Members on both sides of the House to support new clause 3.
New clause 7 relates to clause 90 on establishing an emissions reduction trading regime. It would require the Government to review the expected effect of the carbon emissions tax on the UK’s capacity to meet internationally agreed climate targets. There has never been a more critical time to take urgent action on climate change to avoid environmental catastrophe. The report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in October 2018, shows that we have just 12 years left to make unprecedented changes to prevent global warming increases above 1.5° C. Our exit from the European Union must not be used as an excuse to step back from action on climate change. Worryingly, clause 90 contains one of the Bill’s very few passing references to environmental issues, and our review, proposed in new clause 7, would ensure that the Government are held accountable for making progress on reducing emissions without using Brexit as an excuse for stalling.
This is evidently a Government in chaos, seemingly without any plan or strategy at all. The new clauses and amendments in this group would improve both the Finance Bill and the process by which we leave the European Union. They are sensible, proportionate and timely, and I commend them to the House.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I realise that time is short and that many hon. and right hon. Members want to speak on this group, which shows the appetite of Members on both sides of the House to have their say on this critical issue. There is a deep frustration that debate was curtailed last month before we got to the meaningful vote on the Prime Minister’s draft withdrawal agreement.
I rise to support amendment 7, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and to which I have added my name, and amendment 8.
Nicky Morgan
I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but I think that it would have been better to have had this debate in 2016 rather in 2019, because the honest truth is that the Brexit that some Members on these Benches and some people out in the country say that they want was not outlined in any way, shape or form in the 2016 referendum. I refer to one Member, who said at the time, “Only a madman would leave the single market.” Yet now, that is exactly what he is proposing should happen.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) about the advantages of WTO, and I will tell him why: if it was so good, Members who are backing the WTO option—a no-deal option—would not be so keen to get into negotiating free trade agreements so quickly with countries around the world. I do not know whether it was my hon. Friend, but one Member just now talked about trading with America and China, yet free trade agreements with America and China are touted all the time by those in favour of Brexit as agreements that need to be negotiated as quickly as possible.
The honest truth is that to make trade work around the world, all countries will seek to enter into agreements with countries they want to trade with in order to lift or to lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers. That is what we have done, very successfully, in our relationship with the European Union since we joined over 40 years ago.
Mr Baron
My right hon. Friend is being very gracious and I very much appreciate that.
Many of us in this place—I would like to think the majority of us—would prefer a good trade deal to WTO. That is not inconsistent, but I think what my right hon. Friend misses is that on a bad deal versus WTO we have got to get the balance right, because the EU has had such a bad track record on negotiating trade deals. We trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms very profitably and very successfully, even though many of us would prefer a good trade deal.
Nicky Morgan
Trade deals are immensely complicated. While Members know how I voted in 2016, I accept that this country will be leaving the European Union on 29 March—with regret, I have to say, but I do accept it—but one of the debates that we have not even started to have is how the House is going to approach the approval of trade deals. I can tell my hon. Friend that this is a real worry to those who are going to be negotiating those agreements. We saw with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership just how politically contentious that agreement was, even though it did not even reach the House as an agreement. We are going to spend the next few decades in the House negotiating and approving trade deals, which everybody, for various constituency reasons, will have problems with.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful argument. Does she recall that the trade deal between America and Canada, which was a “willing buyer, willing seller” trade deal, took many, many years? The idea that this is some wonderfully easy, smooth, simple process is, frankly, rubbish.
Nicky Morgan
I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, and on this issue he speaks much good sense, as always. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will listen to what he has to say. I am conscious of the time, so shall move on.
Over the past two years, we have heard it said in the House that no deal is better than a bad deal. I have to say that no deal is a terrible deal and it would be a gross dereliction of the responsibility of Members of this House to inflict no-deal on our constituents.
Nicky Morgan
I am afraid I am going to make some progress. My hon. Friend will be able to intervene on other Members.
Those who wanted Brexit talked often about the taking back of control. I have not had time to watch the film broadcast on Channel 4 last night, but I understand that that was a key part of it. As I have said before, it is right that control should come back to this Parliament, and it is right and it is time for Members of Parliament on all sides to make it clear to the Government that a no-deal Brexit outcome is absolutely unacceptable.
It will have been noticed that many of those who have put their names to amendment 7 are Chairs of Select Committees. The Treasury Committee took evidence in December—I am grateful to all Committee members, who have varying views on Brexit—and we produced a unanimous report. One thing that was made very clear is that, compared with today’s trading arrangements, and assuming no change to migration arrangements, our GDP would take a 7.7% hit on a modelled no-deal scenario. That is greater than the impact of the 2008 financial crisis. Members who have been in the House since 2010, and perhaps just before, will know the impact of the financial crisis on our constituents.
Finally, as a wise general said to me a few weeks ago, Britain is renowned for its confidence and competence. Currently, we are demonstrating neither. A no-deal Brexit will completely destroy any reputation we have for confidence and competence. The Government decided to put off the meaningful vote, although hopefully we will get it either this week or next. It is time for Members of Parliament on all sides to start ruling out options that would be deeply damaging to our country. That is what amendment 7 and 8 are about, and I will be delighted to support them both, should they be voted on.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), because although we represent different parties and disagree on many issues, and although we will take different positions on the Prime Minister’s deal when it comes to a vote, on this issue we agree. I rise to speak to amendment 7 and to support amendment 8.
We agree on the dangers of no deal to the country. I tabled amendment 7 because I am really worried that delays, drift or brinkmanship mean that there is now a serious risk that we will end up crashing out of the EU with no deal in just 80 days’ time. I am worried that we could come to the crunch and Parliament would not have the powers to stop it happening. We have a responsibility not just to stand by. I believe that the Government should rule out no deal but, if they will not, Parliament must make sure that it has the powers to do so if it comes to the crunch.
Amendment 7 has support from across the House. It has been signed by Chairs of cross-party Committees—it has the support of the Chairs of the Treasury Committee, the Exiting the European Union Committee, the Liaison Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and others, too—and it is supported by those with a wide range of views on the best way forward. It is supported by those who support the Prime Minister’s deal and those, like me, who do not, and it shows that those who take a wide range of views on the best way forward have come together to say that we should rule out the worst way forward.
Charlie Elphicke
Just to clarify, does the right hon. Lady herself intend to support or oppose the Prime Minister’s deal?
Yvette Cooper
As I just said, and as I said when I spoke in the debate before Christmas, I am opposed to the Prime Minister’s deal. It is a blindfold deal that does not address some of the policing and security challenges, as well as customs union issues for manufacturing. I accept, though, that we take different views on that throughout the House. There are very different perspectives and views, which is why the opportunity to come together and rule out no deal is such an important one.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way in a second. I am conscious of the time, so let me set out what the amendment would do and I will then of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The amendment applies to clause 89 of the Bill, which the Government say they need for minor amendments to tax-raising powers in the event of no deal. In practice, clause 89 is drafted much more widely than that, but that is the point that the Government have made. The amendment says that, if the Government want to use clause 89 powers to implement no deal, they first need to give Parliament a vote on no deal and to have Parliament’s support for no deal. The amendment provides a safeguard to make it harder for the Government to go ahead with no deal without even going back to Parliament.
Yvette Cooper
The amendment provides a parliamentary safeguard. It does not, in itself, solve any of the many Brexit issues that we have, but it does provide an additional parliamentary safeguard that says that the Government cannot use the powers in clause 89 to implement no deal without first coming back to Parliament to ask for permission and support for a no deal. The hon. Gentleman is right that there may be other powers that the Government may choose to use. There may be other issues that they may choose to pursue, but this is our opportunity within this Bill to address these powers. That is why it is an important one to come around.
I have heard four sets of objections to the amendment. Some say that it is irresponsible; that it is somehow holding the Government to ransom on powers that they need. Some say that it is undesirable and perhaps even unpatriotic because they think that no deal is a good outcome and should not be ruled out. Some say that it is unnecessary because the Prime Minister’s deal is the best way forward. Some suggest that it is unstrategic because we need the threat of no deal to force a decision one way or another. I want to take each of those objections in turn because each of them is wrong.
First, on the charge that this is an irresponsible amendment, the amendment does not affect the normal Treasury and Government operations; those carry on as normal. It simply requires the Government to get Parliament’s permission if they want to use these powers to pursue no deal. Even if there is deadlock, the amendment provides a way forward. Let us suppose that Parliament votes against any deal that is put and also votes against no deal, and the Government still desperately want to use the clause 89 powers. In that event, they could follow paragraph (b) of the amendment if they still want to use the powers they need to apply to extend article 50. So in fact, this is an extremely responsible amendment. The irresponsible thing to do would be just to stand back and hope for the best, or to stand back and allow the Government to drift towards no deal without any attempt to put the safeguards in place to prevent that from happening.
The second objection is from those who think that no deal is a good option, or at least a good enough option not to rule it out. That is reckless. The damage to manufacturing industry, on which many of our constituencies rely, would be too serious. One local factory has said to me that the cost of its imports will double in price if we go to WTO tariffs. Another has told me that its European parent company would be under pressure to switch production to continental factories to avoid delays. Burberry has hundreds of jobs in my constituency, making clothing that is sold all over the world. It has written to me about the risks and concerns about delays to its supply chain. Its letter says:
“My hope in writing to you is that you will work with your colleagues across Parliament to ensure that there is no scenario possible where a No-Deal Brexit is a possibility.”
That is what I am doing.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for for tabling this amendment, which is so important. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has taken evidence from a number of businesses in the past few weeks, including Nestlé, Toyota and Airbus. Each one of them, and many others too, have said that the most dangerous thing would be to leave the European Union without a deal, which would have catastrophic impacts on their businesses and on the people who work for them. For that reason alone, anything that we can do to avoid a hard Brexit and going on to WTO rules, as some Members suggest, is the most important thing. This amendment at least helps to provide some safeguards to stop that from happening.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is about dealing with risk, delays and increased costs. There is the risk that border delays will hit tight cross-border supply chains, but the CBI also estimates that the impact of WTO tariffs will mean a £4 billion to £6 billion increase in costs on our exports. The Environment Secretary—the leave campaigner himself—has said that WTO tariffs on beef and sheepmeat will increase by over 40%.
Mr Baron
The right hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way, but may I encourage her to temper her dire warnings about WTO terms? There were many forecasts and predictions from business organisations, the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund about the disastrous consequences if we voted to leave the EU in 2016, including predictions of 500,000 extra unemployed by Christmas 2016. Those predictions did not materialise because investment is about comparative advantage such as low taxes and more flexible labour market practices. That is what determines investment at the end of the day.
Yvette Cooper
I am not drawing on macroeconomic predictions about the overall impact on the economy, although I note that there are predictions of a 9% reduction compared with the level at which we might otherwise be. I am actually focusing on the microeconomic impact on individual businesses across the country of simply seeing those costs go up. That is a real impact of the tariffs. It is not about confidence, levels of investment and so on; it is about the real impact of those costs on consumers, manufacturers, exporters and importers that is the real consequence of WTO tariffs.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I am sure my right hon. Friend has noticed that the Office for Budget Responsibility said in its report on the recent Budget that there has been a loss of 1.5% of GDP since the referendum, and that the uncertainty was likely to make that worse, at least in the medium term. This Parliament has a duty to ensure that we mitigate that as much as possible, which is why I will be supporting her amendment.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that we have a responsibility not to make life harder for our manufacturers, which face huge pressure and huge international competition. We also have a responsibility not to make life harder for our consumers, who could see significant increases in prices. The British Food Importers & Distributors Association warns that WTO rules could mean that food prices go up by over 20%.
Crispin Blunt
The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has just cited Nestlé, which is a Swiss company. The right hon. Lady will be aware that Britain and Switzerland, which is able to make arrangements for the future, negotiated an agreement on 14 December 2018 to be able to continue trade, even if there is no agreement between the UK and the EU. Once this House has rejected the withdrawal agreement, that is exactly where the European Union and the United Kingdom will be. We will need to make the best of the situation in which we find ourselves. That is precisely why both sides will, under article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, move towards a free trade agreement to ensure that we do not put tariffs in place at all after 29 March. That is where we should be and those are the realities that are going to descend once we are through the “Project Fear” phase.
Yvette Cooper
The same cheery optimism that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed that everybody will suddenly magically come to an agreement once we are through this phase and if we are on WTO terms is exactly the same cheery optimism they had that we were going to end up with a deal by now—and we have not, because it is actually a lot tougher than hon. Members suggest. The reality is that we are going to have a big hike in prices in April if we have no deal, and that has consequences for our manufacturers, businesses and consumers right across the country.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I shall be supporting the right hon. Lady’s amendment. She talks about the manufacturing sector and I believe that there are a number of manufacturing jobs in her constituency. Has she heard any argument that falling back on WTO rules would ensure that those critical, just-in-time supply chains are able to continue, and does she agree that this issue is very important to the many millions of people across the country who rely on those just-in-time supply chains, because if we fall back on WTO rules, it is they who will be losing their jobs, not hon. Members?
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. What I am saying just comes from listening to employers in my constituency who have told me that they have bought all the storage capacity they can find in order to stockpile, but they cannot stockpile more than 10 days’ worth of some of their products, and they are really concerned about the impact of the delays on just-in-time technology.
John Redwood
Does the right hon. Lady agree, in wanting to promote stronger and better industry once we have left, that the Government should set zero tariffs on all imported components, which we would be free to do, which would make them cheaper from non-EU countries and preserve zero tariffs for EU components?
Yvette Cooper
It is not clear to me how that strengthens our negotiating position with countries all over the world that might then keep their tariffs extremely high on our goods. The whole point is that, if we crash out on WTO terms, it undermines our negotiating power. Whether one thinks that is about negotiating with the EU or negotiating with other countries, we are weakening our position abroad.
We also have the impact on the NHS, which is spending £10 million on fridges: it will have to put more money into this which could be put into patient care. The police have warned that we will be less safe. They and the Border Force would immediately lose access to crucial information that they check 500 million times a year to find wanted criminals, dangerous weapons, sex offenders and terror suspects. We will not be able to use European arrest warrants to catch wanted criminals who fled here having committed serious crimes abroad. We use those warrants 1,000 times a year to send people back to face justice in the countries where those crimes have been committed. If those 1,000 suspects commit more crimes here, MPs will need to explain to the victims why we took away the power from the police to arrest and extradite them by tumbling into no deal.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am listening to the right hon. Lady, as always, with great interest and enormous respect, but may I just very gently point out that we need to hear from other Members with amendments in the group and from the Minister? I am not certain how many more Members we need to hear, but my guesstimate is at least four, and we have 31 and a half minutes.
Yvette Cooper
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise to anybody else who wants to intervene, but I will not take any further interventions and try to conclude my remarks.
Some of those who say they support no deal have said that it is unpatriotic to rule it out. I understand that there are strong emotions, but I hope we could be more respectful of each other than that, because I believe that it is patriotic to stand up for manufacturing, for families who may be on the breadline and face increases in food prices, for our NHS, and for British citizens abroad who could lose their rights.
The other objection that people have raised is that this is unnecessary because the Prime Minister’s deal is the one they want as the way forward. I simply disagree, but I think the reality is not about my view but the view in the House: there is not, at this stage, support for the Prime Minister’s deal, and I do not think there could be. We have to be able to respond to what happens next.
Finally, I have heard some say that they want the imminent threat of no deal to persuade people to back the Prime Minister’s deal, if not now, then later. But brinkmanship in Parliament is not the way to resolve this and get the best deal for the country. This is too serious for us to play a massive Brexit game of chicken. The country cannot afford to wait to see who blinks first.
I hope that Ministers, as may have been rumoured, will accept this amendment and accept the principle behind it. The Government should get agreement on a deal before 29 March, get explicit agreement on no deal before 29 March, or, if that fails, commit to seeking an extension of article 50, so that there is time to sort this out. The amendment does not solve the Brexit challenges that we have ahead and the many intense debates that we will no doubt have about the best way forward, but it gives us an opportunity to rule out the worst way forward and to do so in a way that is calm, measured and sensible. That is why I hope that amendment 7 will have support from across this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support amendment 7, to which I am a signatory.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is sitting next to me, and I have calculated that we have been in the House, collectively, for 56 years, and we have only ever, either of us, voted once against the Conservative Whip. This will be the second time that we will both be voting against the Conservative Whip, and I want to explain why. First, I want to say one thing about what this amendment is not. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) gave eloquent expositions, but what they did not mention is that, in contrast to some things that have been suggested, it has no impact whatsoever on the Government’s ability to prepare for Brexit—it is about what the Government do after Brexit.
Secondly, clause 89 is an item that those of us who have been Ministers for a number of years will recognise as an “abundance of caution” clause. Some group of lawyers somewhere stuck in the bureaucracy clearly alerted Ministers to the possibility that they did not have certain unspecified powers and said it would be a good idea to have some unspecified powers in case the lack of unspecified powers turned out to be important. I do not think therefore that this amendment, in itself, will be likely to have a huge impact, if any, on the Government of this country.
That brings me to the question of why I am supporting this amendment. The answer is that it is most extraordinarily important to make it clear to the Government that it is not just this amendment. It is the precedent that this amendment sets, which is that on any power taken in any Bill in relation to the exit of the UK from the EU, if there is a majority in the House today and there continues to be a majority against no deal, it will be possible to bring forward similar amendments. It is my proposal that we should indeed do that. I want to make it abundantly clear to those of my hon. Friends who are thinking of voting against the Prime Minister’s deal, which I shall be supporting, that the majority in this House, if it is expressed tonight, will sustain itself, and we will not allow a no-deal exit to occur at the end of March.
My last point is on why I am so passionate about not allowing such an exit. Many Members, including the Father of the House, have spoken eloquently about the long-term dangers to our economy of WTO trading and so on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), for example, very much disagrees with that. I do not take a particular view about that. My preference is for a continued free trade deal with the EU, which is by far our largest trading partner, but in contrast to some, I do not want to argue that there would be a disaster in principle if we were on WTO terms. I do not believe it would be disastrous. I think it is suboptimal but not disastrous.
For five long years, I was in charge of the resilience of this country. During that period, I saw many examples of our civil service, military and security apparatus being prepared or not being prepared for certain issues that closely affected the wellbeing of our country. That is one reason why two years ago I passionately argued—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham will recall an occasion a year ago when I made that argument even more forcefully—that the Government should undertake serious preparation for a no-deal exit. That would have had the effect that some of my hon. Friends mentioned. It would have altered our negotiating position. It was not done.
I have been in awesome detail through the papers produced. I have listened to the briefing for Privy Counsellors. I have consulted senior officials across Whitehall. I know what the RAG ratings of red, yellow and green mean—nothing. I know what it is actually to have prepared for dealing with the gas interconnectors, the electricity interconnectors and the many other details concerned.
Some of my hon. Friends and others in the country believe they can assure that under circumstances where we wreck the deal, refuse to make all the payments that the EU is expecting and falsify its expectations of a reasonable departure, the EU will then reasonably set out to work with us in a calm and grown-up way to ensure a smooth departure. It may be so. I am in no position to deny that it will be. I do not make lurid projections. Anybody who believes that they know it will be so is deluded.
I do not believe that we in this House can responsibly impose on our country a risk that may be severe or serious short-term disruption, for the sole purpose of gratifying the possibility that we avoid certain eventualities that certain Members of Parliament would prefer to see avoided and on which nobody in this country ever voted because they were never asked to vote on it. Under those circumstances, I will be voting with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford against my own Government and very much against my own will, and I will continue to do so right up to the end of March, in the hope that we can put paid to this disastrous proposal.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman’s succinctness is a textbook of how to help the House, and I hope it will now be closely studied.
Kirsty Blackman
In the interests of time, I will be very brief. I want to make it clear to the House that the SNP intends to push new clause 18 to a vote. I will briefly speak to some of the other new clauses and amendments that we have put forward. A couple of them relate to the expenditure implications of the UK now having to take charge of carbon and greenhouse gas taxes. They are about making sure that the Government are clear with the House about why they are spending this money and about the money they intend to spend before they do so. This is an additional cost that would be associated with the UK leaving the EU, which is a concern of ours. Obviously, we would not have to spend this money if we remained in the EU.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I will be very brief, not least because my right hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) have described much better than I ever could why I am going to support amendment 7, which I signed almost while it was hot off the presses before Christmas. The one point I want to address is the question that has been raised, and indeed the accusation that has been made, that in doing so I and other Conservative Members are breaking faith with our constituents and somehow breaking a manifesto commitment. I believe this to be utterly wrong, and also a rather disgraceful suggestion to make.
In the referendum campaign on our membership of the European Union, I supported and indeed voted remain. However, the argument of my colleagues who voted and campaigned for leave that I found most powerful and most emotionally impactful was that Parliament is sovereign and should take control of all the decisions that affect the lives of my constituents. That was the argument that the leave campaign made that I found the most difficult to resist and the most difficult to say was worth compromising for the sake of our membership of the European Union. It is therefore somewhat extraordinary that the very same people who made that argument so eloquently and effectively during the referendum campaign should somehow have the temerity to criticise me or other hon. and right hon. Members for doing what we believe is right in the interests of our constituents and in the national interest.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I cannot think of a single leading Conservative Brexiteer who would have changed his opinions on membership of the EU in the slightest had the remain side won the referendum. They made it quite clear that they had no intention whatever of abandoning their long-held, quite sincere views, which they would have carried on arguing in this House and voting for. Does my hon. Friend share my view?
Nick Boles
The Father of the House is completely right. I have to say—I am sure the same is true of him—that I rather admire them for it. I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for making the same arguments passionately and with principle for 40 years—longer, practically, than many Members have been alive.
I want briefly to address the question of the Conservative manifesto commitment. I should point out that quite large chunks of the Conservative manifesto were junked by the Prime Minister during her own election campaign, so I do not know quite why we have elevated it to be a sort of Moses-style tablet. Nevertheless, it contained a sentence saying that we maintain that no deal is better than a bad deal. I agree, and I agreed then, in my hospital bed, when I agreed to stand as a candidate in the election, that that was the right position for the Government to take. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—West Dorset; apologies to the people of Dorset—explained, it was entirely right for the Government to want to prepare for no deal. Unfortunately, as he pointed out, they failed to do so.
However, what we did not say in that manifesto is that no deal is better than any deal; we said no deal is better than a bad deal. I remind my hon. Friends that we have a deal; it is a deal that the 27 nations of the European Union have agreed, that the Prime Minister, who recently won a confidence motion in the Conservative party, and her Cabinet have endorsed and advocate, and that, at the last count, about 200 Conservative Members, including myself, intend to support when the vote is finally put. It is simply not possible to suggest that by saying that I will not countenance no deal, I am breaking that manifesto commitment. We do not have a bad deal; we may have a deal that you, individually, do not like —not you, Mr Speaker, but individual hon. and right hon. Members—but nobody can claim that we do not have a deal that it is reasonable for Conservative Members to support. It is therefore reasonable for us to say that, at this late stage, with the Government having prepared as woefully as they have for no deal, we will on no account countenance a no-deal Brexit.
Finally, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset in very clearly saying this: I will vote on any motion, on any amendment, on any piece of legislation, proposed by whomsoever in this House to ensure that we leave the European Union on 29 March with a deal or not at all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the next Member, we must hear from the Minister, and the Opposition Front Bench should really have the chance, very briefly, to comment on its own lead new clause before we come to the vote.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be brief, Mr Speaker. I will want to move amendment 8, which stands in my name and in those of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. In many ways, it complements amendment 7, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
Amendment 8 would institute a commencement motion for the powers that the Treasury is seeking. Clause 89 might have been wrapped up as fairly minor and inconsequential, but essentially the Government are asking for pretty whopping permission to start legislating for no-deal arrangements. At this stage in the game, I really do not think that right hon. and hon. Members should be delegating our powers entirely to Ministers in this way without question. I know it is difficult for the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to rebel for a second time, on amendment 7, but I would like to persuade him to do so for a third time on amendment 8. A commencement motion is an important adjunct so that we can give the House and hon. Members the chance to express how they wish Brexit to go forward—so that we have the opportunity to express our view. A commencement motion would allow hon. Members the chance to do just that.
As things stand—certainly if the Government’s Brexit proposal is negatived next week—there could be 21 days or perhaps another seven days before anything is voteable on in this place. My own view is that before we start delegating powers to Ministers on these issues, or indeed on others, we need to start saying that enough is enough. Hon. Members need a chance to help to guide the way forward. There are many different views on these particular issues—the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) has his particular preference and I have mine—but we need to provide for ourselves the time and the space to express them. Amendment 8 would simply provide for a commencement motion.
I hope that the Minister will recognise there is a strong cross-party opinion that we need now to give voice to Parliament. We cannot just drift into a no-deal situation. Parliament does want to take back control. He should concede and accept the amendment now.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for the debate.
Delivering the deal negotiated with the EU remains the Government’s central priority. It is neither our preference nor our expectation that we will leave the EU without a deal. However, as a responsible Government, we must prepare for all scenarios. In the Budget, we furthered that commitment by confirming an additional £500 million of funding in 2019-20, taking the total Government investment on preparing for EU exit to over £4 billion. At the Budget, to help to ensure that the tax system can continue to function under any EU exit outcome, we announced a series of modest, sensible provisions, which included a power to make necessary minor technical amendments to UK tax legislation. It also allowed, as we have heard, for the Government to introduce a carbon emissions tax to replace the EU emissions trading system in the event of no deal. By including those measures in the Finance Bill, our foremost motivation is to provide certainty to taxpayers—the kind of certainty that one would expect from any responsible Government.
Let me turn to amendment 7, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Prior to proceedings in the Committee of the whole House, which considered clause 89, I placed a list of changes envisioned under the clause in the House of Commons Library. Right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the trouble to review the list will see that they are indeed minor technical changes, and out of minor and technical changes, these are the most minor and technical. Since then, we have received no indication from any Member to the contrary. Clause 89 is simply prudent preparation to provide our taxpayers with the certainty they deserve.
As I made clear, the Government do not want or expect a no-deal scenario. That was why we negotiated the withdrawal agreement, which will see us leave the EU in a smooth and orderly way on 29 March and sets the framework of our future relationship. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), the best way of avoiding a no-deal scenario, if that is of grave concern to Members, is to support the withdrawal agreement next week.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify his last sentence? Is he saying that if the deal is voted down next week, it will become the Government’s stated objective to deliver no deal?
Robert Jenrick
The point I have just made is that the law of the land is that the UK will leave the European Union on 29 March, and nothing contained in amendment 7 will change that. As I will come on to say, the only difference that the amendment will implement is to make the UK somewhat less prepared for that eventuality. The purpose of clause 89 is to provide taxpayers and—
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is doing a valiant job—I do not envy him. Does he accept that although, as he says, the law at present is that we will leave on 29 March, the House of Commons, with the House of Lords and Her Majesty, has the ability to change that provision?
Robert Jenrick
The House of Commons has the right to make the law, but the law as it is today is that we will leave on 29 March. The point I am making is that, whatever the intentions of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and those who may wish to support amendment 7, all that will be achieved by supporting it is denying our citizens and taxpayers the degree of certainty that we wish to give them.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way one last time, but I have only a couple of minutes.
Mr Clarke
I, too, extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend, who drew the short straw of responding to the debate. He is trying very eloquently to minimise the significance of the whole thing, but of course he realises there are big issues behind this. Can he tell us what contingency arrangements the Treasury has made for the fiscal impact of leaving with no deal, and its likely impact on our trade, our manufacturing industry and so on? He must concede that the published figures for future deficits, debts and so on will be made utterly meaningless if we leave with no deal, and a fiscal crisis will occur. Is the Chancellor planning the emergency Budget he will probably require?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. and learned Friend and constituency neighbour tempts me to go into areas that I should not, but the Chancellor has said that we will be prepared and that we have fiscal room available—that was what he stated in the Budget, as certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. My right hon. and learned Friend appears to be making the case for prudent preparations in case of a no-deal scenario, which is all that clause 89 seeks to achieve.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way one last time to my hon. Friend—I apologise to the right hon. Lady, but I only have a couple of minutes.
David T. C. Davies
With all due respect to my hon. Friend’s Department, is it not the case that it published a series of figures about the economic disaster that was allegedly going to occur if we voted to leave the European Union, although none of that has happened, and that what we have here is an attempt to blackmail the Government into not going ahead with a decision that was taken after a majority of the population voted to leave the European Union?
Robert Jenrick
We are leaving the European Union. We wish to do so with a deal. The House will vote on the deal next week, but we must and will prepare for all scenarios.
Robert Jenrick
I give way to the right hon. Lady because, of course, amendment 7 is hers.
Yvette Cooper
Will the Minister confirm that he will still be able to use clause 89 powers if he either gives the House a chance to vote on no deal or, alternatively, takes the opportunity to apply for an extension of article 50?
Robert Jenrick
Clause 89 would give the Government the ability to provide certainty to taxpayers now. That is what we want to ensure. We do not want to inhibit the ability of HMRC and the Government to provide that critical certainty. Who would want to do that? Who would want to diminish certainty for taxpayers at this time? The right hon. Lady listed a number of businesses. Those businesses want certainty, and by supporting her amendment, we would diminish that certainty and our preparedness—admittedly only modestly—for a no-deal scenario.
We will not be deterred from making sensible preparations—the public expect us to do so—and using the Finance Bill to prevent or frustrate preparation for any eventuality is unwise and irresponsible. I therefore urge the House to reject all the amendments and new clauses tabled against clauses 89 and 90 so that we give our constituents and taxpayers across the country the degree of certainty they deserve.
Mr Speaker
Order. If the right hon. Gentleman feels able and willing to express his views in a minute, I will be delighted to hear him—I hope he will not be offended—but otherwise I will call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.
Sir Vince Cable
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I just want to say a few words in support of amendments 7 and 8. They are Brexit-neutral, in the sense that they require the House to approve any change, but of course they relate primarily to no deal. The fiscal issues, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) explained them, were arcane and rather gentle. I tabled a more brutal amendment that was not called.
In the 30 seconds left, I want to relate an incident from this morning, when I went to the ferry port at Portsmouth. It is very clear that the Government are totally and utterly unprepared for the chaotic impact that there will be on the road system, including access to the naval base, if a no-deal Brexit occurs. Despite repeated requests from the council and others, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence are refusing to co-operate, and the police now say that the M3 motorway will have to be closed from Winchester to Basingstoke in order to provide a lorry park. Repeated efforts to get Ministers to respond have not been heeded. A meeting was held for 19 regional MPs last week, but only one attended, so I am taking on the job of representing a no-deal Brexit. It is a task I undertake with all the enthusiasm of an arsonist trying to put out a bushfire, but I will do it.
Jonathan Reynolds
This has been a significant and important debate. In fact, it is clear that the House desires a longer and broader debate—that point was well made by the Chair of the Treasury Committee. No deal is some people’s preferred outcome, and they are the same people who told us that doing a deal would be the easiest thing in history. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. I feel that the case against the unilateral use of these no-deal powers has been comprehensively made, and I urge all Members to vote for our amendments, because that is best for jobs, prosperity and the national interest.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that in the previous debate there was some unhappy and unfortunate talk about the potential for the M3 to be closed in connection with a lorry park. I want to put it on the record, from the Government’s perspective, that the Government have absolutely no intention whatever of closing the M3 in connection with a lorry park. Therefore, the record should stand corrected as from now.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, which is on the record and will be widely observed.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several media outlets are quoting that I have signed a letter to the Prime Minister saying that I will vote against a no-deal Brexit. I would like to put it on the record that this is not correct. Can you advise me whether it is in order for a Member of this House to put another Member’s name to a letter when they have not given their consent to doing so? Given the febrile environment at the moment, can you make the point to the media that they should check their facts before they publish such information?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman arrogates to me almost superhuman powers if he thinks that I can advise the media upon the imperative of first checking facts before printing a story. I appreciate his confidence in me, but I fear that he has an assessment of my capabilities that is sadly unmatched by the reality. Nevertheless, he has put his point on the record, and doubtless he will circulate it more widely amongst the people of Nuneaton.
New Clause 2
Review of the effectiveness of entrepreneurs’ relief
“(1) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief by Schedule 15, against the stated policy aims of that relief.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the overall number of entrepreneurs in the UK,
(b) the annual cost of entrepreneurs’ relief,
(c) the annual number of claimants per year,
(d) the average cost of relief paid per claim, and
(e) the impact on productivity in the UK economy.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effectiveness of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief by Schedule 15.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 9—Review of changes to entrepreneurs’ relief—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made to entrepreneur’s relief by Schedule 15 to this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions on business investment,
(b) the effects of the provisions on employment, and
(c) the effects of the provisions on productivity.
(3) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a review of the impact on investment of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief which extend the minimum qualifying period from 12 months to 2 years.
New clause 10—Review of geographical effects of provisions of section 9—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the differential geographical effects of the changes made by section 9 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would require a geographical impact assessment of income tax exemptions relating to private use of an emergency vehicle.
New clause 16—Personal allowance—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 5 April 2019, lay before the House of Commons an analysis of the distributional and other effects of a personal allowance in 2019-20 of £12,750.”
This new clause would require a distributional analysis of increasing the personal allowance to £12,750.
New clause 17—Review of changes to capital allowances—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the changes to capital allowances in sections 29 to 34 and Schedule 12 in each part of the United Kingdom and each region of England and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—
(a) business investment,
(b) employment, and
(c) productivity.
(3) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes if—
(a) the UK leaves the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement
(b) the UK leaves the European Union following a negotiated withdrawal agreement, and remains in the single market and customs union, or
(c) the UK leaves the European Union following a negotiated withdrawal agreement, and does not remain in the single market and customs union.
(4) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a review of the impact on investment, employment and productivity of the changes to capital allowance in the event of: Brexit with no deal; Brexit with single market and customs union membership; Brexit without single market and customs union membership.
New clause 24—Review of changes to capital allowances (No. 2)—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by sections 29 and 30 of this Act within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must include an assessment of—
(a) the cost to the Exchequer of these changes,
(b) changes to business behaviour that are likely to arise as result from these changes, including (but not limited to) levels of business investment in buildings, plant and machinery, and
(c) the impact of these changes on businesses in regions of England.
(3) A review under this section must compare these assessments, so far as practicable, with an assessment of the impact of replacing non-domestic rates in England with a tax on the value of commercial land.
(4) In this section, “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office of National Statistics.”
This new clause would require the Government to assess the effects on businesses and the public finances of new capital reliefs introduced by this Act and require the Government to compare these reliefs with replacing business rates with a tax on commercial land values.
Amendment 12, in clause 5, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (4)
This amendment would delete provisions removing the legal link between the personal allowance and the national minimum wage.
Government amendment 2.
Amendment 34, in schedule 15, page 297, line 42, leave out “29 October 2018” and insert “6 April 2019”.
Amendment 34, along with Amendment 35, would remove the retrospective effect of the new qualifying conditions for entrepreneurs relief.
Government amendment 3.
Amendment 35, in schedule 15, page 298, line 10, at end insert—
“(6) In relation to disposals on or after 29 October 2018, the amendments made by this Schedule to the definition of “personal company” do not apply in relation to any day before 29 October 2018.”
See Amendment 34.
New clause 4—Review of late payment interest rates in respect of promoters of tax avoidance schemes—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the viability of increasing any relevant interest rate charged by virtue of the specified provisions on the late payment of penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes to 6.1% per annum and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) In this section, “the specified provisions” means—
(a) section 178 of FA 1989, and
(b) sections 101 to 103 of FA 2009.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the viability of increasing interest rates on the late payment of penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes to 6.1%.
New clause 15—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 4)—
“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) section 15 and Schedule 3,
(b) section 16 and Schedule 4,
(c) sections 19 and 20,
(d) section 22 and Schedule 7,
(e) section 23 and Schedule 8,
(f) sections 46 and 47,
(g) section 83.
(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—
(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,
(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft, (c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”
This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of the Bill – alongside New Clause 11, New Clause 13 and New Clause 14.
Government new clause 6—Intangible fixed assets: restrictions on goodwill and certain other assets.
New clause 8—Review of changes to Oil activities and petroleum revenue tax—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the changes to Oil activities and petroleum revenue tax in sections 36 and 37 and Schedule 14 in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—
(a) business investment,
(b) employment, and
(c) productivity.”
This new clause would require the Government to review and publish a report on the investment, employment and productivity impact of the Bill’s fiscal measures on the North Sea sector.
New clause 11—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act—
“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) section 5,
(b) section 6,
(c) section 8,
(d) section 9,
(e) section 10,
(f) Schedule 15,
(g) section 39,
(h) section 40,
(i) section 41, and
(j) section 42.
(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—
(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,
(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft, and
(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”
This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of the Bill – alongside New Clause 13, New Clause 14 and New Clause 15.
New clause 14—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 3)—
“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) section 61, and
(b) Schedule 18.
(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—
(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,
(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft,
(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”
This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of the Bill – alongside New Clause 11, New Clause 13 and New Clause 15.
New clause 23—Review of income tax revenue—
“(1) The Office for Budget Responsibility must review the revenue raised by income tax within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider revenue raised by—
(a) the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4, combined with
(b) the basic rate limit and personal allowance specified in section 5.
(3) A review under this section must also consider the effect on revenue of—
(a) raising each of the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4 by one percentage point, and
(b) setting the basic rate limit for the tax years 2019-20 and 2020-21 at £33,850.
(4) A review under this section must also include a distributional analysis of the effect of introducing the policies specified in paragraphs (3)(a) and (3)(b).
(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”
This new clause would require the OBR to estimate how much money would be raised by increasing all rates of income tax by 1p and freezing the higher rate threshold.
New clause 26—Review of changes made by sections 79 and 80—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by sections 79 and 80 to TMA 1970, and lay a report on that review before the House of Commons not later than 30 March 2019.
(2) The review under this section must include a comparison of the time limit on proceedings for the recovery of lost tax that involves an offshore matter with other time limits on proceedings for the recovery of lost tax, including, but not limited to, those provided for by Schedules 11 and 12 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.
(3) The review under this section must also consider the extent to which provisions equivalent to section 36A(7)(b) of TMA 1970 (relating to reasonable expectations) apply to the application of other time limits.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review the effect of the changes made by sections 79 and 80 and compare them with other legislation relating to the recovery of lost tax including specifically the loan charge provisions of Schedules 11 and 12 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.
Government new schedule 1—Intangible fixed assets: restrictions on goodwill and certain other assets.
Government amendments 4 to 6.
Amendment 22, in clause 53, page 34, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the revised rates on cider and wine on public health.
Amendment 23, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty rates from 1 April 2020 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(4) A review under subsection (3) must in consider the effects of a reduction on—
(a) airlines,
(b) airport operators,
(c) other businesses, and
(d) passengers.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty.
Amendment 36, in clause 79, page 52, line 24, leave out “12 years” and insert “8 years”.
Amendments 36 to 45 would reduce the time limits HMRC have to make an assessment of income tax or capital gains tax (Clause 79) and inheritance tax (Clause 80) to eight years, rather than 12 years, where there is non-deliberate offshore tax non-compliance.
Amendment 37, page 52, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Where the loss of tax is brought about carelessly by the taxpayer, an assessment may be made at any time not more than 12 years after the end of the year of assessment to which the lost tax relates. This is subject to section 36(1A) above and any other provision of the Taxes Acts allowing a longer period.”
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 38, page 53, line 22, after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”.
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 39, page 53, line 28, at end insert—
“(7A) An assessment may also not be made under subsection (2) or (2A) if—
(a) before the time limit that would otherwise apply for making the assessment, information is made available to HMRC by the taxpayer on the basis of which HMRC could reasonably have been expected to become aware of the lost tax, and
(b) it was reasonable to expect the assessment to be made before that time limit.”
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 40, page 53, line 34, at end insert—
“(8A) Subsection (7A) will not apply in cases where the taxpayer is subsequently found to have failed to provide all relevant information available to HMRC, or to have provided misleading information.
(8B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), whether information has been made available to HMRC is to be determined in line with section 29(6) above.”
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 41, page 53, line 35, after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”.
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 25, page 54, line 1, leave out “2013-14” and insert “2019-20”.
This amendment, alongside Amendment 26, would mean that new section 36A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 did not apply retrospectively.
Amendment 26, page 54, line 5, leave out “2015-16” and insert “2019-20”.
This amendment, alongside Amendment 25, would mean that new section 36A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 did not apply retrospectively.
Amendment 42, in clause 80, page 54, line 19, leave out “12 years” and insert “8 years”.
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 43, page 54, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) Where the loss of tax is brought about carelessly by a person liable for the tax (or a person acting on behalf of such a person), proceedings for the recovery of the lost tax may be brought at any time not more than 12 years after the later of the dates in section 240(2)(a) and (b).”
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 44, page 55, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Proceedings may also not be brought under this section if—
(a) before the last date on which the proceedings could otherwise be brought, information is made available to HMRC by a person liable for the tax (or a person acting on behalf of such a person) on the basis of which HMRC could reasonably have been expected to become aware of the lost tax, and
(b) it was reasonable to expect the proceedings to be brought before that date.”
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 45, page 55, line 8, at end insert—
“(8A) Subsection (7A) will not apply in cases where a person liable for the tax (or a person acting on behalf of such a person) is subsequently found to have failed to provide all relevant information available to HMRC, or to have provided misleading information.
(8B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), whether information has been made available to HMRC is to be determined in line with section 29(6) TMA 1970.”
See Amendment 36.
Amendment 27, in clause 82, page 58, line 9, leave out from “section” to “may” in line 10.
This amendment would provide for all regulations under the new power (EU double taxation directive) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 28, page 58, leave out lines 13 to 17.
See Amendment 27.
Amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 148, line 34, at end insert—
“21A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 1.
Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 177, line 21, at end insert—
“Part 1A
Review of effects on public finances
17A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to capital gains tax returns and payments on account in this in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 2.
Amendment 29, page 177, line 42, at end insert
“unless the amendment relates to a disposal of an asset or assets resulting in a capital loss between the completion date of the disposal in respect of which the return is made and the end of the tax year in which the disposal is made.
(2A) In that case, an amendment may be made to take into account any capital losses which have arisen after the completion date and within the same tax year.”
This amendment would allow UK residents to submit an amended residential property return where a capital loss on non-residential assets is incurred after the completion of the residential disposal and within the same tax year.
Amendment 19, in schedule 5, page 211, line 45, at end insert—
“Part 2A
Review of effects on public finances
34A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review under sub-paragraph (1) must consider—
(a) the expected change in corporation tax paid attributable to the provisions in this Schedule, and
(b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions in this Schedule, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of Schedule 5.
Amendment 21, in schedule 6, page 221, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected change to payments of Diverted Profits Tax and any associated changes to overall payments made to the Commissioners arising from the provisions of this Schedule, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within 6 months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances of the diverted profits tax provisions in the Bill.
Anneliese Dodds
As my hon. Friends have set out a number of times already today, this is a Finance Bill that continues the Government’s previous programme of austerity for the many while the very best-off people are protected. This Conservative Government chose to tie the hands of this House with regard to amending the Bill, so there are very few means we can adopt to have an impact on any of these measures. None the less, new clauses 2 and 4 would require the Government to at least review their regressive policy approach. I realise that I need to compress my remarks, so I will speak briefly to each of those new clauses and then to new clause 26, which pushes in the same direction, and new schedule 1, which in many respects exemplifies this Government’s slipshod approach, particularly to tax policy making.
Anneliese Dodds
I do not believe I can, as I have been told that I have to proceed quickly.
For many years, the Government failed to take action, before clamping down purely on taxpayers and doing little to nothing to the enablers of this form of tax avoidance. I hope the Minister will be clear about this. He has talked about the promotion of defective schemes. When taxpayers are described as having done something illegal, which is what HMRC has said about the behaviour of those subject to the loan charge, why will the Government not say that those who promoted those schemes also promoted something illegal? They use this language about defective systems. I am sorry, but that is pusillanimous. Those who were unwittingly led into schemes that are now described as illegal must themselves be able to take action against those who wrongly advised them.
I hope that the Minister will look at that very carefully and accept the new clause. If he does not, I hope that he will accept my backstop, to coin a phrase, and have a meeting with me. I am glad he has intimated that he may be willing to do so to talk about how we can better help people who have ended up in a very difficult situation—some of them with their eyes wide open, but many of them not realising the impact of these schemes.
Nicky Morgan
I rise to speak briefly—I know time is short in this debate—about new clause 26. For the avoidance of doubt among those on the Treasury Bench, I will not be supporting the new clause, but, as Chair of the Treasury Committee, I want to put on the record some concerns about the loan charge on behalf of the many individuals who have contacted the Committee and of the Committee members who have expressed concerns about it. I hope that Ministers will listen and engage with MPs across the House on this issue.
The Committee has raised concerns about the loan charge in evidence sessions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and with HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. As the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, it is right that people should pay their fair share of tax on their earnings, and we do not support anything that seeks to get around that. It is right that HMRC should act swiftly and firmly to close down such avoidance schemes.
However, tax law sets out time limits within which HMRC can open inquiries and make tax assessments. Normally, those time limits take account of whether a taxpayer has taken reasonable care to comply with their tax obligations, has been careless or has deliberately decided not to comply. They are seen as valuable taxpayer protections, giving a degree of certainty that takes appropriate account of taxpayer behaviour.
It is certainly concerning to me—I am not sure I can speak on behalf of the whole Committee, but I think it is fair to say that I speak on behalf of many of its members—that HMRC’s contractor loan settlement opportunity requires people who want to put their affairs straight to waive those protections, with the threat of the loan charge looming over them. It is not clear why it is necessary for that settlement opportunity to pressure people into paying tax for years that HMRC calls “not protected”—years where HMRC is out of time—even though it may have had the information it needed to open inquiries or raise assessments at the proper time.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I support the way in which my right hon. Friend is addressing new clause 26, on which I find myself in a similar position to her. Although we want people to pay the correct taxes, I have constituents who may face losing their homes over this, after entering into what they thought were perfectly legal and allowable arrangements. Does she agree that the Treasury must address that?
Nicky Morgan
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. It will probably turn out that most of us have constituents who are affected in that way. There are some who perhaps did know what they were doing when they entered into these tax arrangements, and some who clearly did not. It is absolutely right that the correct tax is applied, but, equally, it cannot be right that people are facing serious situations that will undermine their financial security and also their mental health.
John Redwood
Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only did quite a few people take advice, but they notified the Revenue of what they were doing and no objections were made at the time?
Nicky Morgan
Yes, I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. That was raised in the Westminster Hall debate led by my fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker).
I say to the Minister that it is troubling to hear that tens of thousands of people who want to settle with HMRC before the 5 April deadline have yet to receive calculations from HMRC. It is impossible for them— I think it would be for most of us—to settle large bills within a matter of months if they do not know what they will be asked to pay, let alone if they cannot start to make arrangements for how to pay them. These individuals need to know how much they have to pay, and I ask Treasury Ministers to step in and make clear what will happen to those people if they do not hear from HMRC by 5 April.
I will leave that with Ministers. I hope they can tell that there are MPs on both sides of the House who are concerned about this. By working together, we can make sure that the right tax is paid, but also that people are treated fairly.
Kirsty Blackman
I am aware that we are fairly short of time, so I will not rerun many of the things I said in Committee—I am sure the Minister and those on the Opposition Front Bench will be delighted to hear that.
I want to highlight a few of the SNP amendments and new clauses in this group. We have a couple of new clauses asking once again whether the Government’s provisions will do what they intend. For example, we want them to review the changes to entrepreneurs’ relief. We also want them to look at the changes in relation to emergency vehicles, because we are particularly concerned about the potential rural impact. Those who have emergency vehicles in rural areas may have more cause to use them outside work time than people who use them in cities. We felt that that issue was not drawn out enough in Committee or in the information the Government provided previously.
New clause 17 is about Brexit analysis. It is important to note that, since the Brexit vote in June 2016, over $1 trillion has been pulled from UK equity funds, which is obviously a really large number. In any changes or preparations the Government carry out in relation to Brexit, therefore, they should note the impact on the economy, which, according to the Bank of England, has cost individual families £900 each so far, and there is also the impact on financial services, for example, which have historically been very strong in the UK.
New clauses 15, 11 and 14 again ask the Government to provide information through consultation reports. It is important that the Government tell us the consultation they did on the draft clauses they brought forward. On the ones they did not bring forward, why did they not do so?
On that point, I should mention that the Government have included a new schedule in this group. That is a relatively unusual thing for the Government to do at this stage, given that they could have included the schedule in the original Bill or brought it forward in Committee. Because the new schedule was not brought forward in the initial stages, the explanatory memorandum provided by the Government does not include details about it. It would have been helpful if it had been considered at an earlier stage or if the Members who sat through the Bill Committee had been notified that it was likely to come forward. Presumably, the Government knew about it before the Christmas recess, and it did not just appear out of the ether. That process could be improved.
The main thrust of my contribution in the short time I have remaining is about the removal of the link between the personal allowance and the minimum wage. I understand that the Government have removed it on the basis that the personal allowance has now reached £12,500 and that they therefore believe they do not need to keep the link. I understand why they are making that case, but if that link had been kept, with the Government required to do a review if the personal allowance threshold was set at less than £12,500, future Governments would have continued to be bound by it. That would have meant that the protection the Government felt was necessary for people on the lowest incomes would still be there in the future. I understand that the Government do not intend to reduce the personal allowance, but that protection could have been left in place without the law causing any problems. That is something I am concerned about.
It is particularly concerning when the living wage the Government have put in place is not a real living wage, but a pretend living wage. It also does not apply to anyone under 25, which is an issue the SNP has raised over and over again. Just because someone is 24 does not mean that their living costs are less than they would be if they were 26—they could have the same number of children and live in exactly the same accommodation. However, the Government believe that it is okay to pay them less just because they are under that age threshold. That is exacerbated by the fact that the minimum wage increases the Government have introduced this year increase by a higher percentage—not just a higher monetary value—the minimum wage received by those who are over 25. The gap is widening: those who are over 25 are getting a bigger increase in the minimum wage, while there is a smaller increase for the younger age groups. The Government need to take seriously the fact that they are saying apprentices are worth pennies, frankly, and that 16 and 17-year-olds are worth far less than people under the age of 25. We raised our concerns in Committee in relation to the removal of the number. I do not think it would have cost the Government anything to leave in the link to protect future generations.
Mrs Main
I wanted to have more time to be able to say what a great job the Government have been doing: a 43-year low for unemployment rates, 1,000 jobs a day created and bringing in the personal allowance upgrade even earlier. We do not have time to go through all that, but I believe that getting people into work and out of poverty is the way forward for many families.
The Government were absolutely right to target business rates as a way of helping the high street and small businesses, with a cut of 33% in rates for businesses with a rateable value of under £51,000. In areas like mine with high property values, however, it is not having the impact the Chancellor might have hoped. The new rate simply provides a cliff edge that penalises successful businesses in areas that are plagued by high property values. We must devise a system that helps small businesses and pubs to thrive, not just those with a low retail value. I recently met pub owners in my constituency who have been hit extremely hard by business rates. I have cut out an awful lot of my speech, but I am pleased to say that I have secured a Westminster Hall debate on this matter next Tuesday. I look forward to exploring the matter further with a Minister. Pubs in areas such as St Albans are seeing massive hikes in business rates, not the help that was intended.
Time is pressing, but I want to touch on new clause 26 tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). I have serious concerns about the retrospective nature of the tax being collected. Several of my constituents have raised cases with me and I am extremely concerned about how the process has been handled. Many make the case that this was not illegal tax evasion; they were advised to use the scheme as a way of keeping more of their own money. It is worth remembering that these people are not employees. They take on more risk, with no sick pay, maternity pay or other forms of support offered to an employee. I want to give a couple of personal examples, because I think that is key and we have so little time.
One of my constituents, who worked as an IT professional in the FinTech industries, is being pursued for £900,000 by HMRC for the loan charge. He is extremely worried—many are on the brink emotionally—and this has put him and his family under considerable stress. He had been advised that what he had done was lawful and he considered it to be so. He told me, worryingly, that he tried to settle the case with HMRC for about £700,000, but that that had been rejected. Many people who find themselves in tax difficulties manage to make negotiated settlements with HMRC. It appears that this particular group of people are being treated very unfairly and are being left in the very difficult situation of not knowing exactly how much they owe or how quickly they have to pay.
Colin Clark
Other colleagues will be aware that the oil industry had a lot of contractors who were using what effectively turned out to be disguised schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a duty on HMRC? We have heard today from another hon. Member that customers should not be unduly disadvantaged if they have not managed to settle their claim to date, because after 5 April it will be significantly more.
Mrs Main
Exactly. I have also been advised by a former constituent, who, despite no longer living in the UK, is being pursued by HMRC for thousands of pounds of unpaid tax. Another person was advised that this mechanism truly was lawful and it has come as a huge shock to his financial planning that he is left in this position.
There are reportedly over 1,000 people being pursued for unpaid tax. No one is disputing that people should pay tax that is due. The issue is the way it is being requested. People have been badly advised. They have never been able to check whether anything they were doing was illegal, because they were being advised that it was not illegal at the time. It is a loophole that has now been closed.
Luke Graham
My hon. Friend is making a very valid point. One of my constituents, an IT contractor, was advised by his own accountant. A review would be very helpful in ensuring that people receive proper advice, so that laws can be followed and taxes collected.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are many versions of that story. I have constituents who say that HMRC was made aware of these arrangements but no objection was raised until many years later. That has to be fundamentally wrong. What more due diligence can anyone do?
I will conclude, because I know the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton wishes to speak. The huge pressure and distress—even suicidal thoughts—that this measure has put in people’s minds is totally unacceptable. I say to the Minister: if we do nothing else tonight, can we accept new clause 26? There is a clear ambiguity in the law that applied at the time—perhaps clarity has been provided now. The fact that people cannot negotiate a reasonable settlement even though they acted in good faith at the time, and are being pursued to the point of the destruction of their careers, homes, family lives and marriages, is completely unacceptable. We clearly need a review, and I hope the Minister takes that on board and accepts new clause 26. If it is pressed to a vote, I shall vote for it.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for her passionate speech. I also thank the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who chairs the Treasury Committee, and right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, who have campaigned as a Parliament against this measure and supported new clause 26. It is my wish to divide the House on the new clause if the Minister does not accept it.
Let me make it crystal clear from the start that I support the Treasury’s aim of closing tax loopholes and stopping tax avoidance. The introduction of loan charges in the Finance Act 2017 to stop future abuse was correct, and the review my new clause proposes would not seek to prevent the Treasury from stopping that abuse from the 2016 Budget announcement. Instead—somewhat inelegantly, due to the rules of Finance Bill debate—new clause 26 aims to focus the minds of Treasury Ministers on the gross unfairness of the way the 2017 Act went about closing an unacceptable tax loophole.
I believe that the review envisaged in the new clause would reveal the unfairness of the retrospective nature of the current loan charge legislation in two ways. First, it would show how that retrospective nature is even more severe than non-retrospective but backward-looking proceedings for the recovery of lost tax elsewhere in our tax legislation. Secondly, it would show that the test of reasonableness included in proposed new section 36A, if applied to the loan charge, would in fact prevent any retrospective tax collection from the loan charge.
Let me remind the House why the Treasury should, after the review, ditch the retrospective nature of this measure, delay April’s implementation and amend the charge so it focuses only on payments made after 2016. It is because the loan charge, as introduced, offends against the rule of law. It is the sort of taxation that led the barons to rebel against King John and gave birth to Magna Carta. It is simply not acceptable for a Government to introduce a law that makes illegal something someone did years ago, when that action was considered legal. That is a clear principle.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way— I realise time is short—and for tabling new clause 26, which I, too, support. Does he agree that it is unreasonable for people to be expected to have kept records going back 20 years when they were reassured at the time that the scheme was legitimate?
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I thank her for her support. Let us remember that these people—our constituents—were given professional tax advice and behaved in a way they thought was right and lawful at the time.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I fully support the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and will vote for new clause 26 if it is pressed to a Division. I wonder whether he will reflect briefly on my concern that some people who support the Government’s position have implied that, in seeking justice and fairness for our constituents, we in some way condone tax avoidance. In fact, the opposite is the case—we say that there should not be tax avoidance or evasion. The real culprits in this are not the individuals who were conned and duped by professionals into taking out these schemes and now face bankruptcy, but the firms that designed and sold them the schemes in the first place, some of which are still operating.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Gentleman is right on all the points he makes. When my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) tabled the early-day motion that got cross-party support when this campaign was getting going, those were exactly the points he made. We all condemn tax avoidance and support the Treasury, but this retrospective approach to taxation is simply unacceptable.
Crispin Blunt
I congratulate hon. Members and hon. Friends on their speeches and wholly agree with them. It is grossly unfair that one of my constituents, a contractor between 2004 and 2006, is expected to repay tax from this period. It goes against the whole principle of fairness and surely would not survive any challenge in the European Court of Human Rights.
Sir Edward Davey
Indeed. HMRC knew about these tax schemes for years and took no action. They were widely used—as we have heard, right hon. and hon. Members from around the House have constituents affected—and widely advertised and yet were ignored by the tax authorities. People could only take some public sector positions if they agreed to be paid via these schemes, and it emerged ahead of the Westminster Hall debate that even some HMRC contractors were paid through such a scheme.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause. I found HMRC’s answers to the Treasury Committee wholly unsatisfactory. There remain serious questions to be asked of the promoters of these schemes, of the employers, including public sector employers, who promoted them to contractors, and also of HMRC. If people were given tax advice and followed it, and if HMRC was aware of these schemes but did not take action in any previous tax year, how on earth could any reasonable person have concluded that they were doing anything wrong?
Sir Edward Davey
I totally agree, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Sir William Cash
It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I strongly agree with him on this issue. Retrospective legislation is bad in principle. This is an unjust provision, unreasonable and unfair, and I urge the Government to take note of the arguments put forward.
Sir Edward Davey
Having taken that wonderful intervention, I bring it to the House’s attention that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has signed my new clause. It is bringing the House together at a time when elsewhere it is divided.
I end on what this loan charge and its retrospective nature have meant for our constituents. It has caused misery. It has affected people’s lives, their health, their families. It has caused gross misery. Some people believe they will have to go bankrupt if they are forced to pay, or that they might lose their homes, and that is why the House is united against this retrospective action. I really hope that the Minister will get to his feet, accept the new clause, go ahead with the review and bring it back before the end of the tax year, so that the House can see it and vote on it.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 2. I was staggered to learn that entrepreneurs’ relief costs the Treasury an estimated £2.7 billion, and this to allow people selling companies worth up to £10 million to keep half the money they would otherwise pay in capital gains tax.
I was even more surprised to learn that this tax relief was concentrated among a few very wealthy individuals, with 6,000 people making gains of over £1 million and averaging £450,000 in tax relief each. This relief is only benefiting the very wealthy and should be reviewed as to its effectiveness. If it is scrapped, the £2.7 billion could be used to fund schools buckling under the pressure of funding cuts and provide huge investment in special educational needs and children and adolescent mental health needs. It could also go some way to funding children’s services and social care in local authorities and policing.
This is not the only area where the Government are giving away money that could otherwise be put to better use. Under amendment 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), the Government are being asked to review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979. The Alcohol Health Alliance has stated that the Government’s own figures show that alcohol duty cuts from 2013-14 have cost the Treasury £4 billion, which is the equivalent yearly cost of employing over 100,000 teachers. The figure is expected to rise to £9.1 billion by 2024. Considering the pressures on budgets as a result of austerity, that is not an insignificant amount.
The freeze on duty on beer, spirits and cider for 12 months from February 2019 is in effect a cut, as it is not keeping in line with inflation. Indeed, it has not done so for six of the last seven years. Cheap alcohol has a tremendous effect in causing damage to people’s health, the economy and wider society. Alcohol is the leading risk factor in respect of the deaths of people aged 15 to 49. In England alone, there are more than 1 million hospital admissions and 24,000 deaths related to alcohol every year. That is a clearly an impact that the Government need to consider when they set duties on beer, spirits and cider. Cuts in alcohol duty have a double effect. They reduce revenue for the Treasury, which in turn reduces the amount of funding for the NHS, while simultaneously increasing demand and costs in the NHS by encouraging the consumption of cheap alcohol. I therefore ask the Government to review the impact of the alcohol duty freeze on public health.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the stories we hear from our constituents suggest that some of them are not only afraid of losing their homes and livelihoods, but are actually having suicidal thoughts because of the pressure that is being put on them to pay the money?
Bambos Charalambous
That is an excellent point, which I was about to make myself. While the large accountancy firms have gone unpunished for creating tax avoidance schemes for big banks, those individual contractors are bearing the brunt of HMRC’s powers. I have been informed by the Loan Charge Action Group of suicides, bankruptcies and relationship breakdowns as a result of the stress involved in their dealings with HMRC. The group has said that many of the people being pursued by HMRC unwittingly signed up to loan-based schemes, but the promoters of the tax avoidance vehicles have not been targeted.
I ask the Minister to reconsider these measures and to ensure that people are not punished when they should not be.
Mel Stride
Given the limited time that is available to me to summarise a debate that has covered a large number of amendments and new clauses, I shall confine my remarks principally to the issue that has been raised most frequently, which relates to new clause 26. The new clause requires the Government to lay before the House a report reviewing the effects of changes made by clauses 79 and 80 no later than 30 March 2019. While I should note that such a report will come too soon for the measures to have had a real effect, the Government of course remain committed to setting out the rationale for their policies as well as their impact, and in that spirit we will not oppose the new clause.
I do, however, echo many of the comments made by Members about what these schemes are truly about, which is gross aggressive tax avoidance. The way in which disguised remuneration typically works is that, instead of an employer’s paying an employee by way of a salary in the normal way, which attracts PAYE income tax and employees’ and employers national insurance, the payment is made as a loan. Typically, those so-called loans, which are not really loans at all—there is no intention of ever repaying them—are routed out via an offshore trust in a low or no-tax jurisdiction, and then routed back to the United Kingdom to be received by the end recipient. That is extremely unfair. It is unfair to our public services, because we have a duty as a Government to collect the tax that is due to fund them, and it is unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers who do the right thing, which is not to get involved in aggressive tax avoidance schemes in the first place and to pay their fair share of tax.
One issue that has been raised on a number of occasions is the question of whether HMRC’s loan charge arrangements are themselves retrospective. They are not retrospective because, critically—this is where I take issue with the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey)—at the time when they were entered into they were defective. No matter how far we go back, the scheme typically—I have described the way it works—was defective. It did not work then, it does not work now and the tax is due.
These schemes have been taken through the courts on many occasions. A scheme used to the benefit of Rangers Football Club was taken to the Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—and was found to be defective.
Mel Stride
I will not, simply because I have two minutes and 30 seconds left and I want to cover some of the other issues raised this evening.
However, as I have said, the Government will accept this new clause. It is absolutely right that, when HMRC deals with the public, it has a strict duty of care, a duty of proportionality and a duty to be as sympathetic as it can be relevant to the circumstances of those with whom it is dealing. In my dealings with HMRC, I have made those points forcefully clear. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, HMRC has recently come forward to say that those earning £50,000 or less—which is over twice the average national salary of somebody working in our country—will automatically be granted, without requirement for additional paperwork, a minimum of five years’ time to pay as an arrangement to settle their affairs. Of course for those who come forward before April there is effectively in most cases no penalty as such; they will simply be required to pay that tax which was due in the past—and it was always due in the past—plus the interest that is rightly applied.
I have less than a minute left and want to say a little about amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), on the national minimum wage lock. She will know that, because we have increased the personal allowance now to £12,500 for every year of the forecast period, there will be no necessity for that lock to be in place. She makes the point that there could be a projection beyond that point. That will be a matter for a future Government of course and it is not for this Parliament to bind its successors.
I conclude on the suggested entrepreneurs’ relief review and new clause 2, which the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) spoke to. We had a review that was published in December 2017, which reported on this particular matter, and it showed that a third of those using entrepreneurs’ relief went on to reinvest in new businesses and half of those who were aware of entrepreneurs’ relief said that it significantly influenced their decision to enter into an entrepreneurial activity. It is an important element of the business tax landscape and we will of course, as we do with all taxes, keep that relief under review.
In the six seconds I have left, I urge that the House accepts the Government new clauses and, with the exception of new clause 26, rejects the Opposition amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be made available in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in the Speaker’s provisional certificate issued on 7 January. Copies of my final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does a Minister intend to move the consent motion?
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Craig Whittaker)
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland may vote on the consent motion. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate. I call the Minister to move the motion.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clause of the Finance (No. 3) Bill:
Clause certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) (as modified in its application by Standing Order No. 83S(4)) as relating exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and being within devolved legislative competence
Clause 3 of the Bill, as amended in Committee and the Public Bill Committee and on Report.—(Mel Stride.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
Mel Stride
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Eight years ago, our country’s finances were in peril. For far too long, Labour had spent and borrowed more than our country could afford. The deficit was at a peacetime high and debt was spiralling out of control. [Interruption.] I would not keep repeating it if Labour Members had learned their lesson, but they clearly have not, so they need to be told. This Government came into office knowing that we had to rise to the challenge of working with the British people to bring expenditure back under control and to once again live within our means, and we have done just that, with the deficit now four fifths lower than it was when we came into office and debt beginning its first sustained fall in a generation.
But bringing down the deficit alone was not the limit of our endeavour. The manner in which we did so was equally important: reducing the deficit, yes, but remaining committed to funding our vital public services, giving tax cuts to millions of strivers right up and down the country, and building a tax system that rewards and incentivises business and growth—prudent but pro-business, and deeply invested in the idea that those who work hard should be rewarded. The results are clear to see: 3.3 million more people in work since 2010, unemployment at its lowest level since the 1970s, wages growing, and the rate of absolute poverty at a record low. This Bill continues that work.
At the heart of the Conservative ideal is the firm belief that people know how to spend their money better than Government do, and that those who work hard deserve to be rewarded. The best way for Government to serve that ideal is to cut taxes, especially for those on low and middle incomes—to get out of the pockets of the British people and let them decide what they do with the money that they have worked so hard to earn. When this Government came into office, the personal allowance was at £6,475 and the higher rate threshold was at £43,875. We were elected to raise those thresholds to £12,500 and £50,000 respectively. In this Bill, we deliver on that commitment not just in line with our manifesto but a full year early—at the earliest affordable opportunity. Those changes mean that, compared with 2015, we have cut taxes for 32 million people, with an additional 1.7 million people paying no tax at all, and nearly a million fewer people having to pay the higher rate of income tax. We are also making sure that the extra money in people’s pockets goes further. It is for that reason that we are freezing fuel duty, freezing air passenger duty on short-haul flights in real terms, and freezing the duty on beer, cider and spirits.
Also central to the mission of this Government is our steadfast support for business—our instinctive and deep-rooted understanding that it is never Government who generate the wealth and taxes that fund our vital public services, but the innovation and hard work of millions of people right up and down our country. The achievements of our businesses have been very significant, yet despite that, productivity has been subdued since the financial crisis, and business investment in our country, while strong, is lower than we would like it to be to make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead.
That is why in this Bill we are taking substantial action to boost private sector investment. We have introduced, at the request of the CBI, a new capital allowance for qualifying non-residential structures and buildings that will support business investment and improve the international competitiveness of the UK tax system. From 1 January, we are increasing the annual investment allowance to £1 million for two years, providing additional support for firms to invest and grow. Not least because of the relentless lobbying of my Conservative colleagues who represent constituencies in Scotland, we are legislating for a groundbreaking transferable tax history mechanism for late-life oil and gas fields.
A core pillar of this Government’s approach to taxation is a belief in fairness—that everyone should pay what they owe when they owe it. This Government have an outstanding record in this area. We have protected more than £200 billion in revenue that would otherwise have gone unpaid since 2010, and we have introduced more than 100 avoidance and evasion measures since that time.
In this Bill, we continue that work, taking action against multinationals that keep their intangible property in low-tax jurisdictions in order to avoid UK tax; tackling profit fragmentation, whereby companies reduce their tax burden by artificially shifting their revenue; and cracking down on multinationals that attempt to erode the tax base—a tax system where enterprise is rewarded but everyone pays their fair share and our public services get the funding that they need.
I have been proud to take this Bill through the House. It provides a tax cut for 32 million people. It backs British businesses, introducing with measures to boost private sector investment and support jobs and growth, to ensure that our country is the country in which enterprise can thrive. I understand that the Labour party does not agree with every aspect of the Bill but will not divide the House on Third Reading, which is positive. Those on the Government Benches support tax cuts for millions of hard-working people. We support business growth and investment. We support job creation, and we are the side of the House to ensure that taxes are fair and paid. I commend the Bill to the House.
Anneliese Dodds
This has been a Finance Bill of highs and lows. One high was the Government finally listening, albeit only when they were pushed to do so by the prospect of losing a vote, as we have just seen in relation to the loan charge. Another high was the fact that we saw the House seize the initiative to act to protect our country from the negative consequences of a no-deal Brexit for our economy and for our safety and resilience, as set out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in what I thought was an extraordinary speech.
I understand that the vote a couple of hours ago on the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was the first time that a Government have been defeated at this late stage of a Finance Bill since the summer of 1978. At that stage I was only four months old, so I cannot exactly say that this is the only time I have seen a Government defeat on a Finance Bill in my lifetime, but I suspect it was the first time for many other Members. It was an appropriate defeat, because it shows that this House has adopted responsibility when our Government have sadly been unwilling to do so.
All this has happened in a context where Government have systematically attempted to reduce the opportunities for this House to influence the Finance Bill. Conservative Ministers’ decisions over recent years to prevent the House from substantively amending Finance Bills have been unprecedented. They have become a new norm and reflect the lack of confidence that this Government have in arguing their convictions. Surely that, above all, is the case with the Government’s approach in this Finance Bill, which preserves austerity for the many while the very best-off people and profitable corporations continue to benefit, our productivity gap yawns, regional inequalities widen and we see the creation of unprecedented phenomena in this country, such as the fact that getting into work is no longer the ticket out of poverty that it once was.
We have seen this Government’s unwillingness even to gather the figures and evidence about how their measures will affect child poverty or public health, in a context where life expectancy is for the first time going down in some of our communities. We have seen them bowing to lobbying pressure and introducing loopholes to protect many overseas investors from measures intended to level the playing field between them and domestic investors. Finally, we have seen the extraordinary contortion of a new schedule being inserted into the Bill just before Christmas to introduce a new tax relief for profitable corporations, not only very late in the day but without any information whatsoever about the cost that it will pose to the public purse. Indeed, we will not get that information before the measure is implemented.
The Government are spendthrift when it comes to profitable companies and the very best off, but miserly when it comes to the worst off. I see those on the Government Front Bench adopting a rather pantomime-style response to that. I am sorry to say that the overall package in this Finance Bill supports that contention, as do the figures, if only we could have them in front of us now.
Despite the considerable problems with this Bill, given the fact that it now contains provisions that militate against a no-deal scenario—surely the most significant risk currently to our economy and indeed to our security—we cannot and will not oppose it. I want to end by thanking all the civil servants and indeed staff of this House who have worked so hard on this Bill, and who have helped us in the Opposition—[Interruption.] I see that the Minister wants to thank them, too. I also want to thank all my hon. Friends who have contributed to our debates on this Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
It is great to have the chance to speak on the Third Reading of my fifth Finance Bill. Given my relatively short time in the House, that shows just how many Finance Bills we have had.
There is much this Government do that I would criticise, but I will start with three things that I am pleased are in this Finance Bill. The first, which the Minister mentioned, is the transferrable tax history. To be clear, I was calling for that when there was only one Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament in this place. Actually, I think there has been cross-party work on the transferrable tax history. I think the Government have worked well with industry in bringing it forward, and I am pleased that they have done so. I am really pleased that it is in the Bill, and I think it will make a big difference to the North sea in particular, given the fact that we can extract oil and gas from the North sea for a longer period as a result of the changes made. The jobs associated with that will be secured, which is particularly important for my constituents and those in constituencies around the north-east of Scotland, so I am pleased it is in the Bill.
I am also pleased that clauses 92 and 93 are in the Bill. Clause 92 was accepted by the Government in relation to tax avoidance. It was tabled by the SNP, and it requires a review of the effects of the provisions in reducing tax avoidance and evasion. The Government will have to bring forward this review within six months of the passing of the Act, and we look forward to them doing so. The Government chose to accept two of our amendments, neither of which I was involved in the debates on, so I am a little bit disappointed about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) led on this part of the debate, and my congratulations go to her on getting this through.
Clause 93 was also accepted as an SNP amendment. It was the result of the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on fixed odds betting terminals and the general work he has been doing on the public health impacts of gambling. Earlier, I made the point that we sometimes put in tax measures to discourage behaviour that we do not want to happen—for example, a harmful behaviour. I am really pleased that the Government will, as a result of the SNP’s pressure, bring forward a review of the public health impacts of gambling and the changes made. When the Government are taking decisions about gambling and gaming duties, they should always be thinking about the public health impacts and have them front and centre of any explanatory memorandum for future Finance Bills.
I am not going to be overwhelmingly positive; I have some negatives as well. The process for this year’s Finance Bill has been particularly—[Interruption.] Shambolic, yes. It has been particularly shambolic and inadequate, because the Government have failed to consult on as many of the measures as they should have done. They did not put them forward in draft format, so companies and organisations were not able to make known their concerns or suggest ways in which the Bill could be changed to make it better. I fear that that is not good for scrutiny. Changes were introduced in this Finance Bill to correct errors made in previous Finance Bills or to strengthen provisions that were inadequate in previous Finance Bills. Again, I am concerned that, because of the process this year, we will see more of that in future years.
The other thing that is particularly poor in this Finance Bill—this is a real contrast with the decisions made in Scotland—are the tax changes. Tax changes that have been made on things that are devolved to Scotland, which I none the less feel able to criticise, are not the ones that I feel should have been made, because they are not made from the progressive point of view that we would like. The tax changes we are making in Scotland are on a much more progressive basis, and the Government would do well to look at what we are doing in Scotland. In England, about half of taxpayers pay more than they would if they were in Scotland, and those taxpayers are the ones at the lower end of the income spectrum. They are the people we think we should be supporting, rather than the people at the top end of the income spectrum.
I have just a last couple of points. Better scrutiny of the process is always required. I have called repeatedly for the Finance Bill to be subject to evidence sessions in Committee, and I will continue to make that call of the Government until they capitulate, because Finance Bill Committees should hear evidence. The other half of this—the spend process—has been improved very slightly, but it has not been improved nearly enough, and we need better and more adequate scrutiny of Government spend before it happens, rather than just doing it through the estimates process.
Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), who was with me in Committee, as well as two members of staff, Jonathan Kiehlmann, who was involved in this, and Scott Taylor, without whose help I could not have gone through the Finance Bill Committee or the stages we are at now. I would like to offer my specific thanks to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Maximum sentences for child cruelty offences
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
What a huge pleasure it is to be here this evening. May I start by paying tribute to some people in the Gallery just above us? Up there we have Paula Hudgell and her family. On her lap, we can see Tony. Tony is four years old, and he is an incredibly courageous young man. He was, sadly, incredibly brutalised by his birth parents, before his real parents took care of him. He was so cruelly treated in their care, and the assault on him was so great, that he lost both his legs. That is an extraordinary situation for anybody in our society to find themselves in, but where it happens to a child, at the hands of their parents, it is a wrong that screams out for justice.
That is why I am here this evening with a petition of 12,000 names—if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will show you just a few of them—that Paula and Tony have collected to ask for a change in the law. How can it be right that, had Tony been an adult, and his attackers been charged with grievous bodily harm, they could have received a life sentence, but because he is a child, and because they were his parents, the maximum sentence was 10 years?
That is clearly wrong, and this petition expresses the wishes of the people not just of Kent, and not just of Kings Hill and Tonbridge and Malling, but of the whole country, who are speaking out for justice, speaking out for Tony, speaking out for the whole Hudgell family and, most of all, speaking out clearly about the wrong that we see today in our country and asking why it is not more severely punished.
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for letting me lodge this petition this evening. This is the first of a long series of parliamentary steps that I shall take alongside the Hudgells to change the law and to see justice done for children.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Tonbridge and Malling,
Declares that the sentence given to the abusers of Tony Hudgell will not act as a serious deterrent considering the life changing injuries Tony suffered at their hands; the reasons for this petition is not to change the sentence already given, but for Parliament to raise the threshold of maximum sentences for future cases.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce tougher sentences for child cruelty offences.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002308]
A40 in West Oxfordshire: Congestion
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I am delighted to see the Minister in his place again as I bring the matter of West Oxfordshire’s roads before the House. I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of congestion on the A40, which is of enormous significance for those who travel on the road daily.
The A40 is one of the main trunk roads of this country and the main trunk road that travels through my constituency. Congestion is a particular concern between Witney and Oxford. There is a very good reason for my constituents’ concern over the congestion that they face, many on a daily basis. It is not just from the major market towns of Witney, Carterton and Eynsham, but from the surrounding villages. Between 23,000 and 32,000 vehicles currently use the section between Witney and Oxford each day, which is above the road’s capacity. During school term times, the average journey speed on the A40 between Cassington and Wolvercote in peak time is 17 mph, while on the worst days it can be as low as 10 mph.
The Oxfordshire strategic traffic model forecasts an increase in highway demand on the A40 between Witney and Oxford of between 70 and 140 movements per peak hour by 2031. Without improvements, that will lead to an even greater overcapacity on the road and increase the severity of the congestion that my constituents already suffer from. Peak journey times between Witney and Oxford could increase by about 15 minutes.
I have spoken of the major towns, but equally people living in towns and villages further afield, who may not even use the A40, are suffering the ill effects of the congestion on that road. For example, in Bladon, which is the village in which I live, we suffer from excessive traffic, particularly HGVs, which rat-run through our village on the A4095 to escape the congestion on the A40. Businesses across West Oxfordshire are shackled by the logjams on the A40 and I have lost count of the number of businesses that have said to me over the past two years that they could expand were it not for the barrier that the A40 presents because of the congestion on it.
The A40 is costing jobs and revenue. Because of the difficulties for people travelling in and out of West Oxfordshire, it is making recruitment for our NHS and our schools very difficult. The plain truth is that West Oxfordshire will never and can never reach its full potential until the congestion on the A40 is addressed.
Back in 2002, my predecessor remarked in this House that
“In west Oxfordshire, we have some of the best and brightest businesses in the country, but the gridlock on our main road is like a hand pressed against their windpipes. Business in west Oxfordshire must be allowed to breathe.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2002; Vol. 386, c.308WH.]
He was right and his words remain true today. I do not rise in this debate to complain. I rise to be a voice of optimism and not to speak of the past, but to champion the opportunities and to explain to the Minister—I am very grateful to him for listening—what it is we need for our area. There is, in truth, more optimism now than there has been for decades. Progress is being made. If we are ambitious and bold in the years ahead, we might just be able to get to grips with this issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I had the opportunity to be in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I have witnessed some of the problems he has on the roads in his constituency and I am very aware of the gridlock to which he refers. I am also very aware of the impact on the economic life of farming and the rural community. Does he feel that the changes he is proposing, and hoping that the Minister will respond to, will enable the rural life in his constituency to grow and have the economic life and strength it really needs?
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent intervention. He refers to two points to which I would like to draw attention. The life of rural communities is absolutely essential. I referred to the village in which I live, Bladon. It is a small village. It is one example of many villages which find that they are clogged up in turn because the A40 is so difficult.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Not just villages, but towns such as Cheltenham beyond Witney are affected. The situation at the moment is that the A40 is like a furred up artery. If we could just unclog that artery, it would be good for jobs, businesses, social mobility and all the things we want to see in Gloucestershire as well as Oxfordshire. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Robert Courts
I could not agree more and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I tend to talk about the A40 in terms of Witney and West Oxfordshire, but we must not forget that the effects of the congestion on the road spill over into Gloucestershire and his constituency. [Interruption.] And of course I am reminded, from a sedentary position by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), that it affects the whole of Oxfordshire, not just West Oxfordshire.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that in Oxfordshire we are really getting behind the Government’s housing programme and going for growth? His area and mine repeatedly top the leader board for the number of new houses built. Does he agree that our road arteries are holding us back?
Robert Courts
That is an excellent point. One point overrides all others—if there are to be new homes, the infrastructure must come with them. I will dwell on that a little more later, but my hon. Friend makes her point excellently.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred obliquely to Brize Norton. That is terribly important. The people who work at that Royal Air Force base come not necessarily from Carterton but from further afield—sometimes 50 or 100 miles away—because of the nature of service life. This issue affects the Royal Air Force’s functioning and efficiency, too, and we must address that.
There is no silver bullet for A40 congestion. We will require a combination of schemes from a variety of funding streams to tackle it. I will briefly cover some of the options and funding avenues, and ask for the Minister’s help in securing the funding we need.
First, the park and ride scheme, for which a public consultation has just closed, is Oxfordshire County Council’s most immediate project for A40 improvement. The intended funding stream for that is the Department for Transport’s local growth fund. There are plans to build a park and ride at Eynsham, together with an eastbound bus lane between Eynsham and the Duke’s Cut canal bridge near Wolvercote. Those proposals probably represent the biggest step forward on A40 congestion in a generation. They would bring real change and progress on an issue that affects the day-to-day lives of us all. We would see essential widening of the road and long-needed upgrades to public transport along the route. It would be a significant step—although perhaps not a conclusive one—in the right direction, and I will ask for the Minister’s help in securing funding. However, it may be that those proposals on their own do not offer a final fix and that no aspect of this scheme can be seen in isolation. Work may need to continue—
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. On that theme, does he agree that part of the solution to any road congestion is improving the railways? Some while ago, I got funding for the doubling of the Cotswold line from Moreton to Evesham. Is it not now imperative that we get full doubling right through from Moreton-in-Marsh to Oxford? That would take a significant burden off the A40.
Robert Courts
Absolutely—I could not agree more. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There are two ways of addressing road congestion: increasing the flow of the road—the furred artery, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) referred to it—and taking cars off the road wherever possible. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) refers to redoubling the Cotswold line so we can have faster, more reliable and more frequent trains and take as many people off the A40 as possible. I feel particularly strongly about that—it is one of my pet projects—and I will refer to it again a little later.
The second aspect I would like to talk about is the Government’s housing infrastructure fund. One of the biggest causes for optimism at the moment is Oxfordshire County Council’s plan for road upgrades and the strong case it is making for a part of that £5 billion fund. I am delighted that it is making the most of that opportunity with a very strong bid for A40 upgrades, which it will submit later this year and no doubt will be highly competitive. I look forward to continuing to work with Oxfordshire County Council and neighbouring councils, and with the Government, to progress that bid.
The bid will seek to achieve upgrades for four strategic and interdependent road sections, including general roadway widening along critical sections of the A40 to complete the dualling from Witney to Eynsham, new bus lanes, additional cycle path links and—this is another thing I have campaigned for since being elected—a walking path to promote active travel between Eynsham and Oxford. The B4044 community path in particular is something I have campaigned for consistently since being elected. I want to take this opportunity to praise the hard work of campaigners and put on the record my full support for enabling people to cycle as much as possible—to get out of cars and to cycle from Eynsham into the centre of Oxford, as I was lucky enough to be able to do along the excellent A44 path from Bladon to Oxford when I worked in the centre of Oxford, and I am delighted that the B4044 community path is included in Oxfordshire County Council’s plan.
The bid is connected to delivery of the Oxfordshire-Cotswolds garden village, which will see 2,200 new homes built on the A40 corridor. This, along with further developments west of Eynsham and Witney, will put increased demand on the A40, and so the road’s capacity must be enhanced if we are to cope. I look to the Minister for his help in achieving this funding. I have always been clear that transport upgrades—improvements to bus, road and rail—need to happen before, not after, new homes are occupied to ensure that new development does not place an unacceptable burden on existing residents.
These schemes will also assist our area in delivering improved housing choice, affordability for residents and reasonable commuting time to their place of employment. They will attract high-value knowledge businesses to go alongside the leading businesses in West Oxfordshire I have already referred to, further enhancing the dynamism of our area. West Oxfordshire is an economically successful region, but this comes at a price, and that price is increased pressure on our existing infrastructure, less reliable connections and less resilience. The deficiencies in our current transport network must be addressed before we start to think about additional growth.
I fully support Oxford County Council’s efforts. I have no doubt it will submit a compelling bid that I sincerely and passionately hope will be successful, and I urge the Government to accept and support the bid. I am sure the Minister will offer his advice and advocacy to that very end.
In my last two or three points, I will refer to the major road network scheme, which, looking further into the future, I believe offers more promise of further A40 funding. I have campaigned for such a programme to ensure central Government funding for local major roads that fall outside the strategic road network, and I welcome the broad outline of the scheme. Considering the existing strategic road network together with major local authority roads is a welcome step, and providing a dedicated funding stream for the major road network will enable growth and development to be more effectively planned.
I well remember discussing this matter with the Transport Secretary—I am grateful to him for visiting—as we stood near Eynsham. He saw the congestion on the A40 for himself, and this scheme grew out of that visit. I explained how the A40 had been de-trunked in 2002 by the Labour Government and how that resulted in the road falling between the cracks, not receiving the significant central Government investment required to tackle the severe congestion on the road. The major road network proposals offer the potential of local authority-controlled roads being able to access central Government funding while not losing the important local democratic control provided by locally elected councillors.
I have submitted a consultation response on the MRN and was pleased to read the Government’s response published just before Christmas. I am greatly encouraged by it, and the MRN shows great promise, but we now need to see the rhetoric transformed into decisive action, such that we begin to tackle the congestion issues on roads such as the A40.
I ought briefly to mention the Oxford to Cambridge expressway project. I appreciate that it will be some time yet before construction starts, but it demonstrates how much the Government value Oxfordshire and its growth. It is a key area for business growth, and housing growth is expected as well, but if we are to accept, as the Government have done, that Oxfordshire is a key growth area for the UK, of paramount strategic and economic significance, there is no excuse for neglecting our infrastructure needs. It is all well and good building a new expressway but, if we are to deliver the economic growth envisaged, we must address our current infrastructure deficiencies, such as on the A40, which affects Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire, with urgency.
Either the Oxford-Cambridgeshire corridor is a national priority for economic growth, or it is not, and if it is, this must be reflected in the Government’s investment decisions, and those must help and benefit communities throughout the whole of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire and beyond.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Considerable growth is due to take place in Cheltenham, Gloucester, the Cotswolds and Oxfordshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not relieve congestion in what is a narrow throat, growth will be inhibited not only in Oxfordshire but in Gloucestershire, and further afield in Wales as well?
Robert Courts
That is absolutely true. The focus tends to be on the Witney area, because that is where the A40 approaches the A44 and then joins the strategic network, but let us not forget the serious impact on communities further afield, such as the rural areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford. I am thinking of the rest of Oxfordshire, of Cheltenham, and of rural communities elsewhere in Gloucestershire. This is a narrowing road that happens to reach a pinch point in my constituency, but affects the far wider areas represented by Members who have come to contribute to tonight’s debate.
Alex Chalk
I have spoken to representatives of businesses in Eagle Tower, in the centre of Cheltenham, which are struggling to recruit people because they cannot persuade them to travel from London. Whether the company is GE Aviation, Spirax-Sarco or GCHQ, better communications mean better recruitment and are better for the local economy.
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that problem affects not just Cheltenham but my constituency. It affects Witney, Eynsham, Carterton and the Royal Air Force, which is also struggling to recruit people. Business is suffering, but so are our essential public services. I mentioned that only briefly at the beginning of my speech, but it is a major issue. Recruitment difficulties in the NHS and teaching are also affected by people’s inability to travel quickly in and out of the area where they need to be.
Victoria Prentis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning public services. As he knows, because of what is, we hope, the temporary downgrade of Horton General hospital, people from both our constituencies need to gain access to essential public services in Oxford, which is very difficult to reach at times of peak traffic demand.
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is right, and I entirely support her campaign to ensure that our important services are outside the centre of Oxford whenever possible so that that journey is not necessary. However, sometimes it is, and the A40, like other major roads, is sometimes impassable owing to congestion that poses not just an obstacle to business and public services but, in some instances, a safety threat to residents. That is clearly unacceptable.
I want to make a couple of points before, very gratefully, I allow the Minister to respond. I have spent much of the debate discussing the investment that I want to see in direct upgrades on the A40, but we must not forget—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds for his foreshadowing of the points that I now wish to make—the contribution to be made by West Oxfordshire’s railways in tackling A40 congestion. It is in everyone’s interests for fewer cars to use the A40 whenever possible, but we can see the modal shift that we need only if our railways can offer a feasible, practicable and reliable service as an alternative. If that is to happen, there is an urgent need for the remaining sections of the Cotswold line to be doubled, which would enable more frequent and more reliable trains to travel from Hanborough to Oxford.
I will continue to campaign for the reopening of the Cowley branch line for passengers, with a regular shuttle service to Hanborough, but if we improved bus and cycle links to and from Hanborough, we could create a public transport hub in West Oxfordshire, taking cars off the A40 and reducing congestion throughout our area. I want people to be able to leave their cars behind, and to use buses, trains and bikes whenever possible so that there is more room on the roads for those who must use cars. We need to build a truly integrated transport network in West Oxfordshire that will meet the needs of our area and enable residents and businesses to thrive in the years ahead.
For decades, congestion on the A40 has been one of the biggest issues facing West Oxfordshire, and I am determined to tackle it. We are moving in the right direction, with opportunities for investment from a number of central Government funds, so there is more cause for optimism than there has been for decades, but there is still much work to do if we are to deliver the improvements that are needed. Let me stress to the Minister that, as we have heard from everyone who has spoken in the debate, this is not just a matter of minor inconvenience for us; it is a blight on the lives of commuters, and a millstone around the necks of our businesses. It is vital that we work towards, and ultimately achieve, a final fix for the A40, because only then can West Oxfordshire, and the surrounding areas, achieve their full potential.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to speak about the A40 west of Oxford, although, unfortunately, such has been the Periclean—indeed Demosthenic—quality of his oratory that he has left me nine minutes of a 30-minute debate in which to respond. He and other colleagues raised many issues that it would be nice to touch on, so in a way it is a pity that there is not more time for the Government to give the account he seeks.
I understand the great importance of this road in the area and to the local people who regularly use it. It will be no secret to hon. Members that the A40 can experience congestion—at times severe congestion. It should be said that the chief glory of the road is that it leads to Herefordshire. I was astounded that my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) neglected to make that point when sketching the gap between Gloucestershire and Wales, thereby ignoring much—almost all—of what is of value in this.
There are considerable growth ambitions for the west of Oxford along this corridor and the debate is therefore timely. The county has a fast-growing and successful economy that contributes some £21 billion per year to national output. It competes well on a global stage as a centre of science and innovation, but infrastructure constraints there, as elsewhere across the country, are a barrier to housing development and job creation. That was why in November 2017 the Government announced that Oxfordshire would receive up to £215 million of new funding to support its ambition to plan for, and to support the delivery of, 100,000 homes by 2031. That is alongside a commitment to adopt an Oxfordshire-wide statutory joint plan by that year. This ambitious and comprehensive investment programme is designed to deliver sustainable development and growth, with a focus on the amenity, quality and liveability of the area and on affordable housing.
On 12 September 2018, the first of the planning flexibilities agreed as part of the deal was enacted by written ministerial statement. This has amended land supply policies for Oxfordshire, and the Government look forward to the county developing its joint statutory spatial plan, making use of these new flexibilities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney acknowledged, the majority of local transport improvement schemes are funded through the local growth fund—it is not entirely a Department for Transport scheme. We are providing some £6.7 billion to that fund over the six years from 2015-16 to 2020-21. Funding also comes through local enterprise partnerships, with some 600 transport schemes being funded across England.
There is also considerable planned investment on the A40 through the local growth fund. The Oxford science transit scheme has been allocated £35 million of the fund to support the expansion of the integrated public transport system west of Oxford, including the provision of bus priority and of a 1,000-space park and ride at Eynsham, to which my hon. Friend referred. We hope that this will deliver major enhancements to the strategic route, connecting centres of innovation and economic growth. I understand that the county council aims to have the park and ride and bus lane open for use by April 2021. Improvements to public transport should provide a viable alternative to private car use and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, a substantial modal shift would help to address congestion and would also be of enormous public value in others ways. This scheme and other current and planned projects will provide congestion relief in the short to medium term along the A40. Of course, there is also a £5.9 million local growth fund commitment to the Oxford North project, a package of measures to improve transport in the north of the city and to provide a new research space and new homes.
There are also wider aspirations to tackle congestion in the longer term. As my hon. Friend pointed out, a consultation has recently closed on plans for the first phase of these improvements, and my officials continue to work closely with Oxfordshire County Council to take the project forward.
The North Cotswold line is not strictly within the terms of this debate, but it has been raised and I am pleased to discuss it quickly. As with the road, its chief glory is that it leads to Herefordshire, so I have a certain stake in this issue, and of course colleagues representing constituencies along the line would like to see faster and more frequent services. Any proposals must be supported by a robust business case in accordance with the rail network enhancements pipeline. The Department will continue to provide advice to Lord Faulkner’s taskforce, which has been established to develop a vision for the route between Worcester and Oxford—and, ultimately, of course to Herefordshire—and to develop proposals.
On the housing side, the autumn Budget provided an extra £500 million for the housing infrastructure fund, bringing the total funding available to £5.5 billion. In March 2018, the Government announced the areas that are being taken forward through co-development, where the Government work with local authorities to further develop their proposals. Oxfordshire is one of the designated areas for co-development. The Department works closely with other Departments and local partners to take forward these proposals. Final funding awards for the proposals will be determined by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government following the assessment of detailed business plans. I understand that Oxfordshire County Council intends to submit its own proposals early this year.
My hon. Friend has raised the issue of maintenance and potholes on many occasions, and indeed he secured a debate on the subject in July last year. As he will know, the Government have since allocated a further £420 million of new money for local highways maintenance —not necessarily entirely as a result of that debate. That means an additional £7.4 million of funding for local roads in Oxfordshire, which adds to existing committed funding sources totalling some £28.2 million for the county.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the major road network. Oxford does have a section of the A40 that is eligible for the local roads network, in that it fits the criteria that we have set for that. It is now for local partners to gather evidence that demonstrates which improvements are priorities for their respective areas, and to bid for support. This is a major new Government initiative to create a package of support for schemes that are eligible along the future major road network. It therefore provides an opportunity across the country, not just in Oxfordshire. The Oxford to Cambridge expressway has also been raised, and my hon. Friend will know that considerable investment is being made in that area to improve transport connectivity and growth not just across Oxfordshire and the region, but for the benefit of the UK as a whole.
I think that my hon. Friend will recognise from this quick canter through the various pots of money and opportunities available that his county has done well and that if the bids can pass muster in this very competitive process, they will stand every chance of an attractive outcome. He knows that a series of bids have been placed, or are due to be placed, in front of the Government for those different pots, and I urge him, his county council and local partners to continue to build robust and compelling cases that can demonstrate to the Government that investment in key infrastructure is well worth while and will deliver the key targets that they have specified, along with benefits for current users and future growth and success.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms McDonagh? As the Committee will be aware, the Treasury has been undertaking a programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there will continue to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the United Kingdom. To deliver that, the Treasury is laying statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, several of which have already been debated in both Houses, with plenty more to come—we have another tomorrow afternoon.
The draft regulations are part of that programme. They will fix deficiencies in UK anti-money laundering law to ensure that it continues to operate effectively post exit. Their approach aligns with that of other statutory instruments laid under the 2018 Act, providing continuity by maintaining existing legislation at the point of exit but amending it where necessary to ensure that it works effectively in the event that we leave the EU without a deal in place.
Many hon. Members present will be familiar with the existing anti-money laundering legislation. The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 set out the requirements for regulated firms to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The EU funds transfer regulation specifies the information that must accompany electronic transfers of funds. The Oversight of Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing Supervision Regulations 2017 established the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision within the Financial Conduct Authority early in 2018.
Anti-money laundering legislation is designed to combat illicit finance while minimising the burden on legitimate businesses. In a no-deal scenario, the UK will be outside the European economic area and the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework, so the three pieces of anti-money laundering legislation that I mentioned will need to be updated to reflect the UK’s new position and ensure that their provisions work properly. The changes that the draft regulations will make to the UK’s anti-money laundering regime will primarily affect the financial services sector, but their impact will be minimal and we have engaged extensively with industry to ensure that affected firms are aware of them.
First, the draft regulations will transfer to the FCA responsibility for making technical standards to specify the additional measures that credit and financial institutions with branches or subsidiaries abroad are required to take. Such standards are of a similar type to those that the FCA already makes and are in an area in which it has deep technical expertise, so it is the appropriate body to take on that responsibility. The transfer of this power is necessary because the relevant standards are currently made by the European Commission.
Secondly, the draft regulations will remove the obligation for certain UK persons to have regard to guidelines published by the European supervisory authorities. The UK will be outside the EU’s regulatory framework, so it would be inappropriate for UK persons to be legally required to have regard to those guidelines. However, it is important to remember that firms will continue to be required, under the broader obligations of the FCA, to have regard to guidance developed by the UK supervisory authorities and industry bodies.
Thirdly, the draft regulations will equalise the regulatory treatment of EEA member states and third countries for correspondent banking relationships, which arise when one bank provides banking services on behalf of another. Currently, UK financial institutions apply enhanced due diligence measures to correspondent banking relationships with financial institutions outside the EEA, but those measures are not required for intra-EEA relationships. The draft regulations will equalise regulatory treatment so that enhanced due diligence will be required for all correspondent banking relationships. That change better aligns with the Financial Action Task Force standards on the issue and with the existing practice of many UK institutions that apply enhanced due diligence because of the risks associated with correspondent banking relationships.
Fourthly, the draft regulations will equalise regulatory requirements with respect to the information about the payer and payee that accompanies the electronic transfer of funds. UK payment service providers will be required to provide the same volume of information to accompany transfers into EEA member states as to other countries. Those changes are being made to reflect the UK’s new position outside the EU’s regulatory framework. The position of the Crown dependencies within the UK’s payments area will remain unaffected.
Finally, the current money laundering regulations require certain information to be communicated to EU institutions. Those provisions will be removed, as they will no longer be appropriate once the UK ceases to be a member of the EU.
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee queried the change in requirements to transmit information to EU institutions. It also queried whether the FCA will co-operate with its counterparts in other countries to combat illicit finance. However, the draft regulations’ changes to information submission requirements relate to specific duties to provide directly to EU institutions information such as the national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing. Legal obligations to submit such information would be inappropriate once the UK leaves the EU, but it is important to emphasise that UK supervisory authorities, including the FCA, will continue to have an obligation to co-operate, as they consider appropriate, with overseas anti-money laundering authorities in relation to firms that have offices in the UK.
The Treasury has worked closely with the FCA in drafting the regulations. We have also engaged with the financial services industry on them and will continue to do so in relation to other statutory instruments in the onshoring programme. To maximise transparency for Parliament and industry, we published the instrument in draft in November, along with an explanatory policy note.
The Government believe that the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime operates effectively and that the legislation will continue to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting them; I commend them to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. May I wish everyone on the Committee a happy new year?
Once again, I must say that it feels a little like groundhog day: we are here again to discuss a Treasury statutory instrument that would make provisions for the financial regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each such occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to secondary legislation being used in this manner, as well as the challenges of ensuring proper scrutiny of the sheer volume of legislation that passes through Delegated Legislation Committees. We have expressed many times our frustration about having to spend time and resources creating a framework that might never be used, and about the public money that has been spent on planning for what should not be viewed as a potential eventuality.
Because of the dangerous game now being played, statutory instruments considered by Committees such as this may not disappear into the ether on 29 March. They could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book, so they need proper and in-depth scrutiny. Equally, we must bear in mind the stress that financial markets would be under in the scenario that the Government allowed such a situation to materialise. Such instruments must be considered through that lens.
The draft regulations follow on from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. I do not want to rerun the many issues of contention that were debated during the passage of that Act, but I think a few significant points that relate to the draft regulations bear further scrutiny, and I hope the Minister will respond to them.
First, it would be helpful to have further information about how the FCA will assess equivalence of third countries’ legislation, compared with that of EU countries, following the fourth money laundering directive. Will it use the Commission’s list initially and then expand or contract it in the future? If so, what methodology and resources will be used to undertake that? Such a process could obviously be very resource-intensive—a point that I shall come back to later.
Secondly, and relatedly, the existing legislation refers to the Commission’s high-risk third country list. The draft regulations would onshore the EU list as of exit day and then commit the UK to updating the list. I understand from debates in the other place that that would be undertaken via the affirmative procedure for reasons of speed.
Has the Government’s thinking developed on enabling parliamentary scrutiny of changes to that list? Clearly, there is a need for speed, but that surely has to be balanced with appropriate oversight. As with sanctions policy, it would surely make sense to co-ordinate this with the EU, even if it is not done formally, given the potential resource implications of having to research many different jurisdictions speedily. We do not have an indication in the accompanying notes of how that process would occur.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I was going to ask a question in a similar vein about the high-risk countries. I would have less concern if the same list as the EU was used on day one. However, looking for comfort in the future, if the list is going to be changed, and particularly if it will diverge from the EU’s list, parliamentary scrutiny should be brought to bear on that.
Anneliese Dodds
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We have seen a lot of contention around the definition of which countries go on the list. There have been criticisms, even at EU level, of how transparent or otherwise that process has been for countries going on or coming off the list. It is therefore important that we get it right if we end up adopting this process in the UK. We need to make sure that it is fully transparent and accountable. It can have a significant impact on the jurisdictions that are affected, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point.
Thirdly, I hope the Government will make clear what our co-operation with the EU on anti-money laundering efforts will look like in the future. Currently, we only seem to have the ubiquitous phrase that on this issue the Government are seeking a “deep and special” future relationship with the EU. The Minister provided us with a little more in his comments, saying that we would continue to engage with international processes—I am sorry I did not catch his exact wording.
We need more detail on this. That is important, given the current developments with the recast of the EU’s anti-money laundering machinery, including its decision to implement more transparency for trusts. The UK’s trust register, as I understand it, is not yet complete and it is not publicly available, even to the limited extent that is proposed in the reform of the anti-money laundering regime. That reform would cover business-like trusts and enable their beneficial owners—or the people who would benefit from their proceeds—to be viewable by those who could prove a legitimate interest in knowing about them, for example journalists as well as law enforcement agencies. That would go beyond the UK regime. It would be helpful to know how we, as a nation, envisage co-ordinating with that process.
We also need more information, given the continuing role of UK-based structures in facilitating hidden transactions. I was astonished to see, in response to a parliamentary question I tabled, that the Government’s loudly promoted crackdown on Scottish limited partnerships has been anything but. In October 2018, there were no less than 3,542 SLPs that said they could not reveal ownership information—which is, of course, now required by law—because of their own failure to obtain that information, and more than 600 that said they could not provide it because, despite knowing who their people of significant control were, they had not been able to collect the required particulars from them. Those figures had only reduced by almost a third and 12% respectively over the previous year, so there really has not been a crackdown in this area, despite what was promised. That is problematic, particularly when other countries are looking nervously at what is happening in relation to these shell companies in our jurisdiction, including EU countries.
Fourthly, I am unclear about one element of drafting. Regulation 8(b)(i) changes an emphatic “must” to a weak “may”, to coin a phrase—I am sorry, I could not help myself. Specifically, the amended regulations will state that the commissioners—HMRC—may, rather than must,
“make arrangements to ensure that the NCA are able to use information on the register to respond promptly to a request for information about the persons referred to in”
different regulations. It is not clear to me why that change has occurred. It seems to weaken the language and there is no explanation of it in the memorandum. Surely the parameters for such co-ordination are critical, especially in a context in which we lack any indication from the Government of when they will introduce their promised offence of failure to prevent economic crime, despite the consultation on the subject having ended many months ago.
Fifthly, and perhaps most substantially, there is—as with so many recent statutory instruments—a question about resourcing. Regulation 5(3)(b) grants the FCA the power to make further technical standards relating to the area. FCA funding has been increased by £5 million to cover withdrawal work, but as far as I can see, that is just to aid the transition; there does not seem to be any commitment to maintain increased funding to allow it to use the new powers that it has been given via such instruments. The FCA’s annual business plan includes the following statement about EU withdrawal:
“Although our Annual Funding Requirement has increased by £5m to cover EU Withdrawal work, we have still made difficult and challenging decisions about our priority activities across all business areas that are not related to work on EU Withdrawal, including limiting the number of new initiatives we’ve taken on. We recognise the particular significance of EU Withdrawal on wholesale financial markets, investment management and the general insurance sectors, and our decisions have been driven by our recognition of the capacity of industry to absorb change.”
Just yesterday, I discussed with the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner his concerns about resourcing for the FCA with respect to adequately identifying and prosecuting fraud—not an area that is covered by the EU withdrawal process, but one that needs to be provided for appropriately. There still seems to be a lack of recognition from the Government about the impact of this SI and others on the FCA’s existing work programme. The FCA’s activity was criticised in FATF’s assessment last month for having cited only eight firms and collected just £254 million in penalties for anti-money laundering violations over the past five years. The Minister mentioned OPBAS; I am sure that he will be aware that the supervision of professions, which was meant to be tightened up, streamlined and made more coherent through OPBAS, was another area criticised in FATF’s assessment.
Interestingly, the draft regulations make no mention of the National Crime Agency, despite concerns expressed in the FATF report about the lack of resources for the NCA, particularly its financial intelligence unit. The Committee may be aware that there has been considerable debate in the specialist press about whether the UK’s glowing assessment by FATF was warranted, particularly given the lack of action to better resource the NCA—an issue highlighted in FATF’s last evaluation in 2007, which stated that
“the UK financial intelligence unit needs a substantial increase in its resources and the suspicious activity reporting regime needs to be modernised and reformed.”
FATF also flagged continuing problems with the lack of verification of data on the Companies House register, a subject that I have repeatedly raised in the House. Because of the FIU’s lack of resources, FATF concluded that it
“misses the opportunity to search for criminal activity that might otherwise be missed by”
investigators who
“mine the SARs database for issues linked to their own geographical or operational remits.”
I understand that the UK assigns only nine employees to analyse hundreds of thousands of suspicious activity reports, or SARs, each year.
Back in 2007, the UK pledged that it would significantly increase the staffing level of the FIU to 200, but press reports from last October suggested that it has only 80 full-time employees and that the unit has actually lost one in five of its staff over the past 11 years. Apparently, the Government have committed to increasing staffing in this area, so it would be enormously helpful if the Minister provided some assurances on that score. It is not just the FCA that works on money-laundering issues, but the FIU in the NCA, so we need to know that it will be adequately resourced.
Kirsty Blackman
May I start by wishing everyone a happy new year? I will not rerun the entire speech of the hon. Member for Oxford East, but I largely agree with what she said.
I have just a few points to raise. First, if the list of high-risk third countries, which the hon. Lady mentioned, is to change, it will be really important to have expertise in scrutinising those countries, so perhaps there should be a formal role for the Treasury Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee to look at any proposed changes. Allowing the list to be considered by a group of MPs who are used to looking at such issues would reduce the likelihood of insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. People would still complain, but it would be less likely that people would say that changes to the list of high-risk countries had not been adequately scrutinised if they were looked at by one of those Committees in advance.
I am less concerned about the list in the first place if it is to be directly transposed from the EU’s list, because that is clearly working adequately for us at the moment. It is for changes that might come through in the future that a proper scrutiny process needs to be set up, to ensure that we all feel that these issues are looked at properly.
As was mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson and the Minister, there will be an obligation on the EU and the UK to co-operate. I appreciate that, but my concern is about the actual mechanisms that will be in place to allow that to happen. What mechanisms will be in place? Currently there are mechanisms because we are all part of the EU. How will conversation between those authorities be facilitated, and will that happen on as regular a basis as we would like?
We do not want to see a situation where the UK leaves the EU and is less good at tackling money laundering as a result, and we do not want to see the EU’s powers to tackle money laundering reduced either. Continuing that close co-operation is really important. If the Minister made clear through what mechanisms those conversations would happen, it would give us a level of comfort and assurance, rather than there being an obligation to co-operate but no clarity about how it will actually happen.
Lastly, the explanatory memorandum to the draft regulations states that
“certain credit institutions, financial institutions and payment service providers need to expand existing IT systems to reflect the greater levels of scrutiny that will need to be applied to correspondent banking relationships between the UK and EEA states”.
I accept that some of those organisations already scrutinise money laundering issues at that level, but some of them do not, as is reflected in that note. I would like the Government to explain what conversations they have had with such organisations about whether they are ready for the changes to be made to their IT systems, whether they are ready to expand their IT systems in the way that the Government say they need to, and whether they will be able to do that by the Government’s required date.
It is important, if we are putting an additional burden on companies and organisations, that we do not talk only to financial services trade bodies in general. The Government or their agencies should be talking to the individual companies that will have to make those changes to ensure that they are compliant at the beginning. We should ensure that they are compliant not just to make sure that they are compliant, but in order that money laundering is reduced as a result. It is important that the Government make it clear whether the companies will be ready, and if the companies will not be, what they are doing to make sure that the companies will be ready.
John Glen
It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North, who raised a series of thoughtful questions. I have to say at the outset that the draft regulations are about creating the functioning regime that we will need in a no-deal situation. A whole range of points that were raised were discussed during the passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, but I will seek to respond to them.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised concerns about the EU’s high-risk third country list. I can confirm that we will use the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act to update the high-risk register. We will use the affirmative procedure, which will enable Parliament to vote on any changes. International standards will be considered as part of any updates.
The hon. Lady also raised the Financial Action Task Force and its recommendations, and I will come on to some of those around the resourcing of the FIU. However, it is important for the Committee to understand that the comprehensive review of the UK regime that took place last year, which is done on a 10-year basis, judged the UK to be in the best state of all 60 countries that have been evaluated. However, I acknowledge that there are pieces of work that need to be undertaken to improve it.
There has been an 80% reduction in Scottish limited partnerships.[Official Report, 17 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 9MC.] The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which leads on this area, published a report in December that set out a series of elements, including tighter regulation, the need for a firmer connection to the UK, increased transparency of information and giving the registrar the power to strike off dormant partnerships. I accept that there is work to be done, but progress is being made.
The hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North raised the issue of co-operation with the EU. Paragraph 84 of the political declaration explicitly sets out that the UK and the EU should co-operate on anti-money laundering. I am not able to give chapter and verse on specific mechanisms, but it is important to remind the Committee that the UK is known as a world leader in setting the agenda in this area and it is inconceivable that the Government would not wish to continue to take a lead in driving forward these standards.
Obviously in a no-deal scenario, work would have to take place to establish how the FCA’s relationship with the EU would work, in the context of a thorough and holistic piece of legislation on financial services. The Treasury, working across Government with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, takes its responsibilities in this area very seriously. I gave evidence to the Treasury Committee’s inquiry on economic crime and we look forward to its report, which will guide us and to which we will respond.
The Home Office leads on the resourcing of the FIU and the SARs reform work, so I am not able to give a detailed answer, but shall write to the hon. Member for Oxford East.
Anneliese Dodds
Would the Minister mind also writing to me to indicate when the Government will release their response to the consultation on creating an offence of failure to prevent economic crime?
John Glen
I would be happy to respond on that matter as well.
A point that often comes up in these discussions is the resourcing of the FCA. I acknowledge the great work that it has done over the last 18 months in helping the Government to prepare these SIs. It is funded by an industry levy and has set out in its business plan the resources involved in working towards exit. The Government are confident that the FCA has made adequate preparations ahead of leaving. If additional resources are needed in the event of no deal, it would be able to raise those funds very quickly, but we would all be in a situation where we would have to do things that we had not anticipated. This programme of SIs is about getting to the basic starting point that allows us to have confidence in the regulatory regime, but I do not deny that a considerable amount of work would need to take place.
On maintenance of standards and equivalence with the EU on anti-money laundering, the hon. Member for Oxford East discussed the use of the word “may” versus “must”. I want to clarify that what we have removed is the obligation to report in a specific way, as per the legislation. It is not our intention to remove ourselves from either the spirit or substance of that obligation; it is just that it would be inappropriate to leave a legal obligation to an entity when we are a third party. That is the only way that I can describe it.
To expand further on future co-operation, through the bilateral agreement with the EU, we expect to have an expansive relationship that would have a wide scope of cross-border activity. The changes in the SIs do not preclude deep co-operation between UK and EU regulators in the future. It is desirable to have that co-operation.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the burden on banks’ IT systems. When one makes a transfer between one bank and another, if it is in an unfamiliar, non-mainstream destination in Africa—I will not name an individual country for fear of getting a letter from its ambassador—some checks would be done, because the bank would then obviously receive those funds. A check would be done on that, but because that sort of transaction is inherently risky, the same degree of checking will need to take place—and does take place in practice in the banking industry—with countries in the EU that are more familiar to us. Broadly, there is harmony on that matter anyway.
I mentioned the SARs reform, which the Home Office leads on. We anticipate that new IT will provide a more user-friendly portal for reporters from all sectors and that improved data processing, storage, analytics and distribution will be required. Work is being done across the Treasury, the Home Office and the MOJ to look at how we can refine that.[Official Report, 17 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 10MC.] At the moment, the basic problem is that there is a high volume of SARs and we could better interrogate that data pool.
The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the concerns raised by the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner. He has also raised them with me and I will get in touch with him about them. Obviously, we do not rest on our laurels with respect to the FATF evaluation. I have mentioned the concerns that the Government have acknowledged in terms of the FIU, and the improvements to SARs and to the Companies House register, on which we expect a Government report in Q1 or Q2 of this year.
The statutory instrument is needed to ensure that the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime operates effectively and that the legislation functions appropriately if the UK leaves without a deal. I hope that I have adequately responded to the points raised.
Kirsty Blackman
When the Minister was talking about the resourcing of the FCA in the event of a no deal, he suggested that it would be able to draw down extra money very quickly. Is he basically suggesting that, in the event of a no deal, on 1 April, Parliament will come in and approve lots of money to be given to lots of different Government agencies to deal with that scenario, or will that happen in advance of a no deal? We have only 80 days to go.
John Glen
My colleague the Chief Secretary has set out comprehensive budgets for each Department for the financial year with respect to a no deal, and a process for urgent requests. The FCA would be able to raise its levy autonomously and separately from Government. It will have contingency arrangements for doing that quickly. I obviously cannot address all Government agencies and Departments, because it will be done through different Ministers in different Departments, but I can say that the Treasury has fully communicated the process for making additional requests in a no-deal situation to all Ministers in all Departments.
Kirsty Blackman
What about communicating that to Parliament rather than just to Ministers? I know that the scrutiny process is rubbish and Parliament does not have much say on Government spend generally, but surely it should have some say on that.
John Glen
If I take the Department for Education, for example, where a large portion of the budget is for providing food in schools, in a no-deal circumstance where additional costs might be associated with that food, the Minister would need to make a statement to Parliament about that and respond to it. Inherently in the process, there is a mechanism for the Government and different Departments to bring matters to Parliament. They would need to justify where they would spend that additional money and the basis for it. With respect, I think that is beyond the scope of the statutory instrument—at least, that is my judgment.
John Glen
I am sorry for that. I hope the Committee has found the debate informative and will now be able to support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Draft Ship and Port Security (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Ship and Port Security (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The UK maritime sector is thriving. We are one of the largest flag states, have one of the largest port industries and attract significant investment. We lead the world in many areas of maritime business services, education and research. Subject to parliamentary approval, the draft regulations will amend ship and port security legislation so that the current regime of protective security on board ships and at UK ports continues to operate following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.
International agreements and European legislation form the bedrock of the UK’s well established ship and port security regime. The UK is a contracting party to the International Maritime Organisation’s safety of life at sea convention—SOLAS. In response to the perceived threats to ships and port facilities in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in America on 11 September 2001, the international ship and port facility security code—ISPS—was adopted under SOLAS. The code established a range of protective security measures that are required to be taken on ships and at ports to protect vital infrastructure and people from acts of terrorism or violence. The code is set out in two parts: part A includes a number of mandatory provisions for signatory states, and part B, intended as guidance, contains measures for states to consider implementing to enhance the security of ships and port facilities.
In 2004, the convention and code were given a basis in EU law by regulation 725/2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security. The regulation provided for the harmonised implementation of the convention and the ISPS code within and across EU member states. It made implementation of the provisions of part A and specific elements of part B mandatory in all EU member states. The regulation is directly applicable in UK law, but it was further implemented, as far as was necessary, in domestic legislation by the Ship and Port Facility (Security) Regulations 2004. The 2005 port security directive complements the security measures introduced by the EU regulation by expanding the area of port that is subject to a protective security regime. The directive was transposed into UK law by the Port Security Regulations 2009, and by 33 separate designation orders that define the boundaries of ports across the UK.
The existing legislative regime ensures that proportionate security measures are in place on board ships and at the UK’s maritime ports. On withdrawal day, regulation 725/2004 will be converted into UK legislation and will become part of the body referred to as retained EU law. To ensure that retained EU law continues to function effectively after exit day, a number of changes are required to the text of EU regulation 725/2004, and the 2004 and 2009 regulations. The changes are designed to prevent, remedy or mitigate failings of, or deficiencies in, retained EU law resulting from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The policy behind the changes is that in the UK, there should be no practical change to, or noticeable impact on, how the industry daily operates an effective protective security regime.
Most of the changes to the current legislation are minor. Some involve the restatement of the retained EU law in a clearer or more accessible way, to make it fit for purpose within domestic legislation. The draft regulations also revoke regulation 324/2008, which established procedures across the EU for the European Commission to conduct inspections of UK ships and ports. Such inspections will neither be required nor appropriate following EU withdrawal; the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will continue to deliver a well established programme of ship and port inspections, to ensure that required security standards are met.
The draft regulations include provision for three more detailed, but equally necessary, corrections to the existing legislation. First, they amend article 3 of regulation 725/2004 in relation to domestic vessels. That does not alter or impact on current administrative practice, the categories of domestic vessel to which the legislation applies, or how those vessels are required to comply with the legislation.
Secondly, the draft statutory instrument includes provision to enable the direct application of future amendments made to the ISPS code. That will allow the legislation to keep in step with future changes and ensure that the UK is meeting its international obligations. As part of that provision, the Secretary of State will have the power to exclude any such change relating to international shipping by the making of regulations—as the Commission does currently—if it is determined that there is a manifest risk that implementation would lower the standards of the UK’s maritime security regime. Any future regulations made in that regard by the Secretary of State would be subject to parliamentary procedures.
Finally, the Port Security Regulations 2009 contain references to section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which will no longer be in force on exit day. To fix that deficiency in the legislation and to ensure that the Secretary of State can continue, under the legislation, to define or amend the boundaries of particular ports, the draft regulations rely on powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to confer on the Secretary of State powers to continue to update or amend the existing suite of legislation. That power would be used when, for example, a port boundary is changed or a new port comes into existence. The amendments made to the 2009 regulations will ensure that the Secretary of State can continue to discharge all his statutory duties. The power in the draft regulations for the Secretary of State to make regulations will maintain the effectiveness and operability of ship and port security legislation following EU withdrawal.
In conclusion, the regulations before the Committee are intended to make changes that will ensure that the current legislative regime for ships and ports is able to operate effectively, and continues to meet the UK’s maritime security requirements, following EU withdrawal. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. I intend my remarks to be relatively brief, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer one or two points. As she said, the regulations are part of the many aspects of EU law that fall into UK law under the Government’s withdrawal Act. They ensure that both converted EU ship and port security legislation and existing secondary legislation remain legally operable when we withdraw from the European Union.
We recognise that these changes are required, so we support them, but can the Minister explain whether there are any differences between what is currently in place and the UK’s post-Brexit implementation of the core international ship and port facility security code? I understand that the Secretary of State would be able to exclude certain amendments to the 1974 international convention for the safety of life at sea—SOLAS—and/or the ISPS code under limited powers held by the European Commission. It would be good if the Minister could explain how that process will work, and where the Secretary of State will be required to explain why certain amendments may be excluded.
It makes sense for the statutory instrument to erase obligations to report information to the Commission and to facilitate Commission inspections, but this is more significant than a tidying-up exercise. What new data and intelligence-sharing system will be in place post Brexit to ensure that security standards are maintained on ships arriving in the UK from EU and non-EU ports, and are sufficiently flexible to respond to emerging maritime security challenges, such as those we have seen in the channel this winter, with the migrant boat crossings and stowaways on cargo ships? Will the Maritime and Coastguard Agency be issued with increased resources to implement the regulations? I would be grateful if the Minister answered those points, but I am happy if she wants to put her answers in writing.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I will be brief. I will not oppose the proposed changes, because it clearly makes sense to have this contingency for EU withdrawal. I am also well aware that the Department for Transport has more important things to do, such as making sure that ferry contractors actually have ferries, so that we can keep things running. It is fine to ensure that ports are safe, but we need ferries going in and out of those ports.
On no-deal contingency planning, can the Minister explain what else will be done to keep traffic flowing? It is quite obvious that yesterday’s exercise was a bit of a flop: only 89 lorries out of a planned 150 turned up to the no-deal exercise, and given that Dover gets 10,000 lorries per day, even 150 would be a drop in the ocean. Can she also explain what other regulations will be required if there is no deal and the UK leaves on 29 March?
Ms Ghani
I am grateful to hon. Members for participating in this morning’s Committee, and turning up so early to deal with this important piece of legislation. The current protective security regime for ships in UK ports operates effectively; there is a range of measures in place to protect vital infrastructure, the travelling public, and those working in those environments from attack. The draft regulations make the appropriate changes to what will become the retained protective security legislation when the UK exits the European Union.
Turning to some of the points that have been raised this morning, a question was asked about security and standards on ships. I will do my best to ensure that more robust replies are provided in writing, but I will put on the record that the robust security standards at UK ports and on ships will continue following EU withdrawal. We must not forget that we have the fantastic, internationally renowned Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which does fantastic work and is well respected across the world; it will continue to do that work with even more detail post Brexit. It is important to note that most ships carry data on board, which exempts them from having to present it when they come into port. All we are asking is for the shipowners to press a button to make sure that information is available, if requested, when they are pulling into port. That data is already pooled and gathered. I will make sure that a more detailed response is provided to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East.
It is important to note that the Department is making plans for all eventualities, including a no-deal Brexit. That is why we are undertaking exercises and modelling, working with local communities—whether in Kent or with the port of Dover—and doing everything we can to ensure that freight travels up and down our country with the least friction possible. Unfortunately, every exercise that we undertake is done under the full glare of the media and the public, but we would also be criticised if we were not implementing all remedies and not practising all of our modelling for a situation in which we exited without a deal. The statutory instrument is essential to ensure that ship and port security legislation continues to work effectively in the UK from day one after exiting. It enables the status quo in the UK to continue. I hope that the Committee has found this morning’s sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Amendment) Order 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Amendment) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. May I wish everyone on the Committee a happy new year?
The draft order, which was laid before both Houses on 5 November, will add Transport for Greater Manchester to the list of bodies that can apply to the courts for a civil injunction to address antisocial behaviour on their transport network. We introduced the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to provide police, local authorities and other local agencies with flexible powers to enable them to respond quickly and effectively to tackle and prevent antisocial behaviour. The decision to use the powers will be an operational one for the police force, local authority or local agency entitled to use them under the Act. We are deliberately focusing on local agencies because we believe that they are best placed to decide when and in which circumstances to use the relevant powers to combat antisocial behaviour in their areas.
The powers include a civil injunction, which can be issued by the courts, on application, against any person aged 10 years or over whose behaviour
“has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”
to others. Such an injunction can include prohibitions to stop certain behaviours by the perpetrator, or positive requirements that focus on addressing the underlying causes of their behaviour. The bodies currently able to apply to the court for an injunction are the police, including the British Transport police; local councils and housing providers; Transport for London; the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales; NHS Protect; and the West Midlands combined authority.
I hope that the Committee agrees that adding Transport for Greater Manchester to the list makes a great deal of sense. It follows a request from TfGM and from the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and will help to ensure that TfGM can take swift action to address antisocial behaviour that takes place on Manchester’s transport network. To put the issue in context, in 2017 some 40 million passenger journeys were made using the Metrolink network in Manchester, while a total of 196 million passenger journeys were made on Manchester bus services.
The draft order will ensure that Transport for Greater Manchester has additional powers to deal with people who behave antisocially on its network. It comes in addition to work at a local level through the TravelSafe Partnership, which has had a great deal of success: in 2017-18, there were a total of 1,692 incidents of antisocial behaviour, a significant decrease from the preceding year’s figure of 3,984. The draft order is very much part of the work of Greater Manchester police, TfGM and agencies to ensure that passengers on the Manchester travel network are able to enjoy their journeys in peace and quiet. We are very happy to have introduced it, and we hope that it meets with the Committee’s approval.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. May I, too, wish you and the Committee a very happy new year?
I am pleased to say that the Opposition support the draft order, so I shall not detain the Committee for too long. As the Minister said, Transport for Greater Manchester and the Mayor have been calling since November 2017 for these powers, which their safer transport officers need to clamp down on the threat that antisocial behaviour poses on the network. They have been very clear that the powers will be used to combat persistent and well-known troublemakers by setting a clear standard of behaviour for perpetrators, stopping their behaviour from escalating, and placing positive requirements on them without criminalising individuals.
The reality of such civil orders is that they require authorities and personnel with knowledge and intelligence of the transport network to enforce them. Safer transport officers are best placed to identify troublemakers, using the tools at their disposal and, once the order is enforced, to ensure it is complied with, so the Opposition are happy to give the draft instrument our full support.
I will ask just a few questions of the Minister. The power in the draft instrument is clearly welcome for Greater Manchester transport routes, but we know that the threat posed by antisocial behaviour on the transport network is prevalent across the country. The type of harassment and aggressive and threatening behaviour that powers in section 1 of the 2014 Act deal with are regrettably present every single day on trains, trams, tubes and buses across the country. As many as 43% of passengers have said they felt intimidated or threatened by antisocial behaviour while using the public transport network within the last year. What thought has the Department put into ensuring that the public can have confidence that local authorities can use the powers available to them to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, particularly on local bus services, which are fragmented and obviously not under local authority control in all areas?
In Sheffield—the area that I represent—neither the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive nor the Sheffield city region combined authority has those powers. How will this work practically in those circumstances? I know that the West Midlands combined authority has these powers in theory. What requests have the Government received from other combined authorities to take over these powers on transport networks? These powers are clearly best enforced by appropriate authorities with knowledge and intelligence of transport networks. It would be welcome if the Minister could outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that that happens consistently and effectively nationwide.
Finally, it would be helpful to have—the Minister could perhaps write to Committee members, rather than listing it all now—data on how many times these powers have been used by each relevant authority.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It would be remiss of Committee members not to record their congratulations and thanks for the outstanding leadership of the Mayor of Manchester—a huge loss to the House and to the parliamentary Labour party, but a gain to the people of Manchester. That ought to be on the record, because I am sure it is a unanimous view among Committee members.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
In the spirit of good will in this new year, I will not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, although I of course reserve the right to campaign robustly in any future mayoral election.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, for her support and for her questions on this important topic. She is absolutely right about the interest of other transport providers in being able to access these powers. We make it very clear that it is for individual transport providers to consider whether they may benefit from having the ability to apply directly for injunctions, and if so, to make the case for it. We will consider requests for additions to the list of bodies that may apply for injunctions on a case-by-case basis.
I am helpfully told by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys that when he served the Government in another capacity, the Department for Transport commissioned a review of crime on public transport. We are very conscious of how upsetting and serious it can be to witness not only antisocial behaviour but crime more generally on our journeys to and from work and leisure visits.
I will happily write to Committee members on the number of times these injunctions have been used, but it may be of interest to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, to hear that the British Transport police and Transport for London have used these injunctions on 72 occasions since 2014. Although that is only one statistic, it none the less shows that the authorities rightly use the injunctions, which can be very powerful, on a considered basis. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Jones
Cheltenham Spa is a fantastic place; I know it very well, actually. It has regular services to and from Birmingham, Bristol and London, with services operated by Great Western Railway and CrossCountry. To support improvements to the amenities of the station itself, a masterplan for the station has been promoted, with the local authority playing a leading role. My hon. Friend mentioned increased car parking. Additional car parking is a key element within the planned package of improvements, with a new multi-storey car park planned.
[Official Report, 19 December 2018, Vol. 651, c. 952.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones).
An error has been identified in the speech I gave during the debate on Rail Fares: Cheltenham and London in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk).
The correct statement should have been:
Andrew Jones
Cheltenham Spa is a fantastic place; I know it very well, actually. It has regular services to and from Birmingham, Bristol and London, with services operated by Great Western Railway and CrossCountry. To support improvements to the amenities of the station itself, a masterplan for the station has been promoted, with the local authority playing a leading role. My hon. Friend mentioned increased car parking. Additional car parking is a key element within the planned package of improvements, with additional car parking space planned.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Cancer Workforce and Early Diagnosis
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered early diagnosis and the cancer workforce in the NHS long-term plan.
It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our business this morning, Mr Howarth. I wish everyone a happy new year. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting the bid of a number of colleagues for this debate, and the Chairman of Ways and Means for allowing it. I was lucky enough to be chosen as the chief sponsor, but I recognise the support of other Members in this Chamber. I will try to keep my remarks to 10 minutes or thereabouts.
I am grateful for the many briefings we have had—we have had briefings from the House of Commons Library, Barts Health NHS Trust, Cancer Research UK, Breast Cancer Care, the Fire Brigades Union, Macmillan Cancer Support, Breast Cancer Now, the Royal College of Pathologists, Maggie’s, the British Lung Foundation, the Royal College of Physicians, CLIC Sargent and the Royal College of Nurses. I have had more briefings from interested parties on this debate than on any other in my 21 years here. Interestingly, they virtually all agreed on two basic points. First, they welcomed the fact that the Government have addressed their issues in the 10-year review and, secondly, they welcomed the new investment but asked for more detail about staff training, recruitment and retention.
Running through most of the briefings I received were questions about the publication of the NHS long-term plan, which was promised by the end of 2018. In very timely fashion, the Government published it yesterday. It has focused the debate but not eliminated the need for it.
I want to highlight some of the issues raised in the briefings. The Royal College of Pathologists cited disturbing statistics. Notably, just 3% of services reported that they have enough staff to meet clinical needs, and more than three quarters of departments reported vacancies for consultants. The royal college emphasised the need for early diagnosis and called for increased investment in pathology services, particularly in the recruitment and training of pathologists and scientists. It said that histopathologists should be listed on the shortage occupation list as there is a shortfall in that speciality. The Migration Advisory Committee currently includes no pathology specialities on the shortage occupation list. Placing histopathology on that list would help overseas qualified pathologists to obtain a visa to work in the UK.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I lost my mother to bowel cancer last year, and I have been campaigning to reduce the bowel cancer screening age to 50. I understand from my campaign and the debates I have had that it is important that we get the pathology capacity right. Otherwise the reduction in the screening age will not work. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Jim Fitzpatrick
I certainly do. I am sorry to hear about the fatality in my hon. Friend’s family. I am sure the Minister will talk about staff and I will come to it later in my speech. Without staff in diagnosis and pathology services, the reduction in the screening age will be pointless.
The Royal College of Pathologists identified a growing demand for pathology services and predicted a 28% shortfall in staff by 2010. Cancer Research UK said, as we all know, that the earlier a cancer is diagnosed, the more likely it is that it will be treated successfully. The Labour Government’s initiative to reduce the time between an urgent GP referral to seeing a cancer consultant to two weeks was a success in ensuring swifter treatment, but 2018 was the first year in which that target was not met. I would be grateful if the Minister told us how the Government expect to address that slippage.
Cancer Research UK added that it expects new cancer cases to reach 500,000 a year by 2035—right now, it is 350,000. With more cases and more thorough screening measures, our NHS will need more diagnostic and treatment staff. Cancer Research UK highlighted that the promise to produce a workforce implementation plan after the 2019 spending review leaves the status of Health Education England’s upcoming cancer workforce plan unclear. Will the Minister give us more information about how the two initiatives relate to each other?
Macmillan said that it recognises and welcomes the focus on cancer in the NHS long-term plan, including the Prime Minister’s commitment radically to improve early diagnosis. However, it has concerns that the long-term plan will not adequately address the immediate and long-term pressures facing the NHS cancer workforce. It also asked when the workforce implementation plan can be expected this year. I note that the Health Secretary said yesterday that he expects Baroness Dido Harding to report to him by the end of March. I would be grateful therefore if the Minister can confirm that we can expect the publication of the workforce implementation plan by summer this year.
Breast Cancer Now made the point that only 18% of breast cancer screening units are adequately resourced with radiography staff, in line with breast screening uptake in its area. My area of north-east London is covered by Barts Health NHS Trust, the NHS North East London Commissioning Alliance and the East London Health and Care Partnership. Many of the points made by the national charities are apparent locally. Those bodies have made their concerns clear. They have raised the basic issue that cancer outcomes in north-east London are among the poorest in London and the country, and that presentation via the emergency route remains high and is clearly associated with advanced cancer and low one-year survival rates.
In my borough of Tower Hamlets, the one-year survival index of people diagnosed with cancer is 4% lower than the England average, and diagnosis through the emergency route remains high. The local NHS trust has plans to attack that problem with a new early diagnosis centre, which is due to open in December; the introduction of multi-diagnostic clinics, which were first introduced in Denmark and were supported here in the pilot phase by Cancer Research UK; and new faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer in primary care from April this year. It plans a health and wellbeing school spread across the whole of north-east London, based on the principle of making every contact count. It is raising population awareness and screening initiatives, including placing staff to promote screening in GP practices, promoting text reminders for cervical cancer screening, video competitions for schools to promote vaccinations, prostate cancer targets, breast and bowel cancer target ads on Muslim TV channels, and the reintroduction of bowel screening reminder calling and other initiatives.
The North East London NHS Foundation Trust conclusions are relatively simple. The workforce is a key factor in delivering a faster diagnosis standard, expected by 2020 and beyond; earlier diagnosis of cancer needs a resilient and sustainable radiology, endoscopy and pathology workforce; the high cost of living, the lack of affordable housing and the disparity in salaries across London are barriers to recruitment; and there is a need to look at technology such as artificial intelligence and digital pathology, and innovations in careers.
CLIC Sargent raised the problem of diagnosing child cancer and said, worryingly, that more than half of young people diagnosed visited their GP with their parents at least three times before their cancer was diagnosed. That is of particular concern.
Breast Cancer Care also raised the workforce plan, and asked how the commitments of the current cancer strategy and the ambitions of the long-term plan will be met. The Royal College of Physicians told me that, in London in 2018, 27% of physician consultant posts advertised were not filled, and that across the UK a total 45% of advertised consultant posts went unfilled due to a lack of suitable applicants.
The British Lung Foundation made two key points: that early diagnosis is essential because almost half of lung cancers are diagnosed at stage 4 when survival rates are very poor; and that there is an urgent need to train and employ more NHS staff to diagnose lung cancer earlier. The Royal College of Nursing stated that in England there are nearly 41,000 vacant registered nursing posts in the NHS. It predicts that the number will increase to almost 48,000 by 2023 if the Government do not take action.
The Commons Library briefings said that the cancer workforce plan devised in 2017 recommended that action be taken to ensure that enough staff with the right skills are trained to deliver the cancer strategy by 2021. In November last year, the highly respected Professor Sir Mike Richards—NHS England’s cancer director—announced that cancer screening would be overhauled as part of the long-term plan. He also announced a review team to assess current screening programmes and a report is due this summer. I ask the Minister whether that timetable might coincide with the publication of the Government’s workforce plan. The Library stated that there is no measure of the total NHS cancer workforce. Will the Minister comment on that anomaly?
I would be grateful if the Minister addresses the fundamental issue raised in all the briefings: how the workforce implementation plan fits in with the strategy, and when it can be expected. I look forward to his response. He is highly regarded in his post. I look forward to the responses from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the Scottish National party spokesperson, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), the shadow Health Minister, and to other colleagues’ contributions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. This is an important subject and many Members have signified that they wish to speak in the debate. I will not impose a time limit straight away. I will see how it goes. If hon. Members co-operate, I am sure that everybody will be able to speak.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Howarth. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I wish everyone a happy new year and congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this incredibly important debate, which is timely in the light of yesterday’s announcement of the NHS long-term plan.
I will restrict my remarks on the cancer workforce to the radiotherapy workforce and other issues relating to radiotherapy. Sadly, at some point in our lives, one in two of us will have cancer of some form or other, and one in two of those with cancer will receive radiotherapy treatment, so one in four of us will need radiotherapy. Roughly speaking, 1,500 people—clinicians, medical physicists and therapeutic radiographers—make up the entire radiotherapy workforce of the United Kingdom. In the plan that we have been digesting since yesterday, there are many things worthy of remark and which are to be welcomed, but many questions remain unanswered.
On radiotherapy, the focus on survival and early detection is clearly crucial. The United Kingdom is very low down in the league table of European countries when it comes to early detection of cancer, which is the chief reason why survival is so poor compared with other nations of similar prosperity. That is tragic on a personal level and deeply humiliating on a national level. If the Government, the National Health Service and we all are successful in our bid to detect cancer earlier at stage one and stage two, treat it effectively and cure patients—radiotherapy is eight times more likely to be curative than chemotherapy and 50% of those with cancer are already having radiotherapy—it stands to reason that the need for capacity for radiotherapy will increase manifold.
There are 52 radiotherapy centres in England with a number of other satellites. There is nothing in the plan that scopes forward how the national health service will cope with the additional work required if early diagnosis becomes more successful. It is worth bearing in mind that, as things stand, there are significant pressures with a workforce of 1,500. There are two ways of looking at it: one is that the workforce is a very small and precious resource that we need to protect, and the other is to remind ourselves that those are relatively small figures, and that with a relatively small amount of investment, we could make a significant difference to increase that workforce. Relatively small numbers equals a huge percentage, which equals the ability to tackle many more cancers and, indeed, to cure many of them.
I will focus briefly on one profession within the radiotherapy workforce—therapeutic radiographers. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware, but in the current academic year, there has been a 50% drop in applications to therapeutic radiography courses at UK universities. One of the leading universities had to cancel its entire intake altogether due to under-recruitment. The cause is almost certainly—99% certainly—the removal of the bursary from that programme. The standard applicant is a mature student who chooses to do something different with their life, having done something else first, and the withdrawal of the bursary has had a huge impact on those people. If the Minister wanted to do something quickly to tackle that workforce issue, I will throw out there the suggestion that he could reinstate the bursary for radiographers.
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, and one of our vice-chairs is here—the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). We and many other hon. Members had a really good meeting with the Minister at the end of November last year. I am very grateful to him and to his staff for their time and attention. They have yet to respond to the manifesto that we presented to them that day, although I did not expect them to have done so by now. That manifesto calls for a number of things: new investment and more money—it would be surprising if we did not ask for that, but I will put it in context.
As I have said, half of those who have cancer in the United Kingdom will require radiotherapy, yet only 5% of the cancer budget goes on radiotherapy. That compares poorly with other countries. In Australia, the figure is about 5% but the European average is something like 7% or 8%. Our cross-party proposition is that the Government invest £100 million every year into machine upgrades for high-quality, targeted, stereotactic, and other advanced forms of radiotherapy. That fund would cover all trusts, which would not have to delve into their own reserves. We also propose a £250 million up-front, one-off investment so that people who live in communities like mine an awful long way from the nearest treatment can have a satellite unit developed close to them.
Many of my constituents in South Lakeland have to make three or four-hour round trips to get good treatment at Preston, but a large percentage—up to 50%—of those who could have radiotherapy in my constituency and in other parts of south Cumbria do not get it because they are considered to be too far away for it to be a reasonable journey time. Radiotherapy is so often more curative than chemotherapy, ergo people do not live as long because they live too far from treatment. That is why the radiotherapy satellite centre at Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal is a key example. Access and travel times are a problem in other parts of the country, which is why investment in satellite units is important. They do not necessarily involve that much more staffing because, with proper IT networking, we would be able to do many of those things remotely.
In conclusion, the NHS plan announced yesterday contains much that is interesting, but when it comes to radiotherapy, it is entirely a rehash of things that we already know. Some things are welcome, but there is nothing new. I look forward to the Government’s response to its consultation on radiotherapy, which closed 12 months ago, and I ask for an update on that. I also ask that the National Cancer Advisory Group’s 2018 report is released as soon as possible. Finally, I very much look forward to the Government’s response to the manifesto by the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, which was presented to them in November.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you very much for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and I thank my friend the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on radiography, of which I am also a member.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that have just been made, but some key threads run through the whole of the debate. Although the motion refers to “early diagnosis and the cancer workforce in the NHS long-term plan”, we have to marry some concepts. Yes, early diagnosis is important, but it has to be married with a skilled and effective workforce, as well as the most effective treatment available, by which I do not mean the treatment available in our capital city only, but across the whole country. I will touch on that issue as well.
I declare an interest: I am a cancer survivor. I was successfully treated with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, thanks to a relatively early diagnosis. I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy. I am not alone in having benefited from radiotherapy. As was mentioned earlier, during the course of our lifetimes, almost half of us will suffer from cancer at least once, and about half of those people will receive radiotherapy.
Although I was fortunate and count my lucky stars, I am acutely concerned about particular cancers, notably prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer—yesterday, we heard a terrible story from the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) about his caseworker who passed away as a consequence of pancreatic cancer—and lung cancers and breast cancer. For a modern industrial nation, our cancer outcomes are poor. They should be far better. I hope that the 10-year forward plan that was published yesterday is an opportunity to address some of those fundamental problems. It is important for us to invest in modern accessible cancer diagnosis and treatments.
I want to talk about the long-term plan that the Prime Minister announced yesterday, on which we had a statement in the House. I will refer in particular to chapter 3, especially section 3.62, on treatment and radiotherapy. I must admit that I was optimistic after meeting the Minister, who I have known for some years. I think he is a decent and honourable individual, and he and his staff were very positive in our meetings. I therefore hoped that, based on the evidence presented, we would have a much more positive outcome from the 10-year plan.
The Government have promised to complete the £130 million investment in radiotherapy machines and to commission the proton machines—the two proton-beam machines, at the Christie in Manchester and at University College Hospital, London—but, in all honesty, that is not a new commitment. Those machines are already or almost completed, so the commitment is a recycling of an existing announcement.
If we are to have a step change and to achieve a world-class set of outcomes and a world-class cancer treatment service, we need a modest increase—modest in relative terms—for advanced radiotherapy. As set out in the “Manifesto for Radiotherapy”—which I recommend that all Members read, because if they are not affected themselves, many of their constituents certainly will be—we ask for an initial one-off investment of £250 million, with an additional £100 million in each successive year for workforce, running costs and so on.
Radiotherapy is required in 50% of cases, but access is patchy. Access varies from 25% to 49%. For example, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale represents a rural area, where the figures are low. The average is about 38%. Ideally, according to Cancer Research UK, patients should not have to travel more than 45 minutes to access such treatment and, if we are to achieve that, considerable investment is required. The Minister might be able to elaborate on this, but I do not think that anything concrete in the plan addresses that serious issue.
I welcome the Government commitment on early diagnosis to increase the number of patients diagnosed with stage 1 and 2 cancer by 25% and, for lung cancer, to increase the diagnosis of stage 1 patients by 47%. In practical terms, however, the Government will need more advanced radiotherapy machines to ensure that many of those stage 1 tumours can be cured, as well as additional radiotherapy machines to treat the stage 2 patients. The Government will need to rapidly expand the number of advanced radiotherapy facilities around the country, and how to do that is set out in the manifesto, which would achieve not only early diagnosis but improved survival and outcomes.
I want to give the Minister credit—he is looking a bit quizzical, but I had not intended to beat him up, because we are trying to be helpful. The aspiration and wish to improve cancer outcomes and to see a first-class service is shared in all parts of the House. I am therefore very pleased that he has recognised the representations made on hypofractionated treatment and the perverse incentive in relation to the tariff. The Government have said that they will address that issue, but I would like an assurance that it will be addressed quickly and not in 10 years’ time. The evidence is clear about that disincentive to the most appropriate form of treatment.
Many people want to speak in the debate, so I will wind up. I am pleased that the Government have admitted and accept that advanced radiotherapy is more effective and has fewer side effects. I would like to see a specification come out and to ensure that, when it comes out, we do not see what we have in effect at the moment, which is the rationing of effective treatment. Specialists in the field have told me that the specification under discussion now is in essence no different from that available a year ago. I therefore press the Minister to respond to our submissions.
I want to see an increase in the budget for advanced radiotherapy—fairly modest as part of the NHS budget, or even the cancer budget—from 5% to 6.5% of the cancer budget. That would enable large numbers of cancer patients to live longer and more fulfilling lives and would achieve better NHS outcomes and positive economic benefits. I commend that proposal to the Minister, and I urge him to look at it as part of the ongoing cancer strategy and the NHS 10-year plan.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and other hon. Members for their contributions.
I will focus on cancer affecting children, teenagers and young adults. As hon. Members know, I have personal experience of breast cancer, but more expert people in the Chamber will talk about that, so I will discuss the form of cancer for which I recently set up the all-party parliamentary group on children, teenagers and young adults with cancer.
I set up the group because each year in the UK, 4,450 children and young people under 25 are diagnosed with cancer—that is 12 children and young people every day somewhere in the UK. Four out of five of them will survive for five years or more, but for the parent of a child such a survival rate seems minuscule. Most of us expect our children to survive far longer than that, so the survival rate can seem quite hard. Those of us who have had adult cancer might think, “Oh good—five years! I’ll still be around in five years’ time.” For adults, that feels like a success; for children, not so much.
Cancer remains the biggest killer by disease of children and young people under 25 in the UK. That is important, because one of the reasons why cancer is the biggest killer is that other diseases have declined. That is a good thing, but cancers still affect many children. We want the incidence to decrease, and the number of children surviving and being diagnosed earlier to increase. The all-party parliamentary group wants things to be better. The Minister knows that, because he has been good to the group and worked closely with us. We understand that the small number of children affected can make it difficult to identify real specifics that could make a big difference, but because the number is small, some of the things that we want might be relatively straightforward to do.
Last year, we held an inquiry into young people’s experience of childhood and young adult cancer. We now call on the Government and the NHS long-term plan to look at the impact of a young person’s route to diagnosis. Recent research by CLIC Sargent found that more than half of young people had to visit their GP at least three times before their cancer diagnosis. Katie, the young woman who was a panel member in our inquiry, said that because childhood and young people’s cancer is so rare, GPs did not expect to see it, so frequently signs and symptoms were misunderstood. I have the greatest sympathy for GPs and clinicians, and because those cancers are so rare, we would like a training and e-learning module for healthcare professionals.
CLIC Sargent and the Teenage Cancer Trust have teamed up to create such a module on the signs of cancer in children and young people, developed in partnership with the Royal College of GPs. We would like more support in the NHS workforce to improve recognition of the signs, whether that is the e-learning module or something different. I hope the Minister will say something about that when he sums up. In the NHS long-term plan published yesterday I was really pleased to see a specific mention of childhood cancer, but I was disappointed that there was not more emphasis on skilling up the healthcare workforce to recognise the signs and symptoms. We all know that often the consequence of failing to make an early diagnosis is a very poor survival rate.
In our inquiry we recommended many measures, which the Minister has very kindly agreed to go through with his officials and respond to in some detail. Perhaps after the debate, will he liaise with my office about a time to meet? I am grateful to him for his willingness to do that, but we would like to make some progress in the first half of this year. Some of our recommendations are relevant to this debate. We say that the Secretary of State for Education should ensure that every young person receives health education that includes cancer signs and symptoms, done in an appropriate way. The Teenage Cancer Trust has developed an education module, which many of us will have seen recently when it was demonstrated in Parliament. I would like to see something such as that being used.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an excellent case for education. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, I want to raise the fact that about 3,500 breast cancers go undetected each year due to women not understanding the risk due to breast density. Education would seem critical as part of the long-term plan to get world-class outcomes, so that people understand their personal risk.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; education is critical across all cancers, particularly breast cancer. Many young women need more under- standing of how their risk can be reduced by certain lifestyle choices. I say that carefully, without wishing to blame cancer survivors, because there is a difficult balance. Education is important, because the health service we want for the 21st century is about health rather than sickness. I wanted to see more emphasis in the NHS long-term plan on prevention.
Will the Minister respond to some of our recommendations in his reply to the debate? The all-party group thinks that an emphasis on prevention is critical to young people’s long-term survival and long-term health—not long-term sickness. We are concerned about the shortage of radiographers and radiologists, but other Members will discuss that. If more children and young people with cancer are to survive longer than five years, early diagnosis is critical. Health professionals may see only one childhood cancer in their entire professional life, so they will need help. I ask the Minister to talk to us and to his officials about how to help the professionals to do better. We would like more education for young people on a range of cancer indicators and on ways to change their lifestyle, such as exercising more, reducing alcohol consumption and so on. We all know about those actions, but quite often it is too late; we could do with knowing them from an early age and building them into our way of life, starting when we are young.
I want to conclude, without getting too emotional, by paying tribute to CLIC Sargent and to the Teenage Cancer Trust in particular. They do so much, not just for children and young people but for parents and families. Members of my family received help from CLIC Sargent. My dear sister-in-law works for CLIC Sargent and she has been an inspiration to me on childhood cancer. I want the work they have done to be embraced by Ministers other than this Minister, who already has embraced it, to take that forward in the NHS long-term plan.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (Ind)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for securing this important debate.
I will keep my remarks brief because quite a lot of people want to speak, so I will focus on one area of early diagnosis—that of bowel cancer. There are two reasons for that: bowel cancer is the fourth most common cancer, and it is the second biggest cancer killer, yet bowel cancer is not only treatable but curable, especially if diagnosed early. The Minister will know that since my re-election I have pressed him and the Department hard to reduce the bowel cancer screening age in England from 60 to 50. I was delighted when, a few months ago, the Minister agreed to that and announced that the reduction would take place.
I pay tribute to my constituent Lauren Backler, who started the campaign to reduce the screening age three years or so ago. Sadly, her mother died in her mid-fifties; it is very likely she would not have died had she lived in Scotland and had an early diagnosis. That prompted Lauren to launch a campaign, and it has been an unbelievable success in numbers alone: more than half a million people across the country have signed her petition. Colleagues in the Chamber and I have campaigned avidly for it for the last couple of years, and the Minister and the Department of Health announced the change a few months ago.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in Northern Ireland, following the introduction of bowel cancer screening kits, participation is 60%. It is a fantastic result for Northern Ireland and we need to do more of it.
Stephen Lloyd
The hon. Gentleman is right. The introduction of the new faecal immunochemical test kits will make a huge difference.
I am speaking in this debate because, as the Minister will know and one or two people have alluded to, in yesterday’s announcement there was no clear announcement about additional staff and capacity to ensure that the bowel screening age is brought down from 60 to 50. I commend the Government for listening to Lauren, hundreds of thousands of people across the country, my colleagues here and me, and reducing the age—it is quite clear statistically that many thousands of lives will be saved—but I am anxious that there was no announcement yesterday about the additional budget that will be required for new staff, and a plan for it to happen. I am keen to hear from the Minister not just that the Department of Health is behind it, but detail of when the announcement will be made about additional staff capacity. I urge that particularly because, as the Minister knows, the budget decisions will be announced in March. I want some flesh to be put on the bones.
This is an issue where we know we have a solution. We in this Chamber understand that there are capacity and finance issues. We applaud the Government and the Department of Health for publicly stating that they will bring down the screening age limit. What we all need now is flesh on the bone and detail, so that Lauren Backler, following her remarkable campaign in tribute to her mother, can see in the next few months the first roll-out of the age reduction in screening for bowel cancer.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this important and timely debate.
We very much welcome the NHS long-term plan. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve cancer care significantly in this country. The plan rightly recognises that one of the biggest actions the NHS can take to improve cancer survival is to diagnose cancers earlier, and sets out welcome commitments to radically improve early diagnosis. I hope that as the plan develops there will be more specific plans for the less survivable cancers—pancreatic, brain, lung, stomach, liver and oesophagus—that account for more than 50% of all cancers.
As chair of the all-party group on cancer I was pleased to chair the Britain Against Cancer conference last month, which focused on future priorities for cancer care. There were many reasons to be cheerful, but one big concern was whether the workforce will be sufficient to deliver the care that will be needed in the future. There is still a lack of clarity about that, despite efforts in the long-term plan, so it is useful to have this opportunity to focus on that.
We know that the number of people diagnosed with cancer in the UK is increasing and that the changing needs of cancer patients present a challenge for professionals working in cancer care, who are dealing with rising case loads, and increasingly complex needs. The plan’s ambition to diagnose three in four cancer cases at an early stage by 2028 is welcome, but unless we have a plan to deal with staffing shortages, backed up by significant investment, the NHS will struggle to maintain today’s standards.
In NHS North Lincolnshire clinical commissioning group, only 71.9% of cancer patients receive their first treatment within 62 days of an urgent GP referral. That is well below the England average and below the national target of 85%. Delays to cancer waiting times are often caused by a diagnostic bottleneck, where there is not enough capacity to carry out the tests needed to confirm a cancer diagnosis so that the patient can begin treatment. I therefore welcome the announcement made just before Christmas of capital investment for Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, and of diagnostic equipment for Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby and Scunthorpe General Hospital. I hope that will make a significant difference.
To improve early diagnosis and match the best cancer outcomes in Europe, it is crucial to have the workforce in place to support growing patient need. Although the NHS long-term plan sets out ambitions for the future workforce, funding available for additional investment in that workforce in the form of training, education and continuing professional development through the Health Education England budget, has yet to be set out by the Government. Will the Minister—he is an excellent Minister—set out when that budget will be confirmed and say whether the Government intend to set out further funding arrangements as part of the comprehensive spending review?
NHS staff shortages in primary and acute settings have been consistently highlighted by organisations in the sector in recent years, and there is an urgent need to grow the cancer workforce. Cancer Research UK estimates that the cancer workforce needs to double by 2027. Similarly, Macmillan Cancer Support has estimated that the supply of adult cancer nurses must increase by 45% in the next 10 years. Those are big numbers.
Macmillan’s workforce census last year highlighted considerable variation in vacancy rates for cancer nurse specialists across the country. That is also true for specialist chemotherapy nurses, with vacancy rates as high as 15% in some areas. A recent survey of healthcare professionals working in breast care in hospitals by the charity Breast Cancer Care painted a worrying picture, with 87% of respondents stating that job shortages in their hospital could affect breast cancer patients. A freedom of information request from that charity found that two thirds of hospital trusts in England do not provide a dedicated nurse for people living with incurable breast cancer. It is therefore crucial that a fully costed plan is produced to demonstrate how the health and care workforce will be sustained and grown. The long-term plan states that there will be a separate workforce implementation plan in 2019, but more detail is needed about the timeframes. Will the Minister say when the plan will be published? “Soon” is not quite good enough. We would like a date, please.
The 2015 cancer strategy recommended the publication of a cancer workforce plan, yet the sector is still waiting for the publication of phase 2 of that plan by Health Education England. Will the Minister outline how the implementation plan relates to the long-promised phase 2 HEE plan on the cancer workforce? If the ambitions of the long-term plan and the 2015 cancer strategy are to be realised, a comprehensive and fully funded workforce plan must set out how the cancer workforce can be upskilled and developed to meet the needs of the growing number of people living with cancer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for securing this debate, and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I am the Democratic Unionist party spokesperson on health, so such matters are at the top of the tree for me. I am pleased that the Minister and shadow Minister are here to respond to our concerns, and we appreciate the Backbench Business Committee kindly granting us this debate.
Cancer is a word I hate; it is a disease I hate. A respecter of no person, it indiscriminately attacks and takes from us those who we love and rely on. I truly believe that a cure must be found and found soon for this dreaded disease, but while that work is taking place, we must focus on the best use of the limited resources available. I congratulate the Government on their NHS 10-year plan and their commitment to a cancer strategy within it.
As hon. Members have said, we all have family members and friends who have been stricken by cancer. I have a good friend who will have breast cancer surgery on Friday, and my father survived cancer on three occasions due to the expertise of the surgeon, the nurse’s care and, critically, the prayer of God’s people. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to the bowel cancer testing kit in Northern Ireland, and probably because of my father’s history, I carry out screening with that kit every year, and therefore I would know early on whether any cancer has been detected. That is what we are doing in Northern Ireland, and hopefully it is something that other parts of the United Kingdom can take on board.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the almost universal acceptance of the importance of early detection, the long-term plan, like any other plan, will be judged against an increase in early detection? That is the key.
Jim Shannon
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and colleague, and although many people are dying from cancer, a larger number are surviving that diagnosis.
I wish to thank the tremendous staff who work well above their paygrade and the hours they are paid to make a difference to the quality of care and support for cancer sufferers. I also thank the wonderful charities that aim to step into the breach where at all possible. We all know of such charities, and if I do not mention some of them that does not make them any less important. Many charities, including Marie Curie, do tremendous work.
Macmillan Cancer Support is an amazing charity. In 2017, it had more than 5,700 nurses supporting 658,000 people, with a further 2,000 healthcare professionals throughout the United Kingdom. In 2017, 1.6 million people received personal, high-impact support from one or more Macmillan professionals or services. While broadly welcoming the Government scheme, Macmillan has expressed serious concerns that the plan does not adequately address the immediate and longer-term pressures facing the NHS cancer workforce. Those concerns are put forward in a constructive fashion, as they should be:
“The NHS long-term plan makes clear that the funding available for additional investment in the workforce, in the form of training, education and continuing professional development through the HEE budget has yet to be set by the Government. This is a key priority and must be urgently addressed. The plan states that there will be a separate Workforce Implementation Plan in 2019, but more detail is needed about the timeframes, and how the implementation plan relates to the long-promised phase 2 HEE plan on the cancer workforce. It is essential that we build on the ambitious foundations of the NHS long-term plan and put in place a fully-funded strategy for the workforce that will deliver truly world-class cancer care.”
That is what Macmillan Cancer Support expressed before this debate. Perhaps the Minister will respond to those points.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Macmillan, and more detail is needed to deal with funding gaps to address the issue of speed of diagnosis in quick-moving cancers such as pancreatic cancer. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) spoke about early diagnosis, and nearly every Member who has spoken in the debate has said it is critical—and so it is. Pancreatic cancer is the quickest-killing cancer, with one in four people dying within a month, so we need a faster pathway to diagnose and treat it, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is particularly interested in it, will know. Early diagnosis is essential in the case of pancreatic cancer, as it offers the only chance for potentially curative surgery. However, fewer than 20% of people with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed at an early stage, and fewer than 10% will receive surgery. The capacity does not currently exist, and there must be an increase in the cancer workforce to ensure timely diagnosis and treatment. Every Member who has spoken in the debate has supported the point of view expressed by Macmillan, and it is critically important.
Prostate cancer has been mentioned. When men are ill we are, by our nature, the illest people in the world, but sometimes we just do not know when we are ill. I make that point in relation to prostate cancer because we do not do the checks, although we know what has to be done. Needing the toilet more frequently, a burning sensation and passing blood are some of the symptoms, and men perhaps need to look out more for them. We need to raise awareness of prostate cancer. To be fair, I think that the Government do that, but perhaps there is a need to do more.
I hope I will be forgiven for repeating some comments that have been made, but these issues are important. The hon. Member for Bristol West referred to CLIC Sargent, and I want to make some comments on children’s cancers. CLIC Sargent is a wonderful charity and has asked me to use this opportunity to stress something that shocked me when I first read it, and which underlines the point about the workforce. Children make up the highest proportion of cancer patients diagnosed through emergency admissions, and many young people and parents have a poor experience of diagnosis. The 2016 “Best Chance from the Start” research report on experiences of diagnosis found that more than half of young people and almost half of parents had visited their GP at least three times before the cancer diagnosis.
As the hon. Member for Bristol West said, there is a particular need for early diagnosis for children. Nearly half of young people felt their GP did not take their concerns seriously. I do not think that is a criticism; it is how they felt. A third of parents felt that their GP did not take into account their knowledge of their child. We should not ignore what parents know and say about their child. It is important to do something to raise GPs’ awareness in relation to children. Just over a third of young people and a quarter of parents felt that their GP did not have enough time to listen to them talk about their symptoms. I want to ask the Minister what has been done about that. I am mindful of the pressure on GPs, who have a lot of work to do. However, something needs to happen for children diagnosed with cancer and their parents. Like the hon. Member for Bristol West, I am requesting that something be done. The urgent change that is needed can be achieved only through funding to take the pressure off diagnostics, allowing GPs to refer before the third repeat visit. They must be allowed to go with their gut and send anything suspicious to be tested further, rather than playing a numbers and probability game. Cancer does not respect the numbers game—it strikes where it might be least expected.
This is my last paragraph, Mr Howarth. Time has beaten me. I heartily welcome the strategy, but we need more detail and more action, and soon, to make a difference, and so that we can make a worthwhile attack on the plague of cancer, which affects families throughout the United Kingdom. That is why the debate is so important.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this important and timely debate.
Lives are saved when cancer is diagnosed early. I know we all are united in wanting all cancers to be caught early so that survival rates can be drastically increased. However, to diagnose and detect cancer early, we need a sufficiently skilled workforce and full staffing. NHS staff do amazing work, but they are under extreme pressures. We are one of the richest countries in the world, but lives are being lost because of under-investment in our NHS workforce. If we are to come anywhere near to achieving the Prime Minister’s target of diagnosing three in four cancers at their early stages by 2028, we will need to have a long-term plan that will deal with the staffing shortages, which will no doubt get worse post Brexit.
Cancer Research UK estimates that by 2035 a person will be diagnosed with cancer every minute. At present nine out of 10 people will survive bowel cancer if it is diagnosed at an early stage, but that figure reduces to only one in 10 if it is not diagnosed until stage 4. Currently between 46% and 61% of cancer sufferers are diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, which means that people are slipping through the net and dying needlessly owing to a lack of resources. With 40% more people being referred for diagnostic cancer tests than four years ago, cancer diagnostic services are struggling to keep up with demand. They have already missed their cancer waiting time targets over the past three years.
I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer. The rest of my comments will focus on breast cancer, for which the situation is even worse than I have been outlining. The breast imaging and diagnostic workforce are critical for the early diagnosis of breast cancer, but Breast Cancer Now has discovered that only 18% of breast screening units are adequately resourced with radiography staff to meet demand. Taking into account the ageing workforce of breast imaging radiographers and the increase in demand, we have an exacerbation of pressures that will only get worse. For every three breast radiographers who retire over the next five years, only two are expected to replace them, which means that imaging and diagnostic services will be unable to keep up with demand. That will cause delays, which in turn will cause greater anguish for those waiting to be tested.
Fifty-five thousand people are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK every year, yet the survival rates lag behind those of Sweden, Portugal, Germany and France. We have a declining workforce and an increase in demand. Unless the Government invest in a fully funded workforce plan, patients will suffer. We need a new approach to workforce planning based on best practice and clinical need. Health Education England must produce phase 2 of the cancer workforce plan, which looks at how many staff are needed to meet growing patient demand, and set out a 10-year cancer workforce strategy. The plan must be backed with appropriate funding. Breast Cancer Now has called for the Government to invest £39 million in recruitment to the breast imaging and diagnostic workforce as part of the plan to cover the cost of training to fill clinical radiologist vacancies and to address the current shortfall in radiographer numbers.
The Government’s decision to scrap bursaries for allied health professionals and nurses is a factor in making it harder to recruit. Someone who wants to become a mammographer must self-fund an MSc following a three-year radiography degree. Prior to the 2017 bursary cuts to allied health professionals courses, including for diagnostic radiographers, the undergraduate degree was covered by a bursary. Following that disastrous cut, there was a 20% decrease in the number of applications to allied health professionals courses and a further 9% cut in 2018. That under-resourcing, directly linked to the Government’s bursary cuts, has undoubtedly cost lives. I urge the Minister to reverse the cut to bursaries to ensure that the financial barriers to becoming a mammographer are removed and that more applicants are encouraged to apply for allied health professionals courses.
Funding for early diagnosis is not just about staffing levels and recruitment. It is also about new technology. There are new improved ways of detecting breast cancer, such as via tomosynthesis, which is far more effective in detecting breast cancer in some women. Artificial intelligence could also be used to assist in analysing the vast data capture involved in screening, but that would require the commitment by the Government of investment in new technologies and training. Risk-stratified breast screening is another way of making better use of technology to assess a woman’s individual level of risk by using algorithms to assess various risk factors. Once an assessment has been done, a more personalised service can be given for women at higher risk, which could again help to save lives.
I will finish by asking the Minister whether he will commit to getting Health Education England to produce phase 2 of the cancer workforce plan, which will be based on need, and confirm that it will be properly funded. Will he reverse the cuts to bursaries for courses for allied health professionals and nurses, and make sure that recruitment levels are up to the levels that are required, especially with Brexit looming? Finally, will he commit to exploring and funding new technologies and training that will help to detect cancer earlier, target those who are at higher risk, and alleviate the pressures on the workforce? If the Government do not get things right in relation to the shortfall in funding for early diagnosis and the cancer workforce, some people will inevitably die an avoidable death from cancer.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate. It is a slight pity that it is less than 24 hours after the publication of the long-term plan, but people seem to have done lots of fast reading last night.
Like others, I welcome the plan and particularly the extra funding for the NHS, but it is important to remember that this brings it back to 3.4%, which was the average over many years—indeed, below the average over many years—prior to 2010. As the Secretary of State highlighted yesterday, with a million extra patients, the money per head of the population is actually going down. That is something that should be looked at, because it is a much better comparative measure.
In Scotland, we spend £163 per head more on health than here in England, and £113 per head more on elderly social care. We know that if we do not fix social care, then unfortunately any money put into the NHS is haemorrhaging out because of elderly people trapped in hospital, where they do not want to be. We see money focused on the NHS, because that sounds good to the public, but also further reductions in public health, despite all the talk in the plan about prevention. That does not make sense.
I welcome the Making Every Contact Count initiative. In Scotland, we have had Making Every Contact Count for years. As a breast cancer surgeon, I have discussed issues around smoking with all of my patients, because they inevitably ask, “Why did I get breast cancer?” We do not have the answer for breast cancer, but we do have the answer for the majority of lung cancers. I do not make my patients give up smoking immediately, when they are under stress, but I get them to promise me that they will do it in the long term, and quite a number of them do that. I do not have time to support them through that journey. We still need smoking cessation services, to which they can be referred. Those services are being cut, and that is a problem.
In the plan and in the Secretary of State’s letter yesterday, we again have a focus on cancer, which, as a breast cancer surgeon for over 30 years, I welcome. In his letter he talks about early diagnosis, but not about prevention, yet smoking is still the biggest cause of cancer, with obesity chasing it up as a close second. We need to tackle childhood obesity and we need a 9 pm watershed for advertising foods that encourage it.
Half of us will get cancer. As all the speakers have said, early diagnosis is crucial. It is particularly important to avoid diagnosis as part of an emergency admission, as that tends to result in a very poor outlook. For symptomatic cancers, as the Member for Shannon highlighted—[Interruption.] I keep saying that; I mean the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is because the Shannon is another body of water in Ireland; I always get mixed up. We will just change it—you can be the Member for Shannon. [Laughter.] As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important to know the symptoms, but the public and sometimes GPs are too focused on late symptoms. Weight loss, jaundice and even, for some cancers, bleeding are not early enough. We need to educate people about that.
In Scotland, we have used humour. There was a testicular cancer advert over Christmas talking about men’s baubles. I do not care what kind of humour people need, whether it is toilet humour for bowel cancer or talking about boobs for breast cancer. If it gets people talking about it, that makes it easier for them to come forward. Many years ago we did an audit in Scotland looking at the whole patient pathway. It showed that for particular cancers, including bowel cancer, the longest step was from the first sign or symptom to going to the GP. The plan talks a lot about the pathway after going to the doctor, but there are only a couple of lines about educating the populous about what to look out for. That means we have to get people talking about it.
In Scotland, we have had bowel cancer screening starting at the age of 50 right from the beginning. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who is no longer in his place, lost his mother in her 50s. In the last year or so we have also had celebrities diagnosed late with bowel cancer, who might well have been picked up if the screening had started at the age of 50. Last August, I welcomed the Government’s commitment to making that change, but there has been no discussion in any announcements or in the plan about when that change will happen.
When I turned 50 and the poo-in-the-post envelope landed on the mat within two days, I found it a bit harsh. As my birthday is Christmas eve, I got another one last week. I would not mind if they were a bit more sensitive, but it is something that people have to do. In Scotland, we have already changed completely to the faecal immunochemical test, which involves only one sample. We have already seen a 10% increase in uptake. Again, the Government have committed to that and the roll-out has commenced, but when will it be complete?
It is important to be prepared for the impact that that will have on the NHS here. If the starting age for bowel screening is dropped from 60 to 50, there will be an increase of two thirds in the screening population. If there is then the same 10% increase with FIT, together that will mean an increase of three quarters in the colonoscopies required. The NHS will have to be prepared with endoscopists and, as mentioned earlier, pathologists, who will analyse the samples. In Scotland, we have seen an increase in waiting times for colonoscopies, just with the change to FIT, so it is important to be prepared.
There is a similar impact with public education campaigns. Intense campaigns alone are no use. When we did the first Detect Cancer Early campaign, an audit of the breast cancer units across Scotland found that there had been a doubling in referrals, but not a significant change in the number of cancer diagnoses. Women are pretty breast aware, but the adverts need to be trickled throughout the year, or the chances are that there still will not be an advert when someone is sitting and ignoring a symptom.
As well as endoscopists and pathologists, the other workforce is radiologists. Not all radiologists can be identified as cancer radiologists; they will find cancer in all sorts of parts of the body. This diagnostic workforce is critical. If we look at the waiting time performance across the UK, we see that people are struggling, particularly with the 62-day target, which has fallen below 80% in England. Everyone is struggling with it. Looking at the 31-day target—from diagnosis to treatment—we see that most cancers are at over 90%, or indeed 95%. Once the NHS knows that someone has cancer, the pathway is relatively swift, but there is long gap to be diagnosed.
In my own speciality of breast cancer, radiologists are critical for the initial test, the investigation and the follow-up. For every three breast cancer radiologists who will retire in the next five years, they will be replaced by only two. The problem is that breast screening came in around 1990, so all the young consultants who were appointed at almost the same time will all, sadly, be retiring at the same time. The clinical radiology workforce census report shows that the UK has a shortfall of 1,000 full-time radiologists at the moment, which will grow to 1,600 by 2022. Some £116 million is being spent on outsourcing and overtime. The issue is not even money, because that amount would fund 1,300 full-time radiologists; the issue is that we do not have the workforce. Yet we see in the plan that health education has had its funding cut over recent years, despite grand statements about all the extra nurses, radiographers, allied health professionals and doctors who will be trained.
The plan talks a lot about IT, but instead of focusing on digital GPs it should be focusing on internal IT. We have had electronic prescribing, referral and response letters for years in Scotland, and one of the things we have that can help with the radiology shortage is the picture archiving and communication system, where imaging is shared right across Scotland. Every hospital uses the same system, which means that if one place is short of radiologists or is very rural, an image can be sent hundreds of miles to be looked at by someone else. The plan talks about generalists, and they are needed, but we also need specialists. The workforce plan is critical.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. In case anyone wonders why I am shivering a bit, I have to say it is a bit cold in here.
Mrs Hodgson
Oh, good—we do try.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this important and timely debate and on his excellent speech. I wonder whether he has a crystal ball and knew something that we did not; I am sure if he does, it will be much in demand, because we have an important vote next week and somebody might want to have a borrow. I thank all the other hon. Members who have spoken this morning—the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous)—for their excellent contributions to the debate.
As we know, the long-term plan was launched yesterday. We had waited several months for it to be published, but I am pleased that, after a few setbacks and delays, we now have it and are able to move forward. I was also pleased to see that cancer is a key priority in the plan; I am sure the Minister played a large part in that. Cancer is important, but it is an emotive issue. One in two of us will face a cancer diagnosis in our lifetime, which is a sobering thought, and many of us in this Chamber will know someone who has been affected by cancer. Some of us, I know, have been affected by cancer individually, and no doubt some of us will have lost someone to cancer.
What led me initially to join the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer as a new MP was losing my mother-in-law to breast cancer over 20 years ago. I notice that in this debate there is a gathering of former co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, as well as the current co-chairs of that group and the current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer. Once this subject takes hold and catches our interest, it stays with us for the whole of our parliamentary career—as it should, because it is so important.
It is estimated that by 2035, one person every minute will be diagnosed with cancer. That is why cancer diagnosis, treatment and care and their workforces should play an important role in our NHS now and in the future. The Prime Minister set out in her conference speech last September the Government’s ambition to see three in four cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage within the next decade. Currently, just more than half of the people diagnosed with cancer are diagnosed early in England, so the Government have a long way to go to achieve that welcome ambition.
Early diagnosis improves the likelihood of survival, as we all know. For example, if bowel cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, nine in 10 people will survive, but if it is diagnosed late, at stage 4, only one in 10 will survive. Early diagnosis also increases the likelihood of responding well to treatment. Target Ovarian Cancer, which I am proud to say I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for, found that as many as one in every five women in England are too ill to treat by the time they receive their ovarian cancer diagnosis. Awareness and screening programmes are crucial to early diagnosis, but breast screening uptake, for example, is the lowest it has been in 10 years, with stark variations across the country. The percentage of women taking up their screening invitation within six months fell from 71.1% in 2016-17 to 70.5% in 2017-18. Some might say that is only 0.6%, but analysis by Breast Cancer Now has found that upward of 1,200 additional deaths could be prevented per annual cohort of eligible women if we were to increase screening uptake to the current target of 80% for individual breast cancer screening units. With 500,000 people projected to be diagnosed with cancer in 2035, it is clear that we must do more to ensure that cancer is diagnosed early so that it can be treated effectively.
The long-term plan, as I am sure everyone has read and the Minister will be aware, says:
“We will build on work to raise greater awareness of symptoms of cancer, lower the threshold for referral by GPs, accelerate access to diagnosis and treatment and maximise the number of cancers that we identify through screening. This includes the use of personalised and risk stratified screening and beginning to test the family members of cancer patients where they are at increased risk of cancer.”
That is all great, but the Government cannot make those improvements without improving the workforce, and they must not be complacent about the role our NHS workforce have to play in this. As we all know, that workforce do a wonderful job every day, treating, caring for and supporting us and our loved ones, as those who have witnessed it at first hand will attest. Unfortunately, the cancer workforce is at breaking point and already struggles to keep up with increasing demand. There are chronic staff shortages across the NHS, with vacancies for 102,000 staff, including nearly 41,000 nurses. As anyone who has ever worked somewhere with staff shortages will know, the pressure that places on an individual is huge. I cannot imagine what it is like for the NHS staff who work day in, day out under those pressures, when so much depends on their being able to do their job properly.
Cancer Research UK has pointed to chronic shortages in the diagnostic workforce, with more than one in 10 positions unfilled nationally. According to Breast Cancer Now, for every three breast radiologists who retire over the next five years, only two are expected to replace them. I know that others have already stated a lot of these facts, but they are worth stating twice. There is a similar problem with breast cancer clinical nurse specialists; Breast Cancer Care states that they are an ageing part of the workforce, with 45% of breast cancer clinical nurse specialists aged 50 or above. The Royal College of Radiologists has warned of a shortage of cancer doctors, with 5% of clinical oncologist posts vacant during the course of last year, up from a 3% vacancy rate in 2015. The Royal College of Nursing also warns that in England there are nearly 41,000 vacant registered nursing posts, and it predicts a dangerous increase to almost 48,000 by 2023 if the Government fail to take urgent action now.
The Government must take the issue of the cancer workforce incredibly seriously, as nearly every person who has spoken so far in the debate has said. Will the Minister provide a progress report on Health Education England’s cancer workforce plan, which was published just over a year ago? Additionally, will he please provide us with a date for when he expects the second workforce plan to be published? As others have said, “soon” is not good enough. The NHS long-term plan makes it clear that the funding available for additional investment in the workforce, in the form of training, education and continuing professional development through the Health Education England budget, has yet to be set by the Government. Can the Minister assure us that any workforce plan will be properly funded, so that the workforce gap can be filled as a matter of urgency?
The NHS long-term plan says:
“We will complete the £130 million upgrade of radiotherapy machines across England and commission the NHS new state-of-the-art Proton Beam facilities in London and Manchester”,
but staff will need to be trained on both how to use those new facilities and how to read the results. Education and training must be high on the agenda for the second workforce plan, including the reinstatement of the training bursary, removing any financial burdens and barriers so that we can recruit the nurses that we need for the future. It also means offering further training opportunities once qualified, so that staff can keep up to date with technological advances.
Our NHS should be the most attractive employer in the country, but without the financial backing and support from the Government we are failing to recruit and retain our hard-working NHS staff. Of course, as the Secretary of State continues to say, prevention is better than cure, but £96 million has been cut from public health budgets this financial year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
That was very decisive of you, Mr Howarth. It is quite cold in here, but the ministerial radiator next to me is doing very nicely. Note to the Box: must get radiator for shadow Minister.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I wish everybody a happy new year. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate. It is good to see him again. He has impeccable timing; I am not sure if he knew that the plan would be published when he applied for the debate. If he could let me know how he managed that, I would be very grateful.
The hon. Gentleman and everybody else talked about cancer survival rates. The truth is that they have never been higher and have increased year on year over the last decade or so. The reason for that is not only the investment and policy decisions by the last Government and this Government but, as the shadow Minister said, the hard work of NHS staff up and down our country. They work tirelessly, going over and above to give cancer patients the care and compassion that they need. I place on the record my thanks to them, which was perhaps not said enough in the Chamber yesterday. We are not in the slightest bit complacent, though. At the end of the day, one death from cancer still devastates somebody’s life and their family’s life. We know that we need to do so much more to ensure that we deliver the world-class cancer outcomes in England that all of us want and expect for our constituents.
In introducing the debate, the hon. Gentleman set the tone when he talked about the workforce. He said that the workforce are, in a way, the rock on which to build the church. I will start with that. Where we cannot prevent cancer, which I will come on to, we must ensure that we have the right staff with the appropriate skills and expertise to ensure that patients receive the best care. The NHS is nothing without its 1.3 million staff. It is the biggest employer of trained staff in the world. In 2017, Health Education England published the first ever cancer workforce plan, in which we set out ambitious plans to expand the capacity and skills of the NHS cancer workforce, committing to invest in 200 clinical endoscopists in addition to the 200 already committed to, as well as an extra 300 reporting radiographers, by 2021. However, we know that we need to go much further and do more than that. The Prime Minister set out our new ambitions on cancer in her party conference speech, and we also set out our early diagnosis targets in the long-term plan and our survival targets. As the Secretary of State set out yesterday, the long-term plan is the next step in our mission to make the NHS the world-class employer that delivers the cancer survival rates that we want.
To deliver on those commitments, we have asked Baroness Dido Harding, chair of NHS Improvement, to chair a rapid programme of work for the Secretary of State. She will engage with staff, employers, professional organisations, trade unions, charities in this space, think-tanks, Members and all-party parliamentary groups to build a workforce implementation plan that matches the ambition set out in the long-term plan. She will provide interim recommendations to the Secretary of State by the end of March on how supply, reform, culture and leadership challenges can be met, and then final recommendations later in the year, around the time of the spending review, as part of the broader implementation plan that will be developed at all levels to make the long-term plan a reality.
The hon. Gentleman and others asked about the work of HEE and Baroness Harding. The announcement of the long-term plan superseded HEE’s plans to publish a longer-term cancer workforce plan. HEE will now work with NHS England and Baroness Harding’s NHS Improvement under the plan, led by the baroness, to understand the longer workforce implications for the development of the plan. As I said, recommendations will be made in March, with a full implementation plan published later in the year. I did not say, “Soon.” I cannot give the House an exclusive this morning.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about Sir Mike Richards’s screening review. That will make initial recommendations by Easter this year and be finalised in the summer to, as it says in the plan,
“further improve the delivery of the screening programmes, increase uptake—
I know that the shadow Minister is concerned about that; I am too—
“and learn the lessons from the recent issues around breast and cervical screening, and modernise and expand diagnostic capacity.”
Steve Brine
I will, but it will mean that other Members will not get a response.
Theresa Villiers
Does the Minister agree that a crucial part of success in early diagnosis is for both the NHS and local authorities, with their public health budgets, to have specific strategies to engage with minority ethnic communities to raise awareness of cancer symptoms, and to encourage them to take part in screening programmes? That is an essential part of an effective strategy to improve cancer treatment in this country.
Steve Brine
Yes. That is why the House gave all upper-tier local authorities the power to be effective public health authorities with ring-fenced public health budgets—£16 billion during this spending review period. Decisions will obviously be made about that going forward. One reason why we did that was our belief that, for example, my right hon. Friend’s borough will have different priorities and demographics from mine in Hampshire.
It is a statement of fact that I will clearly not be able to respond to every Member’s points in the short time that we have left. I will respond to everybody in writing, as I always assiduously do. I will try to take a few themes in the minutes that I have.
The hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) touched on radiotherapy. I very much enjoyed our meeting, and I thank them again for their work. I will send the hon. Member for Easington a note with more detail on his point on tariffs, because I know that he and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale are concerned about it.
The hon. Gentlemen also talked about the manifesto response. We await the publication of the new radiotherapy specification before we respond. It is an excellent piece of work that will address many of the recommendations made, and we expect it to be published very shortly. I am afraid to say that the long-term plan makes no commitment to a one-off investment. However, it commits to improving access to safer and more precise medicines, including advanced radiotherapy. That document is not the final word. It is a living document that I will work on while listening to all-party parliamentary groups such as their own.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale also talked about the radiotherapy review. There was a phenomenal response to NHS England’s consultation, not surprisingly—a lot of those were from the west country of England. The NHS will plough through that. I am putting great pressure on it to publish its report in response to that, which I am hoping, and am told, will be in early 2019.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), otherwise known as the Member for the Irish sea a body of water, talked about prevention and smoking and child obesity and humour. I loved her reference to “poo in the post”. There is a great charity that talks about men’s bits called It’s in the Bag, which is good at promoting awareness of testicular cancer. She is right to talk about prevention. I am the Minister for Public Health and Primary Care, looking at prevention. The Secretary of State has made prevention one of his top three priorities, and she knows that it is key for me.
Smoking is still the biggest preventable killer in our country today, as I said in the House last night in the statutory instrument debate. We have published a world-leading plan on child obesity. We will consult very shortly. I try to be honest with the House at all times, and I hoped to get it out before Christmas, but there is an awful lot else going on and there is only so much I can get out the door at one time. However, I will get the 9 pm watershed consultation out the door. It is damned important that we do that. We said that we will, so we will.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that prevention is better than cure, which is why the child obesity plan and Cancer Research UK’s work in that space has been very helpful.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister that he ought to leave a little bit of time for the mover of the motion to speak.
Steve Brine
Okay. I will have to close. There is a lot of ambition in the long-term plan, which some people have very kindly said I may have had something to do with. That may be so. However, that ambition is matched by finances, and finances need to be matched by people. We understand that, but it is also about the much wider, holistic approach to prevention, and about staff being part of that. We get that. I hope I have given some reassurances around the work that will be done on that. I will write to Members on the rest of the points raised. I thank everybody for their—as usual—incredible and passionate contributions.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful to all colleagues for their contributions, which were pertinent, personal, knowledgeable and clinical. I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople for their contributions. The Minister knows that we all want the same things—success for the Government’s programme, better and earlier diagnoses, adequate and professional staff and better survival rates. We are here to help him.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Togo: Human Rights
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered human rights in Togo.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am grateful to have been allocated this debate. I am saddened by its necessity, but necessary it is, as I wish to raise the serious and worsening human rights situation in Togo. At present, according to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, the United Kingdom does not have permanent representation in Togo, but covers it remotely, from Ghana. I would be grateful if the Minister, in responding to the debate, outlined how the current system works, because I have a number of constituents from Togo who say that it is ineffective.
The human rights abuses occurring in Togo rest heavy on the shoulders of my constituents who left that country to settle in the UK, because although they are far from home, news of the continued abuse of their relatives and fellow countrymen and women at the hands of the authorities and security forces reaches them nearly every week. It is not only the case that the authorities heavily curtail people’s right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly for peaceful protest; it has also been well documented that security forces use excessive force against demonstrators. Last year, Amnesty International stated that during one of the mass demonstrations organised by opposition groups, at least 11 people were killed by security forces. In addition, the random arrests, detentions, torture and other ill treatment of prisoners, human rights defenders, journalists and civilians continue. It appears that, in Togo, human rights violations continue with impunity. The Government and the security forces have a blatant disregard for justice and the rule of international law.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall for consideration. Does she agree that the shocking report of the death of a 12-year-old in the run-up to the elections in Togo in December is an example of the fact that human rights are still supressed to a great extent in Togo, and that we in this House must do more to encourage human rights? I suggest that it may be possible to do that by using the Togolese ambition to be a Commonwealth member nation; that may be a way to influence what is happening there.
Teresa Pearce
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, particularly as it has given me time to catch my breath, because I have just run all the way across the parliamentary estate—there are not many things that a 63-year-old woman would run across the estate for, but I will for human rights in Togo. The issues in relation to the election are very important, and I will touch on them later.
It is time for the Government of Togo to practise what they preach and fulfil the promises that they have made to the United Nations, to the international community and, most importantly, to their people. Togo is a United Nations member state. As is protocol, the UN conducts a universal periodic review of the human rights records of all UN member states. The first cycle of the UN universal periodic review of Togo took place in October 2011. Of the 133 recommendations made, Togo rejected a number, including a recommendation to amend or repeal the laws used to crack down on journalists and human rights defenders, a recommendation regarding the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the country and a recommendation regarding the inclusion of laws that criminalised defamation. There has been some progress in the ratification of crucial international instruments, but there is so much more to do. It is imperative that Togo live up to the recommendations that it has agreed to within the universal periodic review. Things must happen not just on paper, but in practice.
Togo was elected to join the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2016 to 2018 and was expected to use that mandate to strengthen its human rights commitments. Combating torture was one of the key recommendations made in the review. The country ratified the optional protocol to the UN convention against torture by rolling out capacity-strengthening workshops to combat torture for criminal investigators and prison and rehabilitation officers, but torture remains a practice in the country that is used by security forces against participants in anti-Government demonstrations.
Many hon. Members will be aware that between August and December 2017 the authorities continued violent crackdowns during mass protests. Those protests were led by the political opposition, calling for, among other things, the end of President Faure Gnassingbé’s tenure as President. Freedom House is an independent watchdog organisation that dedicates itself to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world. In its country overview for 2018, it stated:
“Togo’s politics have been dominated since 1963 by Gnassingbé Eyadéma”—
apologies for my pronunciation—
“and his son, the current president…Advantages including a security service dominated by the president’s ethnic group, disproportionately drawn election districts, and a fractured opposition have helped President Gnassingbé and his party hold on to power. In 2017, protests calling for the reintroduction of term limits were harshly repressed.”
The President has been in power since 2005. His predecessor—his father—held on to power for 38 years before his death. Claims of the repression of protests that call for the reintroduction of term limits are supported by many human rights organisations and institutions. According to Amnesty, protests were met with excessive use of force by the security forces. Among other instances, security forces used live ammunition in 2017 to disperse a protest against rising oil prices in the country. Several people were injured, and many were surprised that only one death was recorded. In June 2017, videos posted on the internet showed members of the security forces, armed with shotguns, beating students on the ground with batons at a student demonstration calling for improved living conditions. That outrageous act occurred at the University of Lomé within the student union. As if that were not enough, security forces arrested at least 19 students, 17 of whom were later released. Several students stated in court that they had been beaten during their arrest and transfer.
Members of the political opposition held mass demonstrations in major cities across Togo. There are reports that those demonstrations were, again, broken up by security forces, which used tear gas, batons, water cannon and live ammunition. It is simply not humane to use water cannon to disperse crowds and most certainly not for people who have a right to protest peacefully under the UN declaration of human rights, to which Togo became a signatory on 20 September 1960.
One of the main things that Togo seems to have refused to address or improve is the authorities’ repression of people’s right to freedom of expression. The Freedom House report entitled “Freedom on the Net 2018: The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism” stated:
“In almost half of the countries where internet freedom declined, the reductions were related to elections.”
Unsurprisingly, that is true in the case of Togo. In September 2017, the authorities shut down the internet for nine days in retaliation to opposition-led protests. In doing so, they disrupted the organisation of protests and heavily disrupted the work of human rights defenders and journalists who were monitoring the protests. Those reports were later verified by the digital rights group Internet Without Borders. Togo is a signatory to the international covenant on civil and political rights, and its shutdown of mobile phone services and the internet is a violation of article 19 of the covenant.
In a year in which human rights defenders are operating in a shrinking civil society space, I hope that the House will agree with me that disrupting the crucial work of human rights organisations and human rights defenders is detrimental to democracy and should not be allowed to continue. Many cases have been brought to my attention to highlight the gross extent to which the Togolese Government curtail people’s rights. They do so by arbitrarily closing down media outlets and arresting community and opposition leaders to crack down on anyone who expresses dissent.
One such case is that of Robert Kossi Avotor. Robert is a journalist who was viciously attacked with batons in the city of Lomé by the police. He was also handcuffed in a successful attempt to prevent him from photodocumenting an eviction that was taking place. He was subsequently detained and had his images deleted, before being released without charge. Although he filed a complaint with the prosecution service, he received no response. This is a classic example of the security forces using extreme force and brutality to curtail the legitimate work of journalists and human rights defenders. They are propped up by the general prosecutor, who issued a warning stating that anyone who reported on Robert’s attack would face criminal prosecution for disseminating “fake news”. When a Government who do not respect human rights are propped up by a judicial system that does not respect the rule of law and intimidates those seeking justice for crimes committed against them, what hope is there for the people of that country?
I would like to thank the Minister for the attention in the written answers she has already provided to me. In November last year, the Minister responded to one of my written questions on Togo, saying that the UK Government supported the President of Ghana and that they encouraged both the Government and the opposition in Togo to work towards ensuring that the elections to be held on 20 December would be free, fair and void of any violence. Sadly, as many will be aware, the elections were anything but that. According to various news sources, in the days leading up to the elections, many people were killed by security forces. Despite advice given by Ghana and the UK, protesters still gathered and organised demonstrations in the lead-up to the elections, which in turn flared into violence. Some 14 opposition parties joined forces to call on their supporters to boycott the elections, amid fears that the President would put forth legislation to allow him to run again in 2020 and 2025.
During the mediation talks held by Ghana and Guinea to resolve the crisis, the opposition asked for an overhaul of the electoral commission and for term limits to be set, but this was not to be. Elections are a major source of contention and strife in Togo. How many more people will be arbitrarily arrested and detained? How many more people will tell us their tales of torture, simply because they exercise their human right to freedom of expression or opinion?
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Like her, I have many constituents, some of whom are in the Public Gallery, who will be watching this debate closely, and who have real concerns about their friends and family still in Togo. Does she share my concern about the repressive cyber-security law that the National Assembly recently passed, which human rights campaigners around the world agree will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression?
Teresa Pearce
I do have major concerns about that. If people are not free to access information and communicate with each other, it puts Togo in the same position as many other regimes, such as China. The Togolese Government beat their opposition for expressing dissent, and silence the media and journalists. In November, the Minister replied to a question that I raised, saying that the UK Government recommended that allegations of arbitrary arrest and detention, and allegations of torture, be investigated thoroughly. Reports from Amnesty International and other human rights organisations dispute that that has taken place in Togo.
I have five questions for the Minister. If she cannot answer them now, I request that she sends me a written response. First, what can the Foreign Office do—what will it do—to encourage Togo to end its security forces’ excessive use of force and for their authorities to respect people’s right to peaceful protest? Secondly, does the Minister join me in condemning the Togolese Government for shutting down the internet, and contravening article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights? Thirdly, what assistance is the UK giving to support human rights defenders and civil society in Togo? Fourthly, how might the Foreign Office encourage Togo to ensure that perpetrators of human rights abuses are held accountable and prosecuted in a court of law? Finally, will the Minister ask the Togolese Government when the high commissioner for reconciliation and strengthening national unity will action the plan to implement the truth, justice and reconciliation commission of Togo’s 68 recommendations?
The 70th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights was marked on 10 December 2018. Togo is a signatory to that declaration. On paper, Togo is doing the right things to show that it cares about and is committed to human rights values and principles—I have touched on those things throughout my speech. However, in reality, the Government and the security forces there fail to adhere to human rights standards. Togo seems to be a country open to improvement when it comes to its human rights failings. That is why it was elected to the Human Rights Council. However, we seem to be dealing with a Government who make assurances to protect human rights and adhere to human rights standards one day, and abandon those values when they think that nobody is looking.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this excellent debate. The UN and, to a lesser degree, other international organisations are somewhat distant from Lomé. Does she agree that, in addition to the leadership that Ghana is showing, it would be good for the Economic Community of West African States to take a greater role in Togo and provide some leadership on what the international community wants? That local, regional leadership sometimes works better than distant people from New York telling individuals how to run their country.
Teresa Pearce
I agree that this is not a job for just one country, but for many. The UK cannot act alone, but together with others it can. Anybody who can apply pressure and alleviate the suffering of the people of Togo should be welcomed and encouraged. I would be interested to know the Minister’s view on that issue.
It is my sincere hope that the UK Government will work closely with the Togolese Government to ensure that they are respecting human rights values not just on paper, but in reality too. In a year’s time, I do not want to be sitting in my constituency surgery with my constituents who come from Togo telling me yet more stories like the ones that we have heard. I am sure that we are all appalled. I am sure that the Minister will do everything she can, and I am interested to hear what that might be.
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this important debate and, through her, I thank her constituents who have rightly brought these important matters to her attention and thus to the attention of the House.
Promoting human rights worldwide is generally part of the UK’s foreign policy. We believe that everyone everywhere should enjoy equal rights and protections under the law. We believe that human rights are the essential foundation for a fairer, more secure and more prosperous world. Standing up for human rights is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do. In our work, we promote respect for human rights in various ways, from quiet diplomacy and private discussions to leading and supporting international public campaigns with our international partners. With regard to media freedom and in particular the internet, we are campaigning very much this year for media freedom worldwide. The hon. Lady will be aware that we have also increased our support to the BBC World Service and our overall coverage across Africa in a variety of languages.
On the political and human rights situation in Togo, and UK Government action, I will start by recapping the political situation as we see it. President Faure Gnassingbè has been in power in Togo since 2005 following the death of his father, who had held the post for 37 years. The current President was elected for a third term in 2015, having set aside the term limits set out in the 1992 constitution. Togo is now the only country in the Economic Community of West African States that does not currently have presidential term limits. There have been increasing demands in recent years for that to change. A referendum on the issue was planned for September 2017 but did not go ahead.
Since late 2017 Togolese opposition parties have joined together to form a 14-party coalition, and have begun to stage protests in Lomé and across the country, to demand electoral reform. These protests are ongoing. Unfortunately, as the hon. Lady said, violence has been associated with the protests, mainly in the north of the country, perpetrated both by security forces and by protestors. At least 12 people, including some members of the security forces, have been reported as killed since August 2017.
Reports are difficult for us to corroborate because, as the hon. Lady notes, we do not have a permanent diplomatic presence in Togo, and media reporting is often contradictory or biased. Nevertheless, our non-resident high commissioner, who is based in Ghana, continues to monitor the situation in Togo. In the last 18 months, he has visited Lomé twice and he keeps in touch with partners and multilateral institutions.
James Duddridge
Iain Walker does a fabulous job, as did Jon Benjamin, but with the expansion of the network across Africa, is there a possibility that we could get greater representation in Lomé, perhaps within three years? Is that in the pipeline?
Harriett Baldwin
I was going to mention our honorary consul in Lomé, Sitsu Curterello—I will make sure that Hansard gets the right spelling. As my hon. Friend mentions, we are increasing the range of roles and our diplomatic presence across a range of African countries. Under current plans, we are not anticipating opening an outpost in Togo directly, but we are anticipating increasing representation in Ghana. As he will know, the coverage of political affairs is done from Abidjan, so we are increasing our presence across west Africa.
Teresa Pearce
On that point, my constituents have expressed dissatisfaction with how that system works. If I meet them again and they give examples of where it is ineffective, and I write to the Minister, will she respond?
Harriett Baldwin
I would welcome that. As the hon. Lady knows, the more specific the better—that is always helpful.
One point that I have raised with the Togolese chargé d’affaires in London is the accreditation of our representative from the high commission in Ghana and of the honorary consul. We would like that paperwork to be finalised because it has been outstanding for longer than it should have been.
In terms of regional mediation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) said, we believe that ECOWAS has an important role to play. It is best placed to mediate in the current political crisis, as it did so successfully in Gambia. We support the efforts of the Presidents of Ghana and Guinea to that end. Indeed, a road map was brokered by ECOWAS in July 2018. We urge the Togolese Government and the opposition parties to implement that road map, and we encourage all parties to resolve the crisis peacefully through a political agreement.
Regarding the political situation more broadly, it was encouraging that legislative elections took place on 20 December and that they were assessed by ECOWAS monitors to have been credible and non-violent. However, it is concerning that local elections, which were due on 16 December, were postponed for an unspecified period. It is also regrettable that more opposition parties did not stand in those elections.
On the wider human rights picture, the UK welcomed Togo’s positive progress during its last UN universal periodic review in 2016, which included taking steps to prevent torture and other human rights violations by the security forces, and releasing a number of political detainees. Clearly, where such allegations have been made, it is important for them to be fed in so that they can be reflected in future United Nations universal period reviews. We also welcomed Togo’s election to the Human Rights Council from January 2016 and its decision to impose a complete moratorium on the use of the death penalty, as announced at the UN in September 2016.
We have raised concerns, however, about child trafficking, prison policies, prison overcrowding and the treatment of detainees in prison. At the time of the universal periodic review, we urged the Togolese authorities to thoroughly investigate all allegations of torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. We also remain concerned about the Government of Togo’s continued resistance to provide legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. We have urged them to ensure that the human rights of every individual in Togo are protected by law.
When I met the Togolese chargé d’affaires in London recently, I raised our concerns about human rights and took the opportunity to emphasise the importance of implementing the road map and of holding free, fair and peaceful local elections. We also discussed UK support for the economic development of Togo. The UK recognises that Togo is a country with a low average income. We provide about £12 million of development assistance annually, not directly through the Government but through a range of non-governmental organisations. In 2018, that included £1.6 million for the UN population fund, which supports reproductive healthcare and development across the country.
In conclusion, the UK Government welcome the steps taken by the Togolese Government to improve human rights in some areas, but we remain concerned about reports of violence, human rights abuses and violations associated with political protests. The treatment of detainees and the lack of protection for LGBTI people are matters of continued concern. We have said to the Government of Togo that they must now step up and deliver real progress on human rights, including on the ECOWAS road map, which will benefit all the people of Togo.
Question put and agreed to.
Apprenticeships and Skills Policy
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I beg to move that,
This House has considered apprenticeships and skills policy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir David. The title of the debate is as broad as possible so that colleagues may join in and give their own perspective. I will address the problems in the apprenticeship levy and regional skills imbalances in our country; the mismatch between the skills system and the needs of the economy; and the need to give tools to places such as Bradford to help us to close the productivity gap between us and London.
In June last year, I held a business and jobs roundtable in my constituency. Business leaders and representatives of trade unions, the Bradford Economic Partnership, the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, Bradford chamber of commerce, Bradford University and Bradford College all attended, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). The overall theme for the roundtable was how we could boost economic opportunity for all in Bradford South. Although the discussion ranged over a number of issues, a significant amount of time was spent discussing schools, training and apprenticeships. Later in my speech, I will address the specific issue of the apprenticeship levy, but first I will briefly outline the challenges and opportunities facing Bradford.
Bradford is a great northern city with a proud industrial heritage. That heritage was created by successful businesses, which used new technologies and the city’s pioneering drive to build a world-leading economy. We are still home to many successful and enterprising businesses. In my constituency of Bradford South, we have a strong manufacturing sector. Bradford has 1,200 manufacturing businesses, employing more than 25,000 people in the district, which accounts for 13% of all employees locally compared with 8.3% for Great Britain as a whole.
We face a significant challenge with the interconnected problems of low skills and low wages, and I will give a few figures relating to my constituency to illustrate that. In Bradford South, 15% of the working-age population have no qualifications compared with the UK average of 8%; 14% of our working-age population are qualified to degree level and above, compared with 31% nationally; Bradford South has 600 jobs per 1,000 people in the working-age population, compared with 840 nationally; average weekly workplace earnings stood at £480 in April 2018, compared with a UK average of £570; and Bradford South ranks 520th out of 533 constituencies in England in the social mobility index from the House of Commons Library. Many people in my constituency do not have the skills they would need to access good-quality, well-paid and secure jobs.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making about her constituency. Does she believe that schools in her constituency have something to contribute to redressing the imbalance she is describing?
Judith Cummins
I agree that schools have a lot to offer when it comes to redressing the imbalance. I will address schools a little later in my speech, when I will speak about the specific situation in Bradford and the specific project that we have there.
That situation is something of a vicious cycle. The lack of skills makes Bradford a less attractive place for businesses to locate and invest in. A good example is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which cited the lack of appropriate skills as one of the reasons to relocate its offices from Bradford. That is why getting the skills policy right is essential to give places such as Bradford the economic boost that they so badly need.
The issue is becoming ever more urgent as we face the impact of new technologies in the world of work. The Future Advocacy report places Bradford South in the top 40 constituencies that are likely to be affected by automation in the coming years. It also says that 35% of jobs in Bradford are in occupations that are likely to shrink by 2030. It is clear that Bradford will need to adapt to secure good-quality and sustainable jobs.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Federation of Small Businesses has raised concerns about the 40-day requirement for placements associated with T-levels. Is that a concern for employers in the Bradford South constituency?
Judith Cummins
That certainly is a concern for employers in my constituency.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has mentioned that modern technology plays a major part. Does she agree that the restoration of the education maintenance grant would help students in relation to apprenticeships? Furthermore, cutbacks in further education do not help—it seems to be treated as a Cinderella industry.
Judith Cummins
I thank my hon. Friend for the wise words and I certainly welcome them. I say to the Minister that now is the time that we must act to create a better skills and training system if we are to prevent disruption further down the line.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
One of the problems we face in my constituency with training centres is that 20 to 25 students will start training, but only four will finish. How can we encourage young people to stay in apprenticeships, or is the apprenticeship scheme not fit for purpose?
Judith Cummins
That is a very interesting and pertinent point. I know that some apprenticeships are paid so poorly and offer so little training—apprenticeships are supposed to be jobs with training—that they are not really worth the paper that they are written on. In my view, they should not be called apprenticeships.
At a local level, a significant amount of work is under way to meet the challenges that I have spoken about, with the Bradford Economic Partnership setting out a local economic strategy with a focus on increasing the number of productive businesses in the district through investing in skills provision.
We recently had Bradford manufacturing week, which I was delighted to support. It aimed to show the young people in Bradford the many exciting opportunities in manufacturing that are right on their doorstep, to get them thinking about the skills that they will need for the future. Over half of our secondary schools took part. In just one week more than 3,000 children crossed the doors to get that first-hand manufacturing experience in workplaces.
Another exciting area of work that is being developed locally in Bradford involves the industrial centres of excellence—or ICE—approach to post-14 careers and technical education. ICE gives business a partnership vehicle with local schools, colleges and the University of Bradford to ensure that education and learning in Bradford meet the skills demands of businesses in the local and regional economy within given sector footprints, which opens up opportunities for our young people and improves social mobility.
Those centres are good examples of how schemes that are locally led can deliver for businesses and encourage social mobility. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them further with the Minister, but Government policy is making it more difficult for places such as Bradford to bring about a transformative change in their labour markets. I will start with the specific issues that Bradford businesses and education providers have raised with me about the operation of the apprenticeship levy.
I fully support the principles behind the levy, but its implementation has compounded the problems of underinvestment in training rather than improving the situation. As the Minister will be aware, the apprenticeship levy aims to encourage employers to invest in apprenticeship programmes, but apprenticeship starts have been significantly down since the introduction of the levy in May 2017. In July 2018, the total number of apprenticeship starts nationally was 25,200.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate but on her generosity in giving way. I am sure it will help the new year planning for the keep fit programme.
Skills, education and training are devolved matters in Wales, where there has been a 23% rise in the uptake of apprenticeships—obviously, we are doing something right. I wonder whether the UK Government are talking to the Welsh Government, perhaps about sharing good practice so we can make the success in Wales a success right across the United Kingdom.
Judith Cummins
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is definitely one for the Minister to address.
As I was saying, in July 2018 there was a total of 25,200 apprenticeship starts nationally, which represents a 43% drop from July 2016. Starts in Bradford South have fallen from 1,370 in 2015-16 to just 680 in 2017-18 —very nearly a 50% drop. Several Bradford firms have told me that the complexity of the system is a major barrier to entry, and that seems to be a particular problem for small and medium-sized businesses. That was clearly set out to me when I had the privilege of attending the apprenticeship awards evening at Bradford College late last year. While we were discussing the fantastic successes of apprenticeships at the college, it raised a number of difficulties facing both the college and the many small and medium-sized enterprises it works with. Many of the latter find the administrative demands of the new apprenticeship system extremely difficult to manage, and the college itself is experiencing cash-flow difficulties, caused by changes to the apprenticeship contract and the digital payment process, with payment times having increased to an average of 14 weeks from an average of seven before the reforms. The college has had to create four new posts to help it to navigate the changes and support its employers.
In his recent Budget, the Chancellor acknowledged some of the shortcomings identified in the current apprenticeship policy. For example, he announced his intention to reduce the requirement to contribute to the costs of off-the-job training from 10% to 5% for non-levy employers, which should help a little. In Bradford South, I have levy employers asking if the same 5% reduction in fees will apply to them once they have exhausted their levy funds. They currently deliver the extra apprenticeships under Solenis, which also requires a 10% core contribution from employers.
I recognise that a new system takes time to bed in, but the Government’s approach needs more than just a little fine tuning. We need a more radical overhaul of our skills policy to help places such as Bradford get the growth and prosperity we deserve. We have a situation where public policy, whether intentionally or unintentionally, has turbo-charged the London economy to the detriment of other towns and cities outside the capital. The Government need to address the failure over decades to tackle persistent regional skills imbalances. We need a mechanism to support industries and individuals in areas that face economic decline and need help to adapt to the demands of the global economy.
The jobs of the future will require people to work more closely with advanced technologies. Workers will need support to adapt and retrain, to secure decent and sustainable work; otherwise, in many places in the UK we will face a lasting legacy of low qualifications, low productivity and low pay. Yet the Government have no convincing strategic framework for identifying sectors and areas in which large numbers of jobs are at risk from technological and economic change. In fact, the apprenticeship levy contributes to further regional imbalances, as more funding is raised per head in London and the south-east than in the rest of the country. London has the lowest skills need in the country, yet the levy will raise more funds there, as the capital has both a greater proportion of workers employed by large employers and far higher pay. The Social Mobility Commission’s “State of the Nation 2017: Social Mobility in Great Britain” report identifies that as an emerging risk, and the commission urges the Government to develop education and skills policies to better support disadvantaged young people in areas such as Bradford South, stating that that could be done
“by targeting any used apprenticeship levy funds at regions with fewer high-level apprenticeships”.
According to the commission, apprenticeships are a more common path into employment for young people in many youth coldspot areas, where there are higher barriers to social mobility than in hotspots, but those apprenticeships are often of lower quality than in the hotspots. If we are to rebalance our economy, we urgently need reforms to the apprenticeship levy to ensure that it meets the needs of the most disadvantaged areas and those with a legacy of underinvestment, such as my constituency of Bradford South.
A debate about skills policy must not be just about how to support young people to enter the workplace; it also must consider those who are already working. To achieve a sustainable supply of skills with the flexibility to meet the ever-evolving needs of business, industry and the public sector, the UK must maximise the potential of its existing workforce. That is why the 45% reduction in spending on adult education since 2010 is so short-sighted and damaging to our economy. If Government want business and individuals to see training as an investment and not as a cost, they must lead by example. To meet the wider training need of the economy, we need more focus on how the apprenticeship levy can be used to tackle the overall skills shortage.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I agree with a number of the hon. Lady’s points, but while I accept what she says about individuals gaining access to education as adults, does she not agree that employers have a duty to their staff to ensure that they are properly trained, that their careers are developed, and that appropriate adaptions are made if they transition into another career or a different role in the organisation? It should not necessarily be down to the Government to do that. Employers have an important role and a moral obligation to their staff.
Judith Cummins
Yes, everyone has a wider responsibility to train and retain. Lifelong learning is, in fact, a mantra going back some decades.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development comments:
“The Government should consider broadening the apprenticeship levy into a wider training levy. The training levy could be reconfigured to cover a much broader range of organisations…whereby all businesses with more than 50 employees would contribute, with larger businesses contributing more to the pot.”
That would allow levy funds to be used to fund people with low qualifications to access pre-apprenticeship training.
A wider problem that has affected this country for decades is overreliance on individual learners to make informed choices about their training in an environment that is not well structured and where independent advice is not freely available. Unlike much of Europe, we do not have a strong industrial sectoral voice to drive collective action from employers. To pursue the high-skills route to business success, more effort must be made to develop that voice. The Government must no longer rely on responding to individual employers and instead work to build up strong sector skills bodies, which will be more able to forecast skills needs and encourage the collective commitment to skills that we have heard about in the debate.
Sectoral institutions should include a range of key stakeholders able to build a wider commitment through an entire industry. That model is found in other western European countries, such as Germany and France, where it is common practice for employers, civil society groups and trade unions to co-operate to achieve mutually agreed goals. Achieving that requires the Government to take both a more active and a more supportive role and to devolve greater power and responsibility to key sectoral bodies. Places such as Bradford need more tools and resource to close the productivity gap with London. Investing more in skills and devolving more to our cities would be a significant step forward in building an economy that works for everyone.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to answer my questions about apprenticeships and skills. In particular, will the Government reduce the administrative burden and the costs of operating the apprenticeship system to the pre-May 2017 levels? What will she do to address the regional imbalances that are built into the apprenticeship levy? Does she intend to develop a strong sectoral voice to articulate and stimulate the demand for skills?
If we get the skills policy right, we can give young people the tools they need to secure high-quality jobs, and we can boost productivity and rebalance the economy so that it works for all places and all people in our country. That must be our absolute priority, and I hope that today’s debate and the Minister’s responses will contribute to getting that right. Finally, I would like to place on record my thanks to the Minister for her welcome interventions in helping to secure a future for Bradford College. I very much look forward to working with her.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and it is an even greater pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). I will take advantage of the way in which she has drawn the subject so widely because I want to answer a fundamental question: how do we get students who are still at school to focus on the options of an apprenticeship and skills training rather than going to university? Those Members who know me may think that that is a rather surprising thing for me to say—I went to three universities and had attachments to two foreign universities while doing so. She will have to forgive that, but I ask the question seriously.
There are two aspects to answering that question: schools, and the method by which we get people attracted to the options of apprenticeships and skills training, which is through work placements. I will start by looking at work placements as a precursor to people going on apprenticeships. I am sure that we have all had people on work placements in our offices; I know that for much of the run-up to the summer holidays, I have a person on a work placement every week. I wonder how many people we are trying to line up to be politicians when we are supposed to be cutting back the number of MPs.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman’s eyes might care to drift towards the Gallery, where he will see a young person from St Dominic’s college in Harrow—just north of my constituency, but she does live in my constituency—who is the living embodiment of the ideals and ambitions that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed.
John Howell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that person out, and for the way in which he described them. It is fitting to include them in the debate.
It is important to get other people involved in providing work placements—it is not just something for politicians to provide. We need to encourage small businesses to become involved in that, so that people get a feel for the entrepreneurship that is involved in setting up and running a small business. There are a couple of examples of companies in my constituency that do that, such as Williams Jet Tenders, which makes boats to go on other boats. It has a scheme of taking 10 people from the most deprived area of the constituency each year, some of whom go on to do apprenticeships. That training provides them with a lot of experience, and also with a lot of fun, because they end their experience by building little boats that they race against each other. I have been along to present the prizes to the winners, and all of that might sound like great fun, but there is also a seriousness to the skills that they learn: how to make model boats, and how to scale them up from that. Other companies provide that experience as well, including a cabinet and kitchen maker that I have also visited.
Those work placements take a whole lot of learning away from the apprenticeships. I am principally going to mention three areas of learning, the first of which is working well with other people. That may sound obvious, but for young people, working with other people and dealing with the dynamics of that is a skill that needs to be learned. Another skill that is crucial to learn and which work placements can provide is how to cope with criticism. Of course, coping with criticism is something that we as politicians take for granted, so maybe the work placements in our offices do have a purpose, but that is an important thing for people to learn. The third thing is people managing their own time, and making sure that that is part of how they approach life. Those are three examples of skills that work placements can provide, which will take away the need to pick up on those areas of learning during apprenticeships and will also help to make apprenticeships more attractive.
Having dealt with the work placement side, let me turn briefly to the schools side. Schools need to participate. We have been only partially successful in encouraging schools to encourage people to go into apprenticeships and skills training rather than to university. Certainly, among the schools in my constituency, there is a huge variety of attitudes towards encouraging students to go into apprenticeships. Some still have a very old-fashioned view of life and only measure success by the number they send to university.
Mike Amesbury
I am an MP but I am also a former careers adviser. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about time that we re-establish a careers service—formerly the Connexions service—that will help people make well-informed and realistic decisions?
John Howell
I am open minded. I just think back to my time at university when there was a careers service. I will not tell the House the advice that I was given, but I did not follow it at all—not one iota. I am not sure whether that was down to the quality of the advice or my own sheer cussedness, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
It is important that schools focus on promoting apprenticeships as a legitimate option that is equal to going to university, and we need to judge where people go according to their own skills and inclinations. I am pleased to have been able to contribute on the topic of how we get people to go into apprenticeships in the first place. I think we need to put a little more finesse into the work placements that are offered around the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. The closing speeches begin at 3.30 pm and there are five colleagues wishing to catch my eye, so I appeal to Members to share the time out, with about six or seven minutes each.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
What better way could there be to start the new year than being in Westminster Hall under your benign guidance, Sir David? If there were a better way, it could only be being here to discuss matters of such moment, and I give enormous credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for having raised this important subject. J. B. Priestley composed endless panegyrics to the proud city of Bradford—which he called Bruddersford so as not to confuse people—and there was a time when we thought of Bradford as being exemplified by J. B. Priestley. However, my hon. Friend has now adopted that crown, and she is the spokesperson for that city.
I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). I was a little surprised by his comments about the more deprived areas of Henley—presumably, that is a place that is down to its last Jaguar. I had not previously thought about the teeming stews and slums of Henley, but I am here to be educated. I was also interested to hear about the careers advice that the hon. Gentleman received. I remember the careers teacher at my school encouraging me to leave at the earliest opportunity, saying that I could go into the Royal Navy at the age of 16. He did say, “By the way, they will take anybody.” One of my colleagues, I seem to remember, thought that he was being advised to become an author when the careers master said to him, “Have you ever thought about being a man of letters?” He ended up, of course, as a postman. [Interruption.] There is nothing wrong with that; there are some distinguished postmen.
Stephen Pound
There has been a slightly unpleasant anti-London undercurrent to the debate, with talk about this proud metropolis sucking in all the apprenticeship levies and doing better than other parts of the country. I want to talk about one sector that is reflective of the whole United Kingdom, from Northern Ireland to every other part of the nation, which is the ornamental horticulture and landscaping sector. In our modern workforce, we have this extraordinary problem of a skills shortage. Lest anyone think that ornamental horticulture and landscaping is a minor add-on to the economy, it contributed £24.2 billion to GDP in 2017 and supports 568,000 jobs. It is a crucial sector, but we have a terrible skills shortage. In the absence of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), I pay credit to her work on the all-party parliamentary gardening and horticulture group, particularly the report it produced last year. I know the Minister is familiar with it and received several copies. I am sure she has many a spare hour in the lonely garret of the Ministry when she is looking for some exciting reading, and the APPG’s report will provide that.
The great joy of horticulture, particularly in the fields of ornamental horticulture and landscaping, is that it offers a route into a skilled profession. Someone who has an aptitude for ornamental horticulture and landscaping—they do not necessarily have to have an enormous amount of academic qualifications, although they help—can access that strand and grow within it and become virtually anything. There is no limit to what someone can achieve. Capability Brown started somewhere. I am not entirely sure where, but it was probably in London, judging from comments today.
We would like to see the Government doing a few things. The Minister will be aware of the modest Christmas wish list, which we have already sent her copies of, but we need to better promote roles in ornamental horticulture and landscaping. People do not understand what the roles are, and we can do much better. There is a lack of horticulture education in UK schools. Current careers advice—I cast no aspersions against present or former careers advisers; they are without a doubt a fine body of women and men—is not giving students knowledge about the sector, which is crying out for entry-level people to work in it. Many would love the idea of an outdoor, creative job that brings about some product at the end of the day—something that they can show and be proud of. We as Members of Parliament are often denied that pleasure, but people who work in horticulture and landscaping certainly have it. The severe skills gap has a knock-on effect for the economy and the environment. When it comes to managing the environment, we need people with knowledge, particularly in landscaping. There is so much that can be done.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a mere two of the recommendations in the APPG report issued in October last year. One is to ask the Government to
“work with sector leaders to promote horticulture as a highly skilled and desirable industry to enter, through encouraging the inclusion of horticulture within the national curriculum…and providing more high-quality horticulture advice through the National Careers Service.”
Recommendation 8 was for the Government to adequately fund FE training, and I think we are as one in this Chamber on that demand. We all call for that. That recommendation also calls on the Government
“to adequately fund FE training in horticulture to ensure the consistent delivery of high-quality training…the Government should ensure the Apprenticeship Levy is more flexible…to fund the work experience requirement of the T Levels and short-term traineeships.”
I am acutely aware of the strictures of time, Sir David, and I am grateful for your typical generosity, so I will conclude. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South has raised a crucial issue. If we do not get things right, we will fail a future generation and a future workforce. I am probably one of the older people in the Chamber. The days when people could leave school at 15, work for the same company for 50 years, have 10 years of retirement and then drop dead are long gone. My son and daughter will probably have 15 or 20 different jobs in their lifetime. People dip in and dip out of different jobs, but they have to have the skills and training. They no longer have a job they can do simply out of sheer muscle. Those days of mass employment are gone.
Nowadays, we are a highly skilled, specialised economy, and highly skilled, specialised workers will not grow on trees. They have to be nurtured, encouraged, supported and financed and their worth has to be recognised. Today’s debate fires the starting gun on that process. It shows how, with a growing GDP and a more skilled, more flexible workforce with areas of expertise growing from FE and careers advice in schools, we can make not only the workforce happier and more productive, but the country a better place. It is not a bad ambition.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am not quite sure how I follow that tour de force, not least because towards the end of his comments, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) expressed— and expanded on well—sentiments that I share, but also because I have very little to say about ornamental horticulture.
John Howell
To pick up on the horticulture point, Capability Brown made his name with his work at Stowe in Buckinghamshire, which is not a million miles from the Henley constituency that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) so derided.
Lee Rowley
Excellent. I have none of the one-liners, wit or repartee of either my right hon. Friend or the hon. Gentleman, so I will move straight on to the debate as a whole.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this valuable and necessary debate. We need to have more such discussions. It would be better to talk more about this issue than some of the other subjects we seem to obsess over in this place and elsewhere.
I want to talk about apprenticeships and skills. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her time over the past few months when I have been to talk to her about apprenticeships. I am a strong supporter of what the Government are doing on apprenticeships, and the direction is very positive. A number of months ago, I had the opportunity to go to Rolls-Royce, which is a major employer in the south of my county, so I have seen what a good-quality apprenticeship programme does to raise the aspirations of people in the local area and equip them with the skills they need to succeed in the workforce for the next 50 or so years.
The Minister knows the feedback I have received from a number of people and organisations in and around my constituency. Chesterfield College is a large training provider in my part of the world. Smaller training providers, such as Stubbing Court Training, say that there have been problems with the introduction of some of the measures. Some of that is understandable—changes are never easy—but she knows some of my underlying concerns. I have passed them on to her, and I ask her to continue working to resolve them.
The debate on skills is one of the most interesting that we need to have in this place, and it speaks to a much bigger point. I was pleased when the hon. Member for Bradford South discussed the challenge of automation within five minutes of talking about skills. I see automation as a challenge and an opportunity. I wanted to congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing North on his final comments because it was refreshing to hear a speech where automation was not seen just as a problem, but as something that is coming, is inevitable—there is no point arguing about that—and is an opportunity to grasp, because it brings many opportunities for people.
The challenge I see is that we have to start equipping those in the workforce and those coming into the workforce for the next 50 years. That is a truism—everyone knows that. I was with a member of my family yesterday. He is 11, and he had just gone to an interview to decide what secondary school he wants to go to from December. He came back and was telling me about all the things he wants to do. It struck me that he will probably still be in the workforce in 2060 or 2070, a long time from now.
I differ slightly from the hon. Member for Bradford South on one point in her introductory remarks. She talked about the Government having a knowledge of what skills are needed and the changes to come. I am not sure we can look that far ahead—I do not suggest the hon. Lady suggested otherwise. Ultimately, for 11 and 12-year-old children, who will still be in the workforce in 2060—hopefully, I will still be in the workforce in 30 years’ time—we must equip them with the skills to be able to still work and take advantage of what the workforce brings. The hon. Lady talked about automation, so I will throw in a few more statistics: the OECD estimates that 15% of jobs will be fully automated and another third partially automated; McKinsey talks about half of all tasks in the workforce being automated; the World Economic Forum talks about 7 million jobs going in our country, but potentially more than 7 million jobs being created. That is the fundamental challenge that we have to try to work through. We cannot plan for it in the traditional way. We cannot execute it from the centre. We have to equip people with the skills to be able to deal with it in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Partly it is about core knowledge, and the Government have done an enormous amount in terms of reforms in schools over the past 10 years, but part of it is a different set of skills: flexibility, problem solving, persistence and agility. Those are the things I used to look for when I employed people in my old industry, and they are the most difficult things to work out in an interview process.
An interesting discussion needs to be had in Parliament and other forums, including in industry, about how we start codifying and understanding skills. I am not saying we will get to an NVQ level 3 in persistence or anything like that, but we have to have a better understanding of how we define and measure such things so that we can help to teach people or at least develop such skills.
Stephen Pound
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—I know this applies to you, Sir David—that anyone who has been in the scouts or guides who applies for a job, as is the case in any area that I have ever been employed in, will always get an interview? Does he not agree that that is an excellent thing to have on a CV?
Lee Rowley
I am conscious of time, so I will make my other two points. The first has already been made by others, so I will not dwell on it, but it concerns the need for skills training to be as close to the workplace as possible, not because education is not an end in itself, which we must never forget, but because we need to ensure that we equip people with the right skills that are necessary in today’s and tomorrow’s workplace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about entrepreneurship. It is telling that when I left university in 2002, we all wanted to go and work for big companies and do well on the corporate ladder. When people come out of university now, they want to be their own boss, set up their own company and do their own thing. We have to recognise that what people want to do in the world of work is changing. When we debate skills, I hope we can consider equipping people to be able to have the skills that they will need for the next 60 years. They will need different skills—soft skills, particularly—and we need to train them in ways different from how we have trained them historically.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley).
I see apprenticeships as exciting. We have an exciting opportunity and a chance to put something right that has been wrong for an awfully long time. Every political party talks about parity of esteem, which often feel like words that are just trotted out. When we ask people what their children do, we find that lots of MPs’ children went to university and did not go anywhere near an apprenticeship. If we are serious about wanting to create parity of esteem, we need to have parity of outcomes, which needs a really clear pathway, and I will focus my remarks on that.
One brilliant solution to achieving parity of esteem is degree apprenticeships. Someone can leave, having done an apprenticeship as a degree, and have exactly the same qualification as someone who went to university, so there we have our parity of outcomes, but there is a problem because people join a degree apprenticeship after doing A-levels. We still do not have a clear apprenticeship pathway, so that—judging by the people I have met and talked to—the people who take degree apprenticeships tend to be people whose parents have the knowledge and are perhaps from a middle-class background.
Emma Hardy
I will finish this point first. Such people see the advantage of taking a degree apprenticeship and perhaps are not the people the policy was aimed at.
Paul Girvan
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Having been an apprentice in a previous life, I can tell her the value of an apprenticeship is not necessarily seen by society today. Unless someone has a degree, they are a nothing. It is how we have interpreted it. In third-level education, someone must have a degree or they will be a pleb. We must put the emphasis back into an apprenticeship that starts at 16 with a career pathway that ultimately can give someone a degree, as I got through the course that I went on.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I think he will agree with me as I move on in my speech.
On the parity of outcomes, at the moment, as I said, the degree apprenticeship can be achieved only by having A-levels, so we have to look at how we build a clear apprenticeship pathway such as we see in Germany, where someone can leave school at 16 and do a level 2 apprenticeship, which then takes them to a level 3 apprenticeship, which takes them to level 4, and if they wish they can then do a degree-level apprenticeship. We do not have that system at the moment. I am sorry to say that I disagree with the Minister, who I normally agree with: I regard T-levels as an unnecessary distraction.
At the moment we do not say GCSEs are nothing, because we see them for what they are: a tool for going through and getting A-levels, which are a tool for going through and getting a degree. Yet we dismiss level 2 apprenticeships, seeing them as a nothing qualification, or a qualification that is not viewed very highly. In part, we dismiss the qualification because we do not see level 2 apprenticeships as the tool that gets someone to a level 3 apprenticeship, which is the tool to get to level 4. We know—I include myself in this—people are ready for education at different points in their lives, and perhaps the apprenticeship pathway model that I advocate takes a lot longer than the traditional path of going through GCSEs and A-levels. Perhaps it takes a lifetime, because someone might take a level 2 apprenticeship and then work for a couple of years. Then they do a level 3 apprenticeship and work another few years. Then they do a level 4 and so on and they find it takes 10 years, and then they end up with their degree apprenticeship at the end of it. We need that pathway to be clearly defined.
I have raised this before, so the Minister will be aware that Hull College and Hull University have worked together to create a pathway for nursing so that nurses can do apprenticeships. Hull College has told 16-year-olds, “You can start on a level 2 apprenticeship at Hull College. If you pass, within five or six years you will be a fully trained nurse with a degree in nursing from Hull University.” It has been clearly set out and the college has been inundated with people wanting to apply. Why can we not look at creating such clarity for many other professions? Why can we not say to someone, “You do not need to get GCSEs at 16 and then get A-levels to go and do a nursing degree. You can go down the apprenticeship route instead. If you want to get off the conveyor belt and just get a level 4 and be a healthcare assistant instead of an apprentice nurse, that’s fine, too, because you can pop back on that conveyor belt later and get your nursing degree apprenticeship”? That is exactly what happens in Germany, where they talk about having no dead ends, because there is always an option to move forward if people want.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and we did a report called, “The apprenticeships ladder of opportunity”. That is what we need to have clarified by Government. I have significant concerns that we have so many young people doing a level 2 apprenticeship and they get stuck there; they do not move forward and do not progress. The Sutton Trust also found a lack of progression between the different levels of apprenticeship. A level 2 apprenticeship is not a full apprenticeship. It is a stepping stone, but not a full apprenticeship in its own right.
On the clarity of pathways, I will quote the Sutton Trust’s chief executive, who said,
“on the academic route...everything is signposted, you know the options, you get supported at transition points.”
In apprenticeships,
“there are lots of dead ends...there are pitfalls. Sometimes it is a very confusing route. I think we just need to almost map out steps.”
London South Bank University has also suggested that standards
“should include reference to the anticipated career trajectory of learners”.
We need that map, and it needs to come from Government. There are practical steps that they could take to achieve it.
The Government should mandate the Institute for Apprenticeships to include clear paths to progression within apprenticeship standards; those paths should be linked to a system of progression maps created and promoted by the institute and Government, with complete clarity on how to go from a level 2 apprenticeship to a degree, if someone wishes to. They should also create a UCAS-style website to advertise higher level apprenticeships, so that apprentices working in small and medium-sized enterprises will not be disadvantaged if their employer is unable to provide a higher-level apprenticeship. The Government should encourage and promote universities that have already established that clear apprenticeship pathway. Perhaps they should say something about doing a degree apprenticeship not being enough if everyone starting the course has A-levels.
I want people to get on to degree apprenticeships through the apprenticeship route. No one will ask, when someone has their degree, whether they did an apprenticeship degree or an academic degree. They will just be pleased that they have a degree. If we want parity of esteem, the Government need to do more to create that parity and improve clarity in pathways.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for securing this important and timely debate.
The future of our country depends on how well we are able to equip younger generations to face the challenges ahead. An effective apprenticeships and skills policy is crucial to closing the productivity gap and boosting our competitiveness globally. As we face critical questions about our trading relationships with the rest of the world post-Brexit, it is important now more than ever to reflect on the skills we want the workforce of tomorrow to have. Sadly, eight years of Tory Government have been eight long years of failing to invest properly in young people. Members need not just take my word for it: at the last election, the Tories lagged 40 percentage points behind Labour among voters aged 18 to 24. That says it all. Young people know that they are being poorly prepared for a jobs market that is increasingly fragmented and insecure.
Small businesses also suffer as a result of inadequate education and training policy. Anyone with a background in business will know that having a skilled, well-trained workforce is indispensable to long-term success. However, research published by the Federation of Small Businesses suggests that too many small businesses are struggling to fill skilled jobs, with almost a third of recruiting firms facing skills shortages. In a report on England’s qualifications gap last year, the London School of Economics revealed that skilled trades comprise nearly half—43%—of all occupations reporting skill-shortage vacancies.
The apprenticeship levy is a welcome measure, but it only begins to address the scale of the problem. Measures must be taken to ensure that the levy funds apprenticeships of a high quality. Labour has proposed achieving that by requiring the Institute for Apprenticeships to report annually to the Secretary of State on the quality of outcomes of completed apprenticeships. In that way we can ensure that it delivers skilled workers for employers and real jobs for apprentices at the end of their training. Does the Minister support the proposals and, if not, will she clarify what measures the Government are taking to oversee the delivery of high-quality apprenticeships?
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, Sir David, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing it.
As Members may be aware, the Scottish Government are responsible for apprenticeships and skills development policy in Scotland, but I will link my remarks to the UK. For young people who do not want to go into further or higher education, apprenticeships are a vital means to secure the skills and work experience needed in later life. As the economy continues to change, skills development opportunities become increasingly important for the reskilling and upskilling of workers. Therefore, it is vital that we get our policy on apprenticeships and skills development right, so that we cannot only help young people succeed, but encourage lifelong learning—something that I did through the trade union movement in the Post Office.
I was concerned about recent statistics about modern apprenticeships from Skills Development Scotland. Apprenticeships should be accessible to those who need them, but those statistics, covering the period April to September 2018, show that there are still issues to overcome. There is still a clear gap between men and women in the uptake of modern apprenticeships. In Scotland, only 35% of modern apprentices during the period in question were women. That is in direct contrast to the experience in England where in 2016-17 54% of apprenticeships were undertaken by women. In England, the number of apprenticeships started by women has been higher than the number started by men every year since 2010-11. Individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds were just 2.1% of modern apprentices in Scotland while the equivalent rate in England stood at 11.3%, in 2016-17.
We often hear of the difficulties that young people whose backgrounds involve experience of care have with educational attainment and securing employment. That is why it is particularly disheartening to me that just 1.7% of modern apprentices in Scotland come from such backgrounds. With 13% of modern apprentices self-identifying as having a disability or learning difficulty, it is clear that there is still much to do in Scotland to ensure that modern apprenticeships are accessible and that they reflect our country.
Skills Development Scotland has confirmed that achievement rates fell by 3% in quarter 2 of 2018 when compared with quarter 2 of 2017. Achievement rates have fallen for modern apprenticeships regardless of the participants’ age, but I am particularly concerned about the 4% drop among modern apprentices aged 16 to 19. Those young people are the future of our country, and we should not be letting them down in that way. Redundancies among modern apprentices were disproportionately concentrated in the construction sector, and made up 83% of all redundancies. It is particularly disappointing that there has been a fall in achievement rates given that there was an increase of more than 10,000 in the number of achievements in apprenticeships in England in 2016-17. In fact, it was the highest volume of achievements in any academic year. Because of the funding changes introduced by the UK Government, the number of apprenticeships started in England has started to fall. If the Scottish Government cannot tackle the issues relating to access and achievement, I fear that the number of apprenticeships in Scotland could suffer a similar decline.
In my area, North Lanarkshire, we have the second highest rate of modern apprenticeships in Scotland and almost 10% of all the female modern apprentices in Scotland, although there is still more progress to be made. I am proud of the fact that Labour-led North Lanarkshire Council’s modern apprenticeship programme offers a wide range of opportunities. Apprenticeships can be undertaken in areas ranging from community arts to social services, enabling young people to develop vital skills for a successful future. As a North Lanarkshire councillor and a Member of Parliament, I am proud of our modern apprenticeship programme and will continue to ensure that it delivers for young people in our community, and helps others across the whole UK.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Sir David, in the new year, chairing this very interesting and far-reaching debate, in which there have been widely differing views. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing an important debate. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education. Many of the topics she discussed are close to my heart. I have learned very much from being on the Committee in the past three years about English education and about the differences within education.
There are huge differences between Scotland and England with regard to the ways in which modern apprentices are trained, and how apprenticeships work. In fact, when I was a further education lecturer at West Lothian College, I delivered programmes as part of modern apprenticeships, and it was always a delight when the college took on modern apprentices who went right through the programme and also picked up academic qualifications. Some also worked hard to gain a degree in their chosen subject.
It is always a pleasure to be part of people’s development, and the Scottish Government feel strongly about apprenticeships and skills development in Scotland. One of the first things that happened when Tata Steel was sold was the securing of apprentices by Dalzell Works in my constituency to ensure that they were able to continue and finish their apprenticeships. It is important that Scotland is seen as a world leader in that area, so let us ensure that the figures are correct. In 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18, the Scottish Government beat their own targets for apprenticeships. In England over the same period, apprenticeship targets fell, which is an absolute disgrace.
This morning the Education Committee took evidence from experts on the fourth industrial revolution. It is imperative across the UK that skills are fostered and encouraged so that we can meet the challenges of the future. I must give credit to the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). I did not know anything about ornamental horticulture and landscaping, but he gave such an eloquent performance that I feel I must mention it as it I sum up the debate.
Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills in Scotland, stated:
“Apprenticeships are a fantastic way for all employers to invest in their workforce and provide the skills the economy needs now and in the future…We are continuing to enhance the apprenticeship opportunities available to provide the right balance of skills to meet the needs of employers and the economy, including prioritising higher skilled apprenticeships and STEM occupations.”
Some Members have mentioned schools. Last year I had the pleasure of attending a meeting at Dalziel High School in Motherwell along with the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney. Prizes were given to students who were doing work placements. Those placements were not just for one or two weeks a year—pupils went from that school every week to work with Morgan Stanley in Glasgow, or the engineering firm WorleyParsons, which does a lot of work in the energy sector in Scotland and across the UK. The enthusiasm and experience that those young people gained from that weekly commitment was outstanding, and they fed that back into the school. There is an ongoing programme between that school and education and industry trusts in Scotland, and they are all to be commended on their work.
I do not think anyone in this Chamber underestimates the issues involved, but as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) said, this is about parity of esteem. When, years ago, I did my teaching qualification in further education, I made a comparative study between vocational education in Scotland and in Germany, although because there was not yet a Scottish Parliament, it was really about UK-wide education. The lack of esteem, especially in a country such as Scotland whose engineers are renowned all over the world, given to people who worked with their hands was amazing. We still need to break down those barriers and show parents, students and pupils that there is a good future for them if they take on an apprenticeship. Indeed, last year I saw the enthusiasm and interest of apprentices at Gateshead College who were doing degree apprenticeships. The fact that they had to persuade their parents that it was a good idea to do those courses is testament to the work that still needs to be done.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I have learned a lot. I realise that many issues are still to be covered, so I will let the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) sum up on behalf of the Labour party and ask hard questions of the Minister.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and if it is not too late, I wish you and everyone here a happy new year. We have had a superbly balanced and broad-ranging debate. We must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) not simply, as she put it, for making this a wide-ranging debate, but for her strong and important points. She gave a powerful critique of the current apprenticeship programme, and outlined the direction in which it needs to go to assist somewhere such as Bradford, which, as many have said, has a fantastic history but needs a powerful future as well.
I was impressed by the huge range of contributions from colleagues across the House. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about the importance of work placements. After a voyage around his witticisms, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) found more fertile ground in horticulture, for which we thank him. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) rightly spoke about the need to look to the future and different sorts of skills, and showed an intelligent understanding of where the tensions are between such skill sets. My ever-forceful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), talked about apprenticeship pathways to get to degree apprenticeships and spoke strongly about the importance of level 2 in terms of progression—I shall come to that later in my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) raised concerns about how the Government will have a lost generation if they do not properly prepare for apprenticeships, and said that the Institute for Apprenticeships should be focused on outcomes and be supported. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) spoke about the importance of ethnic minorities not missing out in Scotland, and he raised some significant concerns. Finally, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) shared her experiences as a former FE tutor and lecturer and spoke about the need to promote modern apprenticeships. All those contributions have added to this debate.
We know that we are entering a period of extreme uncertainty regarding our skills base because of a cocktail of challenges: Brexit, automation—I take that point from the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, which is why I said “challenge” rather than “problem”, but it nevertheless focuses our minds strongly—and the damage already done by the neglect of older as well as younger people in adult education, the dramatic fall in take-up by adult learners, and cuts to the adult skills budget. If we are now faced with the impending scenario of a no-deal Brexit, the need for home-grown skills is strengthened yet further.
Despite consistent warnings from ourselves, and the university and FE sectors, the Government have been neglectful of the impending damage—especially through the drift to no deal—that Brexit could cause to our world-class FE colleges and universities, and to skills as a whole. This is an issue for FE in particular, because of the deep engagement of community projects that are funded via the EU. Thousands of UK jobs, and tens of millions of pounds that the UK earns from our EU links with universities, further education colleges and training providers, are in jeopardy as a result. The Government need to get to grips urgently with spelling out how their shared prosperity fund will replace the funding from the European Social Fund and the Research Development Fund, on which our community-focused higher education institutions and colleges so rely.
What is the Department for Education doing—the Minister will have heard me speak about this before—to ensure that the needs of skills and apprenticeships are at the top table? Why have we seen so little proactivity? The Secretary of State seems to have thought that Erasmus was a second-level issue. That is what I have been told, but I hope the Minister will reassure us that it is not a second-level issue, because it is crucial to the skills processes that we need, whether in Bradford or Blackpool.
The already growing skills shortages in areas such as the health service are becoming catastrophic. We heard the national health service plans yesterday. That was all well and good, but the unanimous comment in the media has been about where the 100,000 extra jobs will come from. Where will those people come from if we do not have a progressive, integrated policy? We have a Department—it is new year, so I will try to be charitable to the Minister—that is struggling with the consequences of nursing bursaries being scrapped. I entirely support the Royal College of Nursing’s campaign in this area, and have heard from constituents who have been seconded via the NHS to Blackpool hospital about some of their concerns. We have world-class colleges and providers, but they are being consistently let down by cuts to budgets and funding streams. Unfortunately, apart from the eventual money pledged for the introduction of T-levels, there has been no reversal to those damaging reductions made by the Government.
The Minister urged MPs and the sector to lobby before the Chancellor’s Budget. They did, but they got precisely nowhere. It is imperative that we use apprenticeships and our skills network to help people be trained, but we have to fund them properly. We are being told to look at the spending review, but as the former Minister David Willetts observed on Saturday, when talking about the Augar review, the chances at the moment of the Chancellor focusing his eye on education as opposed to the NHS appear to be minimal.
Fine words we have had plenty of, but they butter no parsnips. That is particularly important in smaller towns and cities, such as Bradford, Blackpool and many of the places that Members who have spoken today represent, the people of which feel that they have been let down. We hear rumours that the Augar recommendations will pin all hopes and money on the cut in university fees. I sincerely hope that the Minister, in whatever capacity she is able to, will raise her voice against the focus simply on higher education, to the detriment of further education.
One of the potential avenues that we need to explore to achieve all that is, of course, the devolved skills and adult education budget implications. There are clear opportunities via those new structures that could be utilised, and should be, if we are to have proper progression in the devolution of adult skills funding. We need a much bigger debate about the devolution of broader apprenticeships than we have had so far.
We need proper infrastructure and long-term thinking. The Government have been poleaxed by Brexit, and are looking only to scrape to 2020 in their funding and policies. While they do that, our new national education service will look at devolving apprenticeships and other skills funding, not just the adult education budget, and our lifelong learning commission will expose and explore new ways of collaborating on the ground with the third sector and the unions to get those skills up and running.
Skills devolution is not just a smart thing to do economically; it is the right thing to do for community growth and cohesion. If apprenticeships are to have strong, positive outcomes for local economies and workforces, far more young people need to get to the starting place to begin with. It is important to grasp the potential for high-quality apprenticeships in the service sector. As others have said, that means supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises and starts at level 2, and ensuring a properly funded and promoted traineeship programme.
We have been banging on about that to a succession of Government Skills Ministers for two years; the current Minister is the third to hear me speak on it. The latest statistics from the Department for Education show a significant drop in level 2 apprenticeships—just 161,000 starts at level 2 in 2017, down from 260,000. The proportion of overall starts has fallen to its lowest level yet. As Mark Dawe of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said,
“major mistakes in the implementation of the levy have resulted in a serious undermining of the government’s social mobility agenda”.
He also said:
“Level two starts are now the biggest issue we face”.
I can only make reference to the briefing that Members have had from the British Hospitality Association about the importance of progression in that area from level 2 and onwards. Recently I was glad to welcome representatives of Stonegate to Parliament, and a person in my constituency who has gone from being a barperson to running the newly refurbished Manchester hotel, which will be reopened shortly.
Level 2 apprenticeships have fallen, but we have seen a huge rise in management apprenticeships. I do not know what the real story is there. Does the Minister? Has the Government’s failure on level 2 been a market consequence of the way that they sold the levy? I do not know; perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. What we know from the Sutton Trust is that about a third of those apprenticeships are converting existing employees and skills. If that is the case, we are in an even more dire position than the Government’s figures show.
Anything that simply rebadges or validates normal training will not get us where we need to go. To create that step change we must ensure that people can get to the starting point, because level 3 is one of the most telling points for SMEs or self-employment. Whether someone is a hairdresser—I hope that the Minister has managed to get the Secretary of State off the unfortunate prejudices about hairdressing in his Battersea speech—a social care provider, a brickie, an electrician or a plumber, those are the people we need, and the skills that we need. Level 3 is a de facto licence to practise. That is why it is so important that the Government should not neglect traineeships.
There are issues regarding the overspend. The Minister knows that the Institute for Apprenticeship’s chief financial officer recently presented a forecast of a £500 million overspend. Can she tell us whether those figures are accurate? The Education Committee published an all-round critique of the Government’s apprenticeship record, and highlighted the importance of not only apprenticeships, but apprentices. That is a long-overdue priority for the Government. I know that the Minister agrees about the importance of world skills, skills competitions and skills champions. She has banged on about it, and it is very good that she has, but her Department has not always seemed to share the same enthusiasm for taking on board the opinions of apprentices. I urge her to do so, and to utilise the talents of IFA’s panel.
That is the right way to promote the social mobility that we will need in the 2020s, when bespoke skills and enabling ones will have to combine in people’s lives with more traditional qualifications. We need to encourage young people to take up their curiosity for future jobs and apprenticeships at a much earlier age. We have been saying that for some time. It needs hardwiring into careers advice to go beyond the Baker clause and to have a sustained, holistic strategy.
The Government’s consistent failure to support under-represented groups, whether black, Asian and minority ethnic, people with disabilities or care leavers, has to be addressed. We would address it directly by giving it strong positioning in our new national education service. We have been very clear that if we are to get to the right position on T-levels, they cannot be seen simply as a competitor with A-levels. The Sainsbury review pointed in the right direction in that area, but unfortunately the Government have ignored that holistic approach and turned it into a beauty contest.
The concerns that we have heard today about regulations not being fulfilled in key new pathways—employers say they are not currently—and there not being the number of work placements illustrate the point. It is important that we get T-levels going properly, but they must be part of a broader strategy. That is the problem with so much of what the Government have told us. We are not short of potential “ladders of opportunity”, as the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), put it, but we now need more resources, simplifications and long-term strategies—not the short-term targets that have tied the Government in knots and led to the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South raised in this excellent debate.
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Sir David. I wish all hon. Members a happy new year. I say to the shadow Minister that I do not feel tied up in knots.
Anne Milton
Not personally, certainly. I feel quite clear about what I am trying to achieve. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing the debate. I wish I had more time, but I do not. I will debate this matter weekly if that is what Members want, because there could be nothing more important for the productivity and success not just of this country, but of individuals.
I am incredibly fortunate in my job. I get to see so many young people who are passionate and incredibly enthusiastic about the careers that they get through apprenticeships. Their sense of enthusiasm strengthens my faith that we are on the right road. It tells us not only that the direction of travel is right and that parity of esteem between the academic and technical routes is achievable, but that apprenticeships open an alternative door that would not otherwise exist for people—often bright and very gifted young people, but also older people—for whom school and exams did not work.
T-levels and apprenticeships will form the basis of our new technical offer, building the skills of the population. They will be mirror images—one predominantly work-based and the other predominantly study-based, but both leading to skilled employment and opportunities for further study up to and beyond degree level, through apprenticeships or otherwise.
The hon. Member for Bradford South is absolutely right that Bradford is a great city, but 15% with no qualifications is quite a shocking figure in comparison with the national average. She raised the issue of apprenticeships not being worth the paper they were written on, but that was what sat behind all the reforms. We have brought in money from the levy, protected the term, mandated 20% off-the-job training and introduced end-point assessment.
The hon. Lady is right that apprenticeship starts are down, but this is not just about numbers; it is about quality. Before the reforms, a lot of people doing apprenticeships did not even know that they were on them. It was a way of bringing in cheap labour, and we wanted to change that. It is not surprising that the starts went down to begin with, because it was a very big change, but they are now rising, and that rise has been significant at level 4, level 5 and above. I urge the hon. Lady and her businesses in Bradford to contact the National Apprenticeship Service, which I know will be very happy to work with her and with businesses locally.
We are bringing non-levy paying small and medium-sized enterprises into the apprenticeship system. I assure the hon. Lady that I am working closely with the Federation of Small Businesses to ensure that we get it right for SMEs, which often find it quite difficult to navigate the new system. I point out that the money raised by the levy is available for redistribution to non-levy payers, so money raised through the levy in London might well end up being redistributed to smaller employers in Bradford, Hull or anywhere else in the country. From April, large levy payers will be able to transfer 25% of their levy pot without restriction, so the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) might like to have a word with hon. Members for London constituencies to see whether that money can be redistributed.
The hon. Member for Bradford South also mentioned the risk to workers from automation. Some 35% of jobs are set to go in the next 10 years, so the Chancellor has announced the national retraining scheme, a joint venture between the TUC, the CBI and the Government to ensure that we can upskill lower-skilled workers. We are doing much to ensure that this works, especially for workers who may have had a bad experience of education or for whom undertaking more training might cause practical as well as financial problems. We need to ensure that lower-skilled workers get the skills they need and that business gets them as well.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) has lots of university degrees to make up for the fact that unfortunately I do not have any. He is right that schools play a critical role, but schools do not work for everyone, and apprenticeships are often a vital route for young and older people to get a second chance.
I praise the role of unionlearn, which I should have mentioned earlier and which often offers excellent in-work training. The Government give it quite a substantial amount of money, and it will be important to the national retraining scheme. I must also mention work experience, because the 45 to 60-day industry placement is a critical part of the new T-levels. The careers strategy has the Gatsby benchmarks at its heart, so that schools can measure their success. Meaningful encounters with the world of work are an important part of that, and the Careers and Enterprise Company is doing a great job of linking schools to local employers.
Doing a school exam or maths homework makes sense if students can see the jobs that will be out there when they leave school—otherwise it is just another exam or another boring class. For those going into a career in STEM—Science, technology, engineering and maths—there is nothing not to like about apprenticeships, which give the skills and work experience needed. Some engineering companies have cut their graduate schemes and are now offering only apprenticeships at level 2 and up to level 3.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) made me smile, as he always does, and mentioned horticulture and landscaping. Only today, I saw some fantastic examples of the apprenticeships that the national parks are offering. I would be very happy to work with him and the all-party gardening and horticulture group. Landscaping is one of the disciplines tested at the WorldSkills competition, which I was privileged to see in Abu Dhabi. He might like to visit the WorldSkills website and see the amazing work of landscapers at the competition.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) spoke about the skills gap, which the skills advisory panels will be looking at to give us a clearer picture. The reason why apprenticeships are getting such traction is that employers want more than just knowledge; they want skills as well. Many are moving away from graduate schemes, because a degree apprenticeship, for instance, combines both knowledge and skills.
Anne Milton
Yes, but briefly, because the hon. Gentleman is taking my time.
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful. The Minister mentions the skills advisory panels; the reason why we need them is that in the previous Parliament the Government abolished the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. Does the Minister regret that the commission is no longer there to give the Department a holistic view?
Anne Milton
I do not have regrets. What matters is what we do next, and that we make sure we identify the skills we need. In case I do not have time later, let me note that the hon. Gentleman mentioned devolving skills budgets. In fact, skills budgets are devolved down to the lowest possible level: to local employers. Firms in Bradford and Hull—the levy payers—have the money at their disposal, and we will redistribute it to SMEs.
Time is short, and I do not have time to mention everything, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle mentioned nursing, a perfect example of the pathway for progression that I want to see from level 2 right up to level 6. In construction, an employer in Gosport has done a wonderful map that shows young people where they can progress—right up to project manager and beyond. When I was in Bristol, where a lot of work is being done on diversity in apprenticeships, I saw what looked like a tube map, where people can see where they can get on and off their route. Of course, people can go in other directions: they might well do a level 2 in business admin and then go into nursing or end up doing a level 6 in a completely different discipline. That is exactly the area that I want to concentrate on. I spent a lot of time getting business working with the levy and getting the system up and running, but now what matters to me is progression.
With respect to the drop in level 2 apprenticeships, which was mentioned earlier, we are not absolutely sure what is behind the figures. Some 90%[Official Report, 9 January 2019, Vol. 652, c. 6MC.] of starts are still at levels 2 and 3, and of course employment is high, but we need to dig deeper. What matters to me is the people I meet, like the young man I met who got chucked out of college twice, got a level 2 apprenticeship with Virgin Media, skipped level 3, did a level 4—
Anne Milton
I know—you have 30 seconds.
That young man skipped level 5 and is now doing a level 6. He said to me, “I am a miracle.” That is what this is about: giving people that second chance. I am sorry that I do not have time to say any more.
Judith Cummins
I am really grateful to all hon. Members who took part in the debate. I agree with everybody who said that this is such an important subject and that we should concentrate much more on it, because it is about the future of our country, of our children and of our economy.
The Minister mentioned the national retraining scheme, a joint initiative with the TUC and the CBI. I look forward to seeing the details of that scheme, which will be really important.
When I said that some apprenticeships were not worth the paper they are written on, I did say “some”—I commented that I meant those apprenticeships with little or no training.
It is fantastic that we all agreed on the urgency of getting our skills policy right, to ensure that our economy delivers for everybody in all places. The jobs and skills mismatch is not down to individuals on the supply side. We have to stimulate and organise demand for skills through the Government empowering sectors and regions; it cannot just rest on the shoulders of individuals.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Armed Forces: Angus
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the armed forces in Angus.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms McDonagh. I just want to say that I am overcoming a flu virus, so my delivery may not be as clear as it might have otherwise been.
Over the last century and more, the history of Angus has been intertwined with the armed forces. In 1913, the first operational military aerodrome in Britain was established at Montrose. That station served as a vital base, first for the Royal Flying Corps and then for the RAF, through two world wars. More recently, in 1938, what was then known as HMS Condor was opened as a base for the Fleet Air Arm near Arbroath. More than 80 years on, Condor remains the home of the armed forces in Angus and has become an integral part of Angus life. Condor contributes to Angus’s economy, and those who are based there are welcomed into the local community.
The past eight decades have seen Condor and the personnel based there contribute to the defence of Angus and the entire United Kingdom. Condor endured bombing during the second world war, and between 1954 and 1971 served as home to the Royal Navy Aircraft Engineering Training School. Since 1971, as RM Condor, it has been home to the Royal Marines of 45 Commando. In that time, 45 Commando has, among other operations, served multiple tours in Northern Ireland during the troubles, yomped across the Falklands to fight for the liberation of Port Stanley and protected Kurds from Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf war. More recently, it has served with great distinction in Afghanistan, working under tremendous pressure to bring greater peace and stability to the region.
It was during those more recent conflicts that, in 2003, 45 Commando received the freedom of Arbroath and Angus—a small token of gratitude from the people of Angus, who are keenly aware of the sacrifice that 45 Commando and the armed forces more generally have made to keep this country safe. The true extent of that regard was further demonstrated in 2011 when the unit and the local community raised more than £250,000 for the establishment of a woodlands garden in memory of the 13 service personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country as part of Operation Herrick.
In early 2017, the people of Arbroath turned out in their droves to celebrate 45 years since 45 Commando moved to Condor, just as they had turned out to celebrate the return from conflict many times before. At that celebration, the then Commanding Officer of 45 Commando, Lieutenant Colonel Tony Turner, said that 45 Commando had been
“privileged over the years to have had such great support from the local community of Arbroath and Angus”
and that that shared history is what makes 45 Commando’s organisation and its connection to Arbroath “so unique”. That view is shared by the base’s current commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Duncan Forbes.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the great respect given to the armed forces in Angus is replicated across the country? In Moray, with RAF Lossiemouth and 39 Engineers at Kinloss, we have the same community spirit that supports the armed forces. As my hon. Friend said, the armed forces do not just protect our country. They also have great involvement in the local communities where they are stationed.
Kirstene Hair
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is not just the way in which the armed forces serve our nation—they also serve our communities and are an integral part of those communities. I will go on to explain how they are fully integrated into Arbroath and the wider Angus area.
Fundamentally, it is clear to me that Condor, and 45 Commando’s presence there, works. It works for Angus, it works for 45 Commando and it works for our military capabilities as a nation.
I am glad to have worked recently with this Conservative UK Government to ensure that armed forces personnel based at Condor and across Scotland were able to receive compensation protecting them from the Scottish Government’s income tax rises. I hope that, in the upcoming reprioritisation exercise of the better defence estate programme, I can once again work successfully with Ministers to support our brave servicemen and women. There should be no doubt that I welcome the programme, and that I firmly believe that the armed forces, and the use of the defence estate, should be as efficient and effective as possible. Everybody would agree with that.
Recent years have demonstrated how turbulent the world can be, how threats can materialise and subside quickly, and how our military should therefore be as well placed as possible to deal with all eventualities. I believe in a strong, cost-effective military, but I also believe, as a Conservative, that a long-standing fruitful relationship should be treasured and preserved, and so I look at the last half century, where 45 Commando has, from its base at Condor and its home in Angus, served so effectively and admirably in theatres around the world, protecting this country while helping to grow the local economy of a thankful and welcoming county.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She will have similar concerns to me, given that we come from the same part of the world. Does she agree that military personnel are best served when we take into account the needs of the whole family, such as schooling in a local community? It is crucial that family-friendly facilities are considered in any future investment, which is a point that has been acknowledged by our local paper, The Courier.
Kirstene Hair
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Condor includes and welcomes not only the family of personnel into the base, but also the wider community. He is absolutely right that it is a vital asset that each base should have.
It is clear to me that Condor should remain home to 45 Commando as part of this country’s defence infrastructure, and I hope that that is also the view of the Ministry of Defence—I and thousands of people across Angus would more than welcome an additional assurance from the Minister today that that is the case, which would reassure us of the continued presence of a pillar of our community and our economy. As a minimum, the forthcoming review should confirm that RM Condor will at least be maintained in its current form. That would not only allow the existing and successful relationship between 45 Commando, Angus, and the Ministry of Defence to continue, but would also secure the future of the Arbroath Division of the Royal Marines Volunteer Cadet Corps.
The Royal Marines cadets are a great opportunity for young people in Angus to develop skills and attitudes that will stand them in good stead for a lifetime. Meeting twice a week, they make use of Condor’s facilities. I understand they held their first, if rather cold, camp out at the beginning of last December. The foundation of the Arbroath Division of the RMVCC in December 2017 has further supported a long-standing relationship between RM Condor and multiple cadet groups. The impeccable reputation of the base means that demand for places in these groups is rightly high. In 2018, intakes took place in both August and October, and recruitment for a third intake is currently under way.
In addition, 45 Commando’s assault engineers and students from Dundee and Angus College recently collaborated to transform one of the hangers into a vital training asset. I know the Secretary of State was incredibly impressed at that innovation during his visit to the base last year. Moreover, there are the plethora of football, skiing, rugby, and competitive boxing clubs that make use of Condor’s facilities. Those benefits, both social and cultural, are further evidence of why the base and personnel should stay. However, the reprioritisation should commit to maintaining 45 Commando’s presence in Condor.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that today’s military personnel are a fighting force to be reckoned with, but they are more than that, in terms of military aid to the civil community for things such as firefighting, dealing with adverse weather conditions, flooding and so on. We should commend them for the good work they do throughout the United Kingdom, including in Scotland.
Kirstene Hair
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that they go above and beyond the role they are asked to do.
The reprioritisation exercise should commit to ensuring that Condor can continue to provide all the facilities that 45 Commando needs to continue to operate as effectively as it does today. We need clarity on the future of the base. I recognise the importance of an efficient defence estate, and nobody is calling for the Ministry of Defence to hold on to land that it does not need and cannot put to better use. Although the airstrip at Condor has been out of use for some time, the wider airfield and hangars are vital to many of 45 Commando’s training objectives, including driver training, combat training and small arms firing.
Confirmation that 45 Commando will remain at Condor will be welcome, and I would be pleased to hear that backed up by firm commitments on the airfield. There is concern that, even if 45 Commando’s future at Condor is confirmed for now, over-zealous cuts to the airfield will compromise its ability to operate effectively. The review must not suggest confirming the future of 45 Commando at Condor with one hand, while the other make decisions that might eventually force it to move. I am sure that it does not need to be stated that, should that transpire, it will have a negative impact on the base’s personnel, their families and the wider community.
The review should include clear, practical steps towards securing Condor’s long-term future as the home of 45 Commando. The Ministry of Defence should take a long-term approach to the review, and it should consider how greater investment in Condor can ensure that 45 Commando has a stable home, with all the facilities it needs, for decades to come, and how that investment can save the Ministry from greater costs in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. At the moment, recruitment to the Army is very low. Newspaper reports today say that 20% of Army personnel are unfit to go to theatres of war. Clearly the hon. Lady is outlining that her local detachment is very capable of going to war. Does she agree that, when the soldiers can deliver something effectively to the Army and to the Ministry of Defence for overseas activities, every consideration must be given to retaining the base and to recruitment?
Kirstene Hair
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The issue is twofold: it is about keeping our fantastic personnel on board as well as making new recruits. The Ministry of Defence is doing a huge swathe of work on recruitment, which we obviously need to do continually to attract the brightest and best into our armed forces.
The review should also consider what more Condor can contribute to our country’s future defence infrastructure on top of serving as a home to 45 Commando. The Minister has heard multiple representations on behalf of Condor from me and from people across Angus over the past 18 months. He knows that this issue is close to my heart and the hearts of my constituents. I hope he recognises from the Ministry’s perspective the common-sense case for Condor, and reflects it in his response.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I make no apologies for mentioning the huge military tradition in Angus. We must remember that it is the home of the 26th regiment of the Army—the Cameronians—which was disbanded in 1968 because it refused to amalgamate. It was one of two regiments of the British Army that said, “We’re not amalgamating; we’re the Cameronians. We are a fighting force—we come from Angus, and we’re Scottish. We are not disbanding.” Good for them.
Kirstene Hair
I saw that the Minister was listening avidly to the case that my hon. Friend put across on my behalf.
I have made the case for keeping a well-established base in an area with a long and proud military history, where 45 Commando has been truly welcomed into the local community, and where the cadets have added a new dimension to that unique relationship between military and community. The base has worked well for decades for the personnel stationed there. Provided support is maintained, it can continue to do so for decades to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing the debate and I commend her commitment, diligence and persistence in supporting both the Royal Marines and RM Condor in her constituency, which is the home of 45 Commando. I had the pleasure of visiting the base only a few months ago to see the incredible work that is being done by Lieutenant Colonel Forbes and his fantastic unit, as well as other assets based up there.
Before discussing RM Condor, I would like to acknowledge the critical and unique role that the Royal Marines play in the wider spectrum of our armed forces capability. Formed in 1664, during the reign of Charles II, they celebrate their 355th birthday this year. The Royal Marines have much to be proud of in their long history: playing a vital role in Lord Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar; securing and defending the Rock of Gibraltar in 1704; the infamous raid on Zeebrugge in 1918, which earned two Royal Marines the Victoria Cross; as well as the D-day landings at Normandy, where 17,500 Royal Marines took part in the largest amphibious operation in history. More recently, they were essential to the recapture of the Falkland Islands in 1982.
Today the Royal Marines are the UK’s specialised commando force—an elite unit held at very high readiness and trained for worldwide rapid response. They can deal with a wide spectrum of threats and security challenges, and operate in often dangerous and extremely difficult circumstances, including amphibious operations, littoral strikes and humanitarian relief as well as specialist mountain and cold weather warfare and jungle counter-insurgency. When diplomacy fails, the Royal Marines provide Government with an impressive spectrum of hard-power options with which we can respond. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank every Royal Marine who has earned the coveted green beret.
Bob Stewart
I thank the Minister for allowing me to point out, as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar and as a real friend of the Royal Marines, it is the only unit in our armed forces that has a place name on its badge. It says “Gibraltar”, because that is where the unit made its name.
Mr Ellwood
While serving as a regular officer, I had the pleasure to be based in Gibraltar, and I became very familiar with the treaty of Utrecht and the role that the Royal Marines played in securing the Rock. May it forever remain British. Gibraltarians are very proud people, and we have a strong relationship with the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.
Looking to the future, the 2015 strategic defence and security review mapped out our commitment to the Royal Marines. I am pleased to say that following the modernising defence programme, the future of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion as amphibious workhorses has been confirmed. The Royal Marines winter deployment programme in Norway will continue, as will their training with US counterparts. We will shortly see women join the ranks of the Royal Marines in ground close-combat roles for the first time.
Turning to the base, my hon. Friend the Member for Angus will be aware that the Royal Navy first forged a valuable relationship with Angus during the last war. The Fleet Air Arm occupied the base in 1940 as a training field to train aircrew in aircraft carrier deck landing operations. In 1954, the base became the home of the Royal Navy aircraft engineering training school. In 1971, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the base became the home of 45 Commando and was renamed RM Condor. Today it also houses 7 (Sphinx) Battery, which is part of 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, 2 Signal Regiment, 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group, and the Royal Military Police detachment. It is also home to a number of cadet operations, so it is vital for us to encourage recognition and understanding of what our armed forces do, and perhaps to introduce the idea that a career in the armed forces—specifically the marines—is worth pursuing.
Turning to the future, colleagues will be aware of the wider need to rationalise our defence real estate. The Ministry of Defence owns 3% of land across the United Kingdom, much of which is surplus to our requirements. We have conducted a wide-ranging study into what can be utilised, what needs to be continued, what is vital for training, what is needed for the future and what we can dispense with. We are transforming the estate into one that better supports the future needs of our armed forces. We will be investing £4 billion over the next 10 years to create a smaller, more modern and more capability-focused estate.
On our military presence in Angus, I can confirm that there are no plans to dispose of RM Condor as an operational base. As part of our review, we have been investigating how best to ensure that 45 Commando continues to have access to the facilities it requires to live, work and train. We are considering whether there are opportunities to undertake more defence tasks. What more can we add to our military capability in that neck of the woods to ensure we make the most of that important facility?
The MOD is investing not just in Angus but in Scotland as a whole, as other hon. Members have said. Wider afield, we have the Clyde naval base—another location I was pleased to visit not long ago—which will soon be home to all the UK submarines in the submarine centre of specialisation. The first of nine P-8 maritime patrol aircraft will be arriving in Scotland very soon. Boeing and the UK Government are working together to build a new £100 million operational support and training base in RAF Lossiemouth. In essence, Scotland is important to the defence of the United Kingdom—not just our military capability but our procurement. The Type 26 and our offshore patrol vessels are being built in Scotland, too.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Minister will know that during the independence referendum campaign, the Ministry of Defence made two promises about Scotland. It promised 12,500 regular personnel based in Scotland—the Government are way off that target at the minute—and a frigate factory based on the Clyde, which still has not appeared. When does he expect those promises to be fulfilled?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the pressures on us in recruitment and retention. It is a competitive environment. Per head, our footprint in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and Scotland does very well indeed from the investment we make, despite the extra taxation that the Scottish National party has sadly decided to inflict on our armed forces personnel—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is signalling, “Carry on, carry on,” but he knows exactly what I am talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Angus raised that important issue. We have had to step in and fill the gap to prevent the impact it would have had on individual soldiers, sailors and air personnel if it had been allowed to go ahead without our reacting to it.
Mr Ellwood
We are wandering off the subject of Angus, but I will give way very briefly if the hon. Gentleman’s intervention relates to Angus. I do not want to have a debate about taxation in Scotland. The SNP has lost the argument. We have had to fill the taxation gap. Is the hon. Gentleman sitting down, or does he still want to intervene?
Stephen Gethins
As the Minister is aware, I cannot stand up at the same time as him. He raised the issue of taxation. The military personnel in my area make a fantastic contribution, as I know the Minister recognises. If he is talking about the pay gap for higher earners, will he make it up to those who live elsewhere in the UK who are at the lower end of the pay scale and would benefit from a higher income in Scotland?
Mr Ellwood
You will call me out of order shortly, Ms McDonagh, but I will just respond to that point. We need to ensure that people do not suffer, no matter where they are based in the United Kingdom, and people moving to Scotland would have suffered had we not intervened to make up the difference. They support and represent their country, whether they are in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England. That is the bottom line, and that is what should matter. With your permission, Ms McDonagh, I would like to continue.
Across our estate, we will continue to combine military and infrastructure expertise to transform the places where our armed forces live, work, train and operate, but we know that we cannot do that alone. We have touched on the importance of working with our stakeholders. As we continue with our basing requirements, we will engage constructively with all relevant stakeholders at every level to ensure that sites are considered for use in a way that benefits defence and the surrounding local communities.
In summary, RM Condor plays a vital role in Scotland’s defence footprint and the defence of the United Kingdom. On a point that was made in an intervention, from where I sit in the Ministry of Defence, I see that the world is becoming more dangerous, not less. It is important that our defence posture grows to match our desires and capabilities to help shape the world as it becomes more dangerous. I fully acknowledge the impact that the changes that we are making to our real estate will have on local communities, but I reiterate our commitment to 45 Commando: our intention is to keep it in RM Condor.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Angus for her commitment and support for our brave Royal Marines and their families, who do so much to support those in uniform. I hope she will be satisfied with the assurances I have given her today.
Question put and agreed to.
Uganda: Democracy
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
While hon. Members take their places, they may notice that the monitors are not working. I assure them that if there is a Division, the Doorkeepers will come in straight away and let us know. We are anticipating one at about 4.55 pm, so the debate may be interrupted.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered democracy in Uganda.
Serious concerns have been raised internationally about the Ugandan Government systematically undermining democracy in their country. MPs have been arrested, institutions that should protect the democratic rights of citizens are being weakened, and the voices of ordinary Ugandans are being ignored. The United Kingdom is a friend of Uganda—we are important partners in trade, development and security—and I am a friend of Uganda too. Uganda and the UK have a shared past, and I hope that we will have a strong and prosperous shared future together as well.
At the start of this debate, it is important to ask what the UK’s interest in Uganda is and whether that gives us a legitimate right to make any comment about its democracy. I firmly believe that Uganda should be valued as an equal partner to the UK, but it has not always been an equal partnership. Our relationship began in 1894, and until 1962 Uganda was a British protectorate, as it was known then. Now Uganda is an independent sovereign nation, and it has been throughout my lifetime. It has a constitution that describes a balance of power between an executive, a legislature and other independent bodies. I respect the Ugandan constitution—it is right for Uganda and the Ugandan people. It protects the Ugandan people, and is the rock on which Ugandan democracy is built. The relationship between our two countries should always respect the Ugandan constitution.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. I wonder whether he has seen the Ugandan press coverage of this debate, which has essentially approached the whole of the subject from a position asking, “Why is the British Parliament trying to tell us what to do in our own Parliament? What gives them the right to do that?” Does that not show that we face an uphill struggle in getting our points across in the measured way he describes? How will we do that?
Dr Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Having seen that press coverage, I thought it right to ask what our legitimate interest is and to establish why our relationship is important and how Ugandan democracy impacts on that relationship. I hope to develop that argument as I progress through my speech.
Our relationship is one in which we have worked together, for example to respond to the refugee crisis from South Sudan. It is a relationship in which we trade with each other and in which the UK provides development assistance to the people of Uganda. As countries, we have shared goals and shared interests in those areas.
I also have a personal interest in Uganda. In 2006, I moved to Uganda, where I spent more than four years living and working in a rural part of the country in Kanungu district, next to the fantastically named Bwindi Impenetrable Forest. I worked as a doctor with local health workers and the local community to transform a small health centre into a fantastic, thriving hospital and community health programme. I did this without pay, as a Voluntary Service Overseas volunteer, and played my small part and used my skills to leave a sustainable healthcare system. In case anyone watching from outside wonders—I am sure a few people are watching—I no longer have a stake in Uganda, whether through financial interests or otherwise. I am, however, a friend of the country, and I have many Ugandan friends. I want to speak today in that spirit of friendship and as an equal partner.
Living for a long time in a different culture gives you particular insight. I learned to speak some of the language, Runyankole-Rukiga, although not very well, and I learned a lot about local cultures and beliefs. I saw many of the successes of President Museveni’s National Resistance Movement Government. I saw significant efforts to improve education, with the ambitious programme of universal education, which was really positive. I saw economic growth, albeit in a country with significant inequalities. Ugandans are slowly getting richer, which is a good thing too. I saw growth in infrastructure, the remarkable spread of mobile phones, improvements to road networks, and improvements to power. Those should help the future economy to grow and help everyone to become more prosperous.
I also saw things that did not work well, however. The Government-run health service, which failed to get the basics right, did not work well in the area that I lived in. Health worker morale was low and absenteeism was extremely high. There was a centrally run system to supply drugs, but a combination of underfunding, theft and bad planning meant that supplies often ran out. As people had little confidence in the institutions of government to deliver the healthcare that they needed, they had to take matters into their own hands. Patients went to private drug shops, while health workers took second jobs. The poorest people were left behind, getting no care and suffering devastating consequences. That failure of the Ugandan health service is not because of the people—there are many fantastic, talented Ugandan health workers—but because of the system, which relies on patronage and is, sadly, riddled with corruption and centralised decision making that leads to paralysis.
While living in Uganda, I also got to witness how the political process worked. Locally, I was introduced to GISOs—Government internal security officers—living in every community. Ostensibly, they are there to collect evidence of people trying to destabilise the country, but in practice that extends to any act of political opposition to the President. Alongside every local council leader sits a resident district commissioner—or RDC—the President’s own appointed person, who monitors everything happening in that district. That is done in the name of security, but RDCs are used to gather intelligence and stop political dissent.
I learned that the Internal Security Organisation is there to protect the President. Legitimate criticism of the policies of the President have been deliberately conflated with criticism of the state. The state has become personalised. Ugandans see that system for themselves—they do not need me to point it out. Some people know no different: this month, President Museveni will have been in power for 33 years. Three quarters of people in the country have never lived under a different leader. Ugandan people see that the institutions of their democracy are slowly being eroded.
First, the Government have closed down critical media outlets. There are credible reports that television stations were interrupted during the 2016 elections when results favouring the opposition were being reported. There are also credible reports that social media, including Facebook and Twitter, are shut down by the Government during sensitive times.
Secondly, the Government have used the military to attack Parliament. When MPs were debating the extension of presidential term limits, Parliament was attacked and MPs, including Betty Nambooze, were beaten by armed forces. Thirdly, there is evidence of serious human rights abuses, including serious and credible reports about a 2016 attack on the palace of King Charles Mumbere in Kasese, and the massacre of 150 civilians by Ugandan forces. According to those reports, the solider who led that attack has been promoted, and no independent investigation has taken place. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government’s position on that attack.
Fourthly, elections have been described, in diplomatic language, as
“short of being free and fair”.
Serious allegations have been made about the conduct of elections in Uganda over many years, but the most recent EU report on the 2016 presidential election made 30 recommendations that should be enacted before the next election in 2021. They include taking clear steps to differentiate the state from the ruling party and to strengthen the independence of the electoral commission, and systematic checks on the integrity of votes. As of March 2018, none of those EU recommendations had been implemented. There are credible stories of vote-rigging, with the police preventing access to “rigging houses”, and electoral bribery is common. Ugandan politicians routinely hand out money or gifts at election rallies.
The interference in elections does not happen only on the day of an election. I have friends who stood for elected office in Uganda. They were subjected to constant low-level intimidation. Police or soldiers were stationed outside their home, and they were followed. After they visited villages to talk to people, soldiers went to threaten those people with reprisals if they voted against the Government. Furthermore, radio stations, the main media in most areas, are owned by Government-backed politicians and report clearly biased information. Perhaps most disturbingly of all, people who engage with politics are subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention. The institutions that are supposed to protect democracy, the police and the military, are used to undermine it. Finally, the Public Order Management Act passed in 2013 has further diminished the political space, requiring police approval if three or more people want to gather to discuss political issues. What kind of democracy curtails politics in that way?
Many Ugandan opposition politicians have struggled bravely to use the democratic process to win power. I do not have time to mention them all, but I will draw attention to two such people. Kizza Besigye has stood for President on three occasions. He has been arrested, beaten and harassed so many times that he has lost count. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr Besigye when he visited our Parliament last year. His sacrifices in the pursuit of democracy in Uganda should be lauded.
I also want to mention Robert Kyagulanyi, also known as Bobi Wine. He is a young, charismatic musician with a large popular following. He was elected to the Ugandan Parliament at about the same time that I was elected to the UK Parliament. While I, in a friendly way, get to be critical of our Government without harassment, Bobi has been the target of totally undemocratic behaviour by his. In August last year, he and four other MPs were arrested by the military while campaigning for a by-election. His driver was shot dead, and he was severely beaten by soldiers before being brought to court on trumped-up charges that were later dropped. Bobi Wine was eventually handed over to the police and released, but that was just another example of the Ugandan Government using the military to prevent democratically elected politicians from doing their job.
Why are all such attacks on democracy important? They are important for the Ugandan people, the people who might one day want to see a different Government in their country. They have no hope of ever seeing a different Government if this one undermines democracy to cling on to power. The attacks are also important because of international standards and accountability. Uganda is a partner to our country in the United Nations, in the Commonwealth and, in multilateral relationships, through the European Union; and partners hold each other to international standards. The attacks are also important because they undermine the ability of the UK and the Ugandan people to work together on shared goals.
The attacks on democracy also allow a small group of people to retain power, a group of people who are illegally benefitting from that power and patronage. The corruption has meant that the UK’s Department for International Development has stopped direct budgetary support to the Government of Uganda. In 2012, €12 million was channelled out of the aid budgets from Ireland, Denmark and Norway directly into the bank accounts of officials working in the Prime Minister’s office. We now have to provide our UK support through private sector and non-governmental organisations. We cannot pretend that that is a good thing—it is always better to work with Governments—but, to be honest, we know that if want to help the people of Uganda, we cannot give money to their current Government.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
When I worked in aid in Uganda, we ensured that the aid got to the people by delivering it ourselves, refusing to give it to any officials. We took it directly to the villagers or the people who required it. I know that is difficult, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Dr Williams
It is a terrible state of affairs. If we want development to be sustainable, that is much more likely to happen through a democratically elected Government and by building the institutions within a country. Some people are so desperate, however, that they still need aid, and we cannot trust their Government to give that aid. I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that point.
Transparency International ranks Uganda as 151st out of 180 countries in the world for corruption. That is worse than Kenya, which is 143rd, much worse than Tanzania at 107th or Ethiopia at 103rd, while Rwanda is ranked as high as 48th. In 2013, Transparency International stated:
“Corruption in Uganda is widespread and seen as one of the greatest obstacles to the country’s economic development as well as to the provision of quality public services....Such corruption challenges are exacerbated by weak law enforcement, which fuels a culture of impunity, particularly with regards to high-ranking officials involved in corruption schemes.”
The attacks on democracy, as well as undermining our shared development objectives, are important because Britain wants to provide military support to the country of Uganda. We want Uganda to have secure borders and to contribute to peace in Somalia. We cannot have that, however, unless we have confidence in Uganda’s democracy and rule of law. I ask the Minister: when there are questions about the Ugandan army’s use of cluster bombs in South Sudan, when the army is used to enter Parliament and, allegedly, to massacre people in Kasese, or when special forces are used to hunt down and arrest politicians campaigning in a by-election, how can we be sure that the people whom we are training engage only in peacekeeping activities?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I thank him for bringing the issue before the House. Will he also, however, pay great tribute to those Ugandan soldiers who have given their lives in Mogadishu and wider Somalia in the cause of peacekeeping? Very brave men and women have done so to bring peace to that country.
Dr Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I join him in paying real tribute to all the east African forces working in Somalia for the peacekeeping mission.
We need to know that the UK is not enabling the atrocities being committed within the country of Uganda by Ugandan forces. Of course, that would never be our intention, and I am sure that it would be argued that our training of its military forces helps them to become more professional and to meet international standards, but when soldiers are given orders from the top, they have to follow those orders. When the Ugandan Government deliberately use the military to undermine democracy, it is right for the UK to look carefully at our involvement.
Before he became President, Yoweri Museveni published a book called “What is Africa’s Problem?”, in which he wrote:
“The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people but leaders who want to overstay in power.”
I want to see a Uganda where it is possible for the Ugandan people, should they want a change of Government, to achieve that through democratic means.
Opposition politicians find themselves in an impossible position. It is hard to build good policies and to get widespread support for them when the democratic space is so curtailed. Between now and the next election in 2021, it is crucial that a united opposition builds a potentially winning manifesto with popular policies, that opposition politicians are allowed to campaign freely and enthuse the people of Uganda, and that the opposition is given an equal chance to persuade people that they have an alternative platform for Government, on a level playing field.
There is no level playing field, however, because so many profoundly undemocratic occurrences have become normalised in Uganda. In a democracy, it is simply not acceptable for the military to arrest, beat and torture opposition politicians, for soldiers to enter Parliament and use physical force against MPs, or for elections to be rigged. Uganda’s democracy is under threat. The institutions that in a normal democracy would have the power to hold a Government to account have been systematically undermined, intimidated, bullied and cajoled by Government. Let no one be fooled: Uganda has a military Government in civilian clothes.
How can the UK, as a friend to the Ugandan people, best help to support their democracy? We are already supporting good governance and anti-corruption initiatives through the Department for International Development—I am sure the Minister will talk more about that—but when democratic institutions are systematically undermined, is that enough? Ugandan opposition leaders are asking the UK Government to place targeted sanctions on Uganda, to freeze the assets of Ugandan officials who are known for violations and abuses of human rights, to enforce a travel ban on Uganda’s leaders who are known for corruption and violation of human rights, and for Britain to condemn in the strongest terms the attacks on and abuse of Ugandan parliamentarians and all the activists inside and outside Uganda.
I would like the Minister to respond to those requests. I do not necessarily believe that all those things are needed. I certainly would not want to do anything that put at risk our relationship with the people of Uganda. Sanctions would be a last resort, but I understand why people are calling for them. Unless significant change happens in Uganda, the UK should take no option off the table.
I end by addressing the people of Uganda, some of whom are in the Public Gallery. We want the UK to work with them on security, sustainable development and business growth, but we are watching their Government closely. Our support for their Government comes with conditions. Members of Parliament such as myself and my colleagues here today will ask our Government to invest in their country if there is a thriving democracy and international standards are met. The United Kingdom must be on the side of the Ugandan people.
Democracy—the means by which we debate and create laws—is a process that requires the diligent engagement of citizens. Democracy fails when people cannot criticise their leaders, or if they do not feel confident that they can throw them out of office if they are not doing a good job. A healthy democracy can unlock so much potential in a country. But right now, the hopes of the Ugandan people are not being met by the people who govern them. That is why I say to the Ugandan people, whether in this Chamber in London or watching on their phone screens in Kampala: I am with you. We are with you.
We are watching and hoping for a brighter future for the Ugandan people. There are democrats across the world who know that that is possible, and we offer our solidarity in their fight for a Uganda governed by and in the interests of the Ugandan people—a Uganda guided by the unrestricted voices of its people. We are with them because that is what a truly democratic Uganda could be: prosperous, peaceful and secure. If they work for it and their institutions are protected and defended, nothing can stand in the way of the millions who are desperate for change.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is very good to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh—I think it may be the first time in eight years that I have done so. I do not disagree with a word that the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) said. He has lived there and has been steeped in the culture—he knows exactly what happens there. I, too, am a friend of Uganda.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
We restart. I apologise, but I am now imposing time limits of four minutes for all speakers.
Mrs Latham
Thank you very much Ms McDonagh. As I was saying, I am a friend of Uganda. I have been to Uganda about 15 times and have even spent personal holidays there. I love the country and have found the people incredibly friendly.
I find the lack of democracy disturbing. The President and his troupe, so to speak, are making sure that they win the elections, which I do not believe are free and fair. As the hon. Member for Stockton South said, they go out and pay villagers to vote for them. I know that that happens. When we send observers for the election, the deals have already been done. The people feel intimidated and that they must vote for Museveni and his MPs.
I have personal experience. I have a friend who was a Member of Parliament—not when I first met him, but he became a Member of Parliament. He had to contest that election because it was done badly and it was shown in the High Court that he had won. He won the election again, but recently lost it. He is a medical doctor and since then he practices medicine privately—Museveni will not employ him because he is from the wrong party. He has been looking after the people that he used to represent in his home area for free. He has been treating them for nothing, giving them drugs and looking after what were his constituents. He has been beaten up and he has been put in prison. I have seen photographs of the beatings. The only reason he is still alive is that he managed to get himself transferred to hospital.
I have always said that people who put themselves up for election for opposition parties in countries like Uganda are incredibly brave. The worst that can happen to us in this country is that we lose an election. The worst that can happen over there is that they die. What is worse is that they die because the state is beating them, punishing them and ultimately could kill them.
We should be very careful about how we give money and the relationships we have with the Government of Uganda. I am very pleased that international development money has been reduced and we are not giving it directly to the Government, but to third party organisations. We need to monitor that extremely carefully. If we do not, the money will get into the wrong hands and will be used for the wrong reasons.
I am concerned about the whole idea of democracy in Uganda. Uganda needs to prosper and it needs a good democratic system. It should have a good democratic system, but it does not, because it is abused. Until the abuse stops, we will not be able to stop elections being rigged. That is the truth of it and there is no point in beating about the bush. The elections are genuinely rigged. The hon. Gentleman spoke about political parties not being able to meet in groups of more than three. That is ludicrous. How can there be a democratic process when people are not able to meet in groups of more than three? It is just ridiculous to have to get the state’s permission to be able to do that—and why would the state give it? It does not want big rallies.
Uganda is not like here, where we might have a church hall rally. They have huge rallies in the villages, because the only way the people can meet their candidates is to go out and see them. It is important that they do that so that they can weigh up one against the other, as happens here. That is not happening properly in Uganda anymore and we need a proper democratic system to be fair to the people there. There are so many things wrong in the Ugandan Parliament and the Ugandan system that we need to monitor them very carefully.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, as always, Ms McDonagh. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) on a passionate speech and pay tribute to his previous work in Uganda.
I visited Uganda as part of a Westminster Foundation for Democracy trip in February last year, facilitating training for young candidates. It was there that I observed a number of things that gave me concern about the situation for democracy in Uganda. One of my first observations on going to observe proceedings in the Parliament was that the military has seats in the Parliament. I was shocked and horrified when I saw someone in military uniform speaking at the Dispatch Box. I cannot possibly imagine having military in the House of Commons. I think it sends a very deep signal. The hon. Gentleman spoke about a military Government in civilian clothing, but the reality is that we saw them in military clothing in the Ugandan Parliament, and that is alarming.
I spent a couple of days facilitating training for young candidates for the People’s Progressive party. One young guy that I met was taking part as the candidate for the PPP in the Jinja East by-election, which took place in March this year. That young guy, Mugaya Paul Geraldson, is now a good friend of mine. For the two days that I was there in an official capacity I facilitated the training, and on my free day I travelled at my own expense from Kampala out to Jinja East, largely to be a friend to Paul and go around as he was doing his rallies. One thing I observed was that there were hundreds of people turning out to his rallies—he was a young candidate who projected hope, ambition and energy. On election day he polled 48 votes, but there were hundreds of people at his rallies.
The final observation I offer—I am keen for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to get to speak as well—is that at the second of the two rallies I attended with Mugaya Paul, I was speaking to some of the people in that village when I was quickly bundled into a car by the people I was there with, because Museveni’s thugs had turned up and made it clear in no uncertain terms that the rally was alarming to the Government and that this young candidate was a threat to Museveni’s forces. That is deeply worrying.
I wanted to come here today and place on record a real experience of the suppression of democracy in Uganda. What that young candidate, who I hope will have another run at office, experienced in the course of that election was nothing short of appalling. I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Stockton South today, and I hope the Minister takes on board my personal experiences. I leave hon. Members with that view of the military in Parliament. Surely that does not represent a good sign for democracy in any country in the world.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), who made a powerful and eloquent speech. His long association with Uganda puts him in a position to be an authoritative advocate for human rights and democracy there, and I thank him for bringing this debate to the Chamber.
The Ugandan people have long suffered from tyrants who have committed crimes against their own people. The name Idi Amin will live long in infamy. The rule of Milton Obote was also mired in human rights abuses, with Amnesty International estimating that the regime had been responsible for more than 300,000 civilian deaths across Uganda. After Obote, Museveni became President in 1986. He said in his acceptance speech:
“The people of Africa, the people of Uganda, are entitled to a democratic government. It is not a favour from any regime. The sovereign people must be the public, not the government.”
Those are his own words—words that he should heed now.
President Museveni’s tenure has always been problematic, but his attempts to constrain democracy have been creeping. First came the repealing of the two-term limit on the presidency, which was introduced in 1995 under his own presidency. The lifting of the term limit led Bob Geldof to say:
“Get a grip Museveni. Your time is up, go away”—
not untypical of Bob Geldof, we might think. The arrest of the main opposition leader Kizza Besigye, as my hon. Friend mentioned, in the lead-up to the third presidential election was another stain on an election that Museveni should not have been contesting. In December 2017 he succeeded in getting the presidential age limit of 75 removed, just as he was approaching that age himself. The hallmark of a dictator is stripping away the impediments to his becoming leader for life, and that is exactly what Museveni has done.
In 2017, shortly after I was elected, I had the pleasure of being invited to a meeting of Ugandan exiles in the UK who support the main opposition party, Forum for Democratic Change. I was invited by my old friend Jimmy Sydney, who is here today and who became a social entrepreneur in Leeds after leaving Uganda. At that event I met Nandala Mafabi and through him found out about the conditions under which Ugandan MPs have to function. Nandala told me how the Parliament had been entered by Government troops, who had arrested MPs opposed to the life presidency; their symbol of a red hat and ribbon made it easier for the troops to spot them. I sat there imagining that happening to us here, today—troops coming in and stopping us having this debate because the Government did not like what we had to say. I found it unbelievable. It still is unbelievable to me that that could have happened in a country that calls itself a democracy and that MPs could be arrested in Parliament for exercising their democratic rights. This is surely a sign that democracy has died.
Just a couple of weeks after that event, I heard that Nandala had been arrested and spent two nights in the cells. His alleged crime was that he was part of a group of protestors demonstrating against the proposed amendment of the constitution to remove the presidential age limit. That is just the story of one MP; my hon. Friend told the stories of other MPs and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) told that of yet another.
We must heed the words of the Ugandan community in the UK. Will the Minister commit to meeting their requests? I echo the requests made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South for the Government to place targeted sanctions on Uganda, including on military materials; to freeze assets of Ugandan officials known for violations of human rights and abuses of power; to enforce a travel ban on Ugandan leaders known for corruption and violations of human rights; to condemn in the strongest terms the attacks and abuse of Ugandan parliamentarians and all activists, whether in or outside Uganda, including in this country, and to apply conditionality to aid to the Ugandan Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) on bringing this debate to the House. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and as my party’s spokesperson on human rights. I hear some incredibly disturbing stories regarding breaches of human rights, and the stories coming from Uganda most certainly bring a chill. I am a friend of Uganda and its people, but when I see wrongs, they must be spoken of in this place and the voice of its people heard. We are the voice for the voiceless, for those discriminated against, abused, attacked or brutalised.
As a democratically elected Member, I have had my share of social media attacks on the run-up to election. Unfounded or grossly exaggerated tales, media spin—you name it, I have seen it. I accept it because there is a reason people say politics is a dirty game, and no family member is safe from the mud-slinging, but when I read the stories of the so-called elections in Uganda, my skin crawled. When I realised that the UK Government have no way to be certain that UK relief funding is not being spent on training forces that go on to arrest and torture elected Ugandan MPs, my skin crawled some more and I must admit I questioned our ongoing support of Uganda.
I must be abundantly clear here. I am not questioning the relief that is given to on-the-ground bodies for humanitarian aid. Between December 2016 and February 2018, we provided food for over 1 million people, supported 64,000 women and 146,000 under-fives with immunisation and food supplements; ensured that 2,000 children have access to education services; ensured that 73% of the refugee population in Uganda accessed water through sustainable water systems, at an average of 17 litres per day; and provided relief items—blankets, kitchen sets, jerry cans and mosquito nets—to 11,000 people. We also challenge UN agencies to reform and to ensure that they deliver effectively for the most vulnerable and provide value for money for the UK taxpayer. We are clear in what we say here.
As of March 2018, contributions to the global goals and other Government commitments have achieved 248,000 children under 5, women and adolescent girls being reached through nutrition-related interventions; 572,000 additional women and girls being provided with modern methods of family planning; 56,000 children being supported to gain a decent education; and 130,000 people being given sustainable access to clean water and/or sanitation. That is right and proper, but a Department for International Development report outlined that only 25% of projected aid to Uganda goes to humanitarian projects. It is clear that a huge amount of aid goes elsewhere, which raises questions. We in this House have every right to ask those questions and to seek the answers. How much of the money is used for the training of troops and officers? How do we justify training a military that seems to do simply what the President demands, without any evidential base? That is completely incredulous and unacceptable. How can we, as a true democracy, turn a blind eye to the absolute desecration of democracy, and support a Government who allow—indeed, carry out—abuse and beatings of elected representatives for opposing the Government?
The hon. Member for Stockton South referred to the alleged massacre, which I did not know about. Let us in this House do something about that today. I am proud that we help those who cannot help themselves, which we highlight in debates all the time. However, our role is not to prop up or support regimes that flagrantly disregard the basic principles of democracy and seek merely to wear a cloak of democracy over a decrepit body of dictatorship.
There are questions to be answered. I look to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, to assuage my fears, and the fears of everyone here, and outline how we will ensure that every penny of funding for Uganda is for humanitarian aid and not for training an army to be used against any dissenting voices, which is completely unacceptable.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call Chris Law, spokesperson for the Scottish National party. Convention gives you five minutes.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) for such an eloquent and powerful speech, particularly when he said that the state has become personalised under President Museveni.
As we have heard, President Museveni has held power in Uganda since January 1986 through brute force, election-rigging and corruption. In 2005, Ugandans voted to return to a multi-party political system, but the presidential elections held the following year were marred by intimidation, violence and voter disenfranchisement— features that remain present in Ugandan political life and were also clearly noted in the 2016 general election. Museveni has most recently been accused of heavy-handed tactics in dealing with political opposition. In August last year, a group of opposition MPs led by pop star-turned-MP Bobi Wine were arrested while campaigning at a parliamentary by-election and subsequently tortured. The UK has addressed this issue before and must be prepared to do so again. In 2005, the UK diverted £15 million of aid meant for the Ugandan Government because of alleged human rights violations, and withheld an additional £5 million until fair, multi-party elections were held.
I recently visited Uganda with award-winning playwright, friend and former colleague—from when I worked in film making—Jaimini Jethwa, who is from my city of Dundee. Her play, “The Last Queen of Scotland”, explores Asian identity in a Scottish context and tells her story as a young child refugee who in 1971, along with her family and 60,000 other Asians, was given only 90 days’ notice to leave the country by its then-ruler Idi Amin. During that visit I was assured that Uganda had come a very long way since the early 1970s under Idi Amin, during whose ruthless eight-year regime an estimated 300,000 civilians were massacred. I learned a lot about the people, listened to many stories and made some great friends, but it is clear that Uganda still has a long way to go in its democratic journey to ensuring an electoral system capable of enabling all citizens to participate peacefully in politics, free of intimidation and violence.
I will turn to the US and the UK’s relationship with Uganda. The United States has long turned a blind eye to human rights violations in Uganda, primarily because of its military and economic interests in the region. However, the historical relationship between Uganda and the UK means that the UK has both the power and the responsibility to uphold and support democracy and human rights, and at the same time, through its special relationship with the US, influence US policy on Uganda. Will the Minister tell us what recent discussions have been had, either by DFID or the Foreign Office, with the US on improving democracy in Uganda, and what changes, if any, the US has made to its foreign policy in Uganda to improve the situation on the ground?
Uganda also hosts 1 million refugees, mostly from South Sudan. It is the third-largest refugee-hosting nation in the world. I discovered during a more recent visit, with the International Development Committee last November, that it has one of the most progressive attitudes to immigration, as refugees have the ability to work and settle in Uganda. This open-door policy has been seen as a role model throughout the world. However, the number of refugees is expected to continue to increase. Support for refugees is the largest financial contribution that DFID makes in Uganda and, owing to the sensitivity of the situation, we need to ensure that that stays in place, to prevent escalation or humanitarian crisis. I strongly suggest to the Minister that the continuation of humanitarian aid to Uganda is vital and must continue. What steps are being taken by the UK Government to ensure that aid to Uganda is used responsibly, and that breaches of the democratic process are addressed?
Furthermore, it was recently confirmed that the Ugandan armed forces have received intelligence training provided by the UK, and there is concern that Ugandan forces trained at Sandhurst may have been used in the arrest of opposition politicians. Only a year ago, I stood in this Chamber speaking out against UK Government funding of Burmese military training programmes—the same military that went on to commit a relentless and systematic campaign of violence against the Rohingya Muslims described by the UN as a
“textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.
Will the Minister tell us how the Government can be certain that UK Government money is not being spent on training forces who go on to arrest and torture elected Ugandan MPs?
Finally, the UK has a strong historical relationship with Uganda in the form of the Commonwealth and, today, in the form of aid. That relationship has previously been leveraged to support a stronger democracy in Uganda. The UK should be prepared to do so again, to ensure that democracy and the rule of the law are protected.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, Liz McInnes. Convention gives you five minutes as well.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) for securing the debate and for his eloquent description of the political situation in Uganda. Uganda is clearly a country about which he has a great deal of knowledge, arising from the time that he spent living and working there as a doctor, as he described.
There is no doubt that there are real problems with the democratic process in Uganda, as my hon. Friend has clearly outlined, particularly with President Museveni’s record on the oppression, imprisonment and torture of political opponents. The President has changed the constitution, scrapping the presidential age limit so that he can stand in the 2021 elections, when he will be 76 years of age. However, as a young radical in the 1980s, he publicly scorned African rulers who clung to power and was involved in the rebellions that toppled Idi Amin and Milton Obote. Now, after more than 30 years in office, he is clearly clinging pretty hard himself.
In 1986, when he was sworn in as President, Museveni was seen by the west as one of a new generation of African leaders. He proclaimed upon election that Uganda would return to democracy. It is clear that the President’s views have undergone a change since then. I think we can all agree that the imprisonment and torture of opposition activists has no place in a democracy.
The treatment of musician-turned-politician Bobi Wine has brought the Museveni regime to the attention of the west. As we have heard, Bobi Wine was arrested while campaigning last August and was badly injured while in detention. Three people were killed and around 100 injured in the unrest that followed Wine’s arrest. The international music community united in their condemnation of Wine’s treatment, with Chris Martin, Chrissie Hynde, Brian Eno, Damon Albarn and Femi Kuti among the 80 signatories of a statement strongly condemning the arrest, imprisonment and life-threatening physical attack by Ugandan Government forces on Bobi Wine.
Uganda is falling down on its commitment to human rights. It is a member of the United Nations and the African Union. It has ratified many UN human rights conventions and has thus made binding international commitments to adhere to the standards laid down in universal human rights documents. Press freedom is also threatened in Uganda, with the country coming 117th of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index. It has actually fallen since 2017, showing that the situation is getting worse.
It is reported that acts of intimidation and violence against reporters are an almost daily occurrence in Uganda, with many instances of journalists being arrested when covering stories, particularly around opposition politics. One example is that of Reuters photographer James Akena, who was beaten by Uganda People’s Defence Force soldiers while photographing protests against the treatment of Bobi Wine.
Uganda also, notoriously, has draconian anti-LGBT laws, with both male and female homosexual activity being illegal and liable to lead to imprisonment on charges of gross indecency. Activists who tried to open Uganda’s first LGBT centre in October last year were warned by the Minister for Ethics and Integrity that opening such a centre would be a criminal act. Uganda is a Member of the Commonwealth and as such has a commitment to the protection of human rights, freedom of expression and equality of opportunity. Ironically, these commitments were reviewed and agreed as part of the core criteria for Commonwealth membership under the Kampala communiqué, which was formulated at the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in Uganda.
We must also consider the role of the Department for International Development in Uganda, which is providing £100 million in aid in 2018-19, which goes to support the many refugees from countries such as the DRC and South Sudan, education and family planning services, and supporting Uganda’s anti-corruption and accountability institutions. I hope that when the Minister responds she will be able to outline what pressure we can bring to bear on Uganda to fulfil its commitments as a member of the Commonwealth and how bilateral aid from DFID is helping in the fight against corruption.
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
It is very good to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) on securing this debate. In all the contributions to this debate, the strong friendships that exist between parliamentarians in the UK and parliamentarians in Uganda, between people in the UK and people in Uganda, have come through loud and clear. He set the tone of the debate in that spirit of friendship. I pay tribute to his work, over many years, providing healthcare to the corner of Uganda that he so descriptively told us about. A number of hon. Members spoke with great personal passion and from experience through their own links to, and friendship with, Uganda. As I go through my remarks, I will try to pick up on the questions asked in the debate.
The UK shares Uganda’s ambition to move from low-income to middle-income status. As long-term friends and partners, we believe that Uganda’s success really matters to us in the UK. Our strong, genuine friendship and partnership enables us to develop a wide range of mutual interests and to speak frankly to each other about issues of mutual concern, whether in a bilateral context or in the Commonwealth meetings. In recent years, political contact has been revitalised. President Museveni visited the UK twice last year, not only for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, but for the illegal wildlife trade conference. Over the last two years, 11 UK Ministers have travelled to Uganda, including myself, and I know that the Select Committee on International Development was there very recently as well.
First, I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Stockton South made about the Kasese massacre and bring him up to date on that. In March 2017, the UK, along with EU missions, released a statement deploring the violence and calling for a comprehensive independent investigation. The UK and EU partners continue to raise concerns over the lack of progress on the investigation with the Government of Uganda, including in the recent article 8 dialogue with President Museveni.
When I visited in October, I met some of the more than 1 million refugees, who have been referred to in the debate. Uganda has a very progressive refugee policy. In Uganda, 82% of refugees are women and children. The country enables those refugees to live in much the same way as its own citizens. When I was in Uganda, I was pleased to announce up to £210 million of funding to help those refugees and to help Uganda to provide refugees with nutrition, vaccinations and schooling. I also saw how the new biometric system for refugee registration is helping to verify refugee status and reduce fraud.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of how we deliver aid within Uganda. I reassure colleagues that this is always done with trusted partners. Wherever we find concerns, as we did recently with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report, we take steps to suspend future payments until we are sure that the method by which we are delivering our support is free from corruption. We are very concerned when we discover that there has been a reduction in the money that is getting to the frontline, to those who need it most.
On the point about the conditionality of aid, I beg to differ with the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), because we allocate based on need and reaching the very poorest. That is the spirit in which we deliver our development assistance. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about the proportions in terms of the percentages. I reassure colleagues that there is no Department for International Development money spent on any military training. Some 40% of what we spend goes to human development, including education. Some impressive statistics were read out and are available on our website. Nearly 30% is spent on economic development. About 25% is spent on humanitarian assistance and about 6% is spent on addressing governance and security—if I have time, I shall go into more detail on that. About 1% is spent on climate and the environment.
We believe that Uganda is making important efforts to help to address the conflicts from which those refugees have fled. We welcome Uganda’s role in brokering the 2018 South Sudan peace deal, for example, the success of which will depend on Uganda’s continuing work to support its implementation. We should also remember that Uganda was the first country to provide peacekeepers to the African Union mission to Somalia. Uganda remains the largest contributor of troops to the AMISOM mission. I pay tribute to Ugandan peacekeepers, who work for security and stability in Somalia, often at great personal risk. Colleagues may wish to enquire further about the work of the Ministry of Defence in this area, but the training that we do is to support those missions. The work that we do alongside the United States is to train the troops for the AMISOM mission and to provide some counter-improvised explosive device capability. There are frequent P3 meetings to discuss that joint work, but that is the focus of the training. All of that training includes a human rights training element.
Regarding trade and development, we are working hard in partnership with Uganda to boost its economic development, improve healthcare and education, and create jobs, all of which are needed if Uganda is to realise the huge potential of its young and growing population. We are doing that through DFID’s economic development programme and by providing UK export finance. In terms of export finance, we have already provided £210 million through the Department for International Trade for the construction of Kabaale international airport, and UK companies are helping to deliver nearly $1 billion-worth of infrastructure projects in Uganda, with an emphasis on championing local content and skills transfer. In his first year, Lord Popat, the trade envoy, has seen an increase in trade between our countries of 60%.
Our continued support, and our desire to increase UK investment in Uganda, will rely on strong institutions that uphold the rule of law and democratic principles, which gets to the heart of today’s debate; that deliver professional, expert advice to support the business environment; and that tackle corruption. That would benefit all Uganda’s citizens, not only foreign investors.
In terms of the wider democratic issues that have been raised, clearly, as a sovereign, democratic nation, Uganda’s political and economic choices are matters for the Ugandan Government and people. As the hon. Member for Stockton South has advocated, however, we believe that coherent and effective institutions will underpin Uganda’s development. As a parliamentarian, I pay tribute to the examples that have been given and the bravery of people who put their names forward for Parliament.
That is why, during the 2016 presidential election, the UK worked with the international community to support the electoral environment in Uganda. Our programmes will continue to support democratic accountability at local and national levels ahead of the next round of elections. It is also why we have spent more than £30 million since 2014 on helping to strengthen the institutions of Government that buttress democratic freedoms and advocate the equal treatment of all Ugandans under the terms of their constitution and laws.
Clearly, a free and accountable civil society is a vital part of any successful democracy. We salute the resilience of the media sector and the willingness of journalists, bloggers and citizens to voice their opinions. I urge the Ugandan Government to embrace and encourage such genuine meaningful debate.
Similarly, democratically elected representatives must be free to voice their opinions during election campaigns and once they have been elected. We heard the concern of Ugandan MPs from across the political spectrum expressed in a parliamentary debate last month about the treatment of Mr Kyagulanyi, and their calls for him to be able to operate freely and for an investigation into the cancellation of a number of his concerts. That follows his arrest and that of other opposition figures, and allegations of torture by the Ugandan security forces, at the time of the Arua by-election in August 2018.
Our high commissioner joined EU colleagues in calling on the Ugandan Government, political parties and civil society to work together to investigate the allegations swiftly and transparently, in accordance with the rule of law, and to emphasise that there could be no impunity. As a long-standing and close partner of Uganda, we will continue to emphasise that strong institutions and a functioning democracy are essential to its aspirations for trade, investment, jobs and growth. We will continue to raise concerns with the Ugandan Government, while building a long-term partnership that supports those aspirations.
I am a bit confused about the time remaining, but if I have more time, there is more that I could add.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Unfortunately, the debate has finished; it is slightly confusing. I apologise to Dr Paul Williams for not being able to wind up.
Written Statements
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Committees and Implementation Taskforces
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
Today I am announcing the creation of a new European Union Exit and Trade (Preparedness) Sub-Committee, which will oversee and ensure effective delivery of plans for an orderly exit from the European Union. This new sub-Committee will replace the former European Union Exit and Trade (Domestic Preparedness, Legislation and Devolution) Sub-Committee, which will be disbanded. An updated list of Cabinet Committees and Implementation Task Forces (ITFs) will be made available on www.gov.uk.. The Borders Inter Ministerial Group and the European Union Exit Inter Ministerial Group will also be disbanded.
[HCWS1238]
Double Taxation Convention: UK and Cyprus
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
A protocol to the double taxation convention with Cyprus was signed on 19 December 2018. The text of the protocol is available on HM Revenue and Customs’ pages of the gov.uk website and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS1234]
General Affairs Council
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I will attend the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 8 January 2019 to represent the UK. Until we leave the European Union, we remain committed to fulfilling our rights and obligations as a full member.
The provisional agenda includes:
Presentation of the priorities of the Romanian presidency
The Romanian presidency is expected to present its presidential priorities for its six month tenure. The priorities are: a Europe of convergence, a safer Europe, Europe as a strong global actor and a Europe of common values.
Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027
Ministers and the Commission will discuss progress on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) negotiations.
Co-ordinated response on disinformation
Ministers are expected to discuss the “action plan against disinformation” which was agreed at the December European Council. The plan comprises commitments to tackle the systematic spreading of false information created to deceive and mislead audiences, with the intention of causing harm or obtaining political, personal or financial gain.
Legislative files
The Commission is expected to provide an update on the state of play of live legislative files, including those in the Commission work programme 2019.
[HCWS1236]
Asylum
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing an asylum system that protects and respects the fundamental rights of individuals seeking refuge from persecution. This system includes supporting asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute while their asylum claim is assessed. I am grateful for the attention Members of this House, including the Home Affairs Committee, have given to this matter.
I have always been clear about this Government’s commitment to ensuring service users are provided with safe, secure and suitable accommodation and are treated with dignity and respect. I have listened to the concerns of local authorities and have reinforced my commitment to working in partnership with them in this area. I am also mindful of this Government’s commitment to provide value for money for the taxpayer. Today I am pleased to inform the House that we have procured contracts for asylum accommodation and support to deliver on each of these commitments.
New contractual arrangements will be put in place in September of this year.
Initial accommodation, dispersed accommodation, transport and associated support services will be managed as integrated services on a regional basis.
Clearsprings Ready Homes has been awarded the contracts in the south of England and Wales;
Mears Group has been awarded the contracts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north-east, Yorkshire and Humber region; and
Serco has been awarded the contracts in the north-west of England, and the midlands and east of England regions.
Advice, issue reporting and eligibility assistance services will be integrated into a single, nationally operated end-to-end service; the contract for these services has been awarded to Migrant Help.
The contracts were designed after extensive engagement with local government, non-governmental organisations and potential providers. The contracts offer a number of improvements on the current arrangements to make them more sustainable and include changes to improve the customer journey and conditions for service users, addressing many of the recommendations in the Home Affairs Committee’s reports on asylum accommodation. In particular, the contracts will:
Provide assistance to asylum seekers to apply for support and throughout their time in the accommodation and support system.
Require accommodation providers to develop close working relationships with local authorities, liaise and consult with local authorities on the location of properties and share appropriate information with them.
Require providers to establish working relationships with the voluntary sector and local community-based support organisations and networks in order that they can signpost SUs to local services.
Set clear requirements for the standards of the accommodation that meet the standards used for social housing across the UK.
Require providers to have proactive maintenance plans and to regularly inspect and report on the findings of the inspections of their accommodation.
Provide service users with a single point of contact, independent from accommodation providers and the Home Office, to report issues with their accommodation and to provide advice in relation to their support throughout the whole process.
Set clear timescales within which repairs must be made, with a clear escalation process for service users.
Enhance the approach to safeguarding through a range of measures including improved health screening and support in registering with a GP, improved safeguarding training and awareness of staff, the provision of more adapted rooms for service users with specific needs, and the provision of face-to-face advice and support for those who need it.
Ensure that service users receive clear induction materials to help them settle into their initial accommodation and dispersed accommodation in local areas. This will seek to ensure a better understanding of the support that is being provided as well as how to navigate services in local communities.
Support service users into mainstream services if they are granted asylum or to return to their home country if are refused.
Gather feedback from service users about their experience of accommodation and support to monitor provider performance and improve the services that are provided.
Following the award of the contracts today, the Home Office will work closely with the providers to mobilise the contracts and transition services users to the new arrangements. We will communicate directly with our services users and stakeholders to ensure they are aware of the changes and how they will affect them.
We will be working extremely closely with local authorities to ensure a smooth transition and will be involving them ever more closely in the operation of the new contracts as they go live.
[HCWS1237]
European Union JHA Opt-in Decision: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 2121-27
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The Government have decided not to opt in, under the UK’s JHA opt-in protocol, to a proposal establishing an asylum, migration, and integration fund (AMIF) 2021-27.
The intended fund would not come into operation until the start of the next multiannual financial framework (2021), after the UK has exited the European Union and after the end of the proposed implementation period. As such, the UK would not be able to benefit from the fund as a member state.
Until the UK leaves the EU it remains a full member, and the Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s opt-in to EU legislation on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s commitment to protecting and enhancing our ability to control immigration.
[HCWS1235]
House of Lords
RAF: Operational Conversion Unit
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many F35B jets will make up the Operational Conversion Unit (OCU); and when the OCU will have its full complement of aircraft.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Lightning operational conversion unit is due to form as 207 Squadron and return to the UK in July 2019. Initially the squadron will comprise five aircraft. The squadron will expand to support continuing force growth into the next decade as more F35 Lightning become operational, including the formation of 809 Naval Air Squadron in 2023.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. We have said in the past that there would be 12 aircraft in the OCU. I would like clarification: will these all be F35Bs? There is some muttering about getting F35As. Could I have an answer to my Written Question, which was: do we still consider that we need a strike group of 35 on board to fulfil the task for which the carrier was built, which is theatre entry to do a number of raids on IADS and other targets over a period of four days? That would seem to predicate a need for at least 70 aircraft afloat in a national emergency, plus, presumably, the OCU, and taking attrition rates into account.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the first tranche of 48 aircraft will be the F35B, which is capable, as the noble Lord knows, of operating from land and the “Queen Elizabeth” class aircraft carriers. Decisions on subsequent tranches of Lightning will be taken at the appropriate time. Of course, the number of aircraft deployed will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the deployment. The minimum number to be deployed will be one squadron; that is, 12 aircraft. The plan is for full operating capability in 2023, with two squadrons, but of course there is scope for each carrier to have as many as 36 aircraft deployed on it.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that the Defence Secretary, in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, made the rather surprising admission that it was his ambition to open some new military bases in the Far East and the Caribbean. Can we be satisfied that any decision of that kind will not undermine the original commitment to purchase 138 F35 aircraft, particularly given the fragile state of the equipment budget?
Lord Soley (Lab)
Can the Minister elaborate on his second answer, when he referred to the appropriate time for future decisions? Can he give us some indication of what is meant by “appropriate time” and when that appropriate time might be?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
While we are speaking of combined air and naval power, has my noble friend noticed the reports that British shipbuilding of warships may now be resuming a world role, after many years of most warships being built in Japan, Korea and other places? If that comes about, is it not to be greatly applauded?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Was it not inevitable, when the noble Lord, Lord West, ordered two aircraft carriers and there was no money to pay for them, that enormous pressure would be put on the procurement budget, not least in terms of ordering the F35s, which cost £100 million apiece?
Earl Howe
My Lords, while we recognise the considerable cost of the carriers, we should reflect also upon their utility and considerable benefit in enabling us to project power in a way we have never been able to before, bearing in mind the versatility and capability of the F35B, which takes us into a new realm of strike capability.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government were contemplating opening new bases in two particular parts of the world. Which two parts of the world does the Ministry of Defence have in mind, and how on earth could additional bases, which are very far from the UK, be funded, given that there is already a massive black hole in the MoD equipment budget?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is not a black hole in the equipment budget, and that statement can be underlined when it comes to the F35B. It is too early for me to give the noble Lord a specific answer; we are looking at this matter in the round, and it is at a very early stage at the moment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister will consider reopening the base in Belize as part of the reconsideration? I declare an interest as president of the All-Party Group for Belize.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
While we recognise that we have had to live without aircraft carriers, and then with aircraft carriers but without aircraft, when will the carriers be optimally equipped? The Minister seemed to imply in an earlier answer that that would be when 24 aircraft could be embarked and fully crewed. When will that be, how does that compare with the original plan, and what is the critical path: fully trained pilots or aircraft deliveries?
Earl Howe
With regard to whether the critical path is aircraft or indeed pilots, we clearly need both, and we are on track and within budget to deliver both in accordance with the planned rollout. For example, this will see initial operating capability for carrier strike—one squadron consisting of 12 frontline F35s and 18 pilots—in December 2020. Full operating capability, consisting of two squadrons, will be achieved in December 2023.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is it not to the great credit of Her Majesty’s Government that this project has been taken forward regularly and provides suitable armaments for Her Majesty’s Navy? However, are there safeguards in the contract for the subsequent purchase of the second tranche of aircraft to ensure that we are not held out to dry by the United States?
Earl Howe
Obviously, before contracts are signed I cannot give an assurance about the safeguards that might be in those contracts. However, I can tell my noble friend some encouraging news, which is that the unit price for an F35B is currently $115.5 million, compared to $161 million for aircraft that were delivered in 2012. Therefore, while the final contract negotiations remain ongoing for the next tranche of aircraft that we wish to see delivered, we expect the downward cost journey to continue.
National Health Service: Nurses
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of nurses working in the National Health Service in England.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to ensuring that nursing remains an attractive career so that the NHS builds on the record number of nurses currently on wards, but we need to do more. We have put in place several actions to address this, such as improving staff retention, return to practice, overseas recruitment and sickness absence, expanding nursing associates and reviewing language controls.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Does she accept that the 41,000 nursing vacancies in the NHS conceal even worse problems? The number of district nurses has been cut by 50% and the number of both mental health nurses and school nurses has been cut by over a quarter. Does the Minister accept that the long-term plan for the NHS will work only if proper attention is paid to staffing issues? Can she confirm there is currently no money for any future staff training and reform in the budget, which depends on the Department of Health and Social Care’s education and training budget? How confident is she that that money will be forthcoming and when will we hear how much it will be?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. There is a shortage of nurses in the NHS: 41,000 vacancies, as he rightly identified. To put that into context, our policies have enabled the NHS to put more than 13,400 more nurses on our wards since 2010. We are not complacent. We have increased nurse training places by 25% from September 2018. To reassure the noble Lord, there are more than 52,000 nurses in training. Although there are more applications than places, we know that we need to do much more work with universities. On the NHS 10-year plan, the noble Lord rightly identified that the training budget has not been set yet. We will do that by the spring. My noble friend Lady Harding is taking a quick look at the forward plan, the type of vacancies and how we can recruit more nurses into the NHS.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, it was encouraging to see in yesterday’s plan a commitment to an extra 5,000 funded clinical placements for trainee nurses from the next academic year, 2019-20. Can the Government indicate when the funding for those places will be guaranteed? Are we certain that training places are available to absorb this welcome jump in demand?
Baroness Manzoor
There were 22,200 acceptances to study nursing and midwifery in 2018, compared with 22,575 in 2017, which we estimate will increase the final number of students on nursing and midwifery courses by a further 650. The numbers are coming through, but we recognise that we need radical campaigns to ensure that we attract more people into nursing, particularly in the community.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, bearing in mind the loss to the NHS of more than 23,000 nurses from the EU as a direct result of the referendum, what special measures do the Government have in mind to ensure absolutely free movement from the EU of people wishing to come and work in the NHS as nurses, doctors or other professionals to ensure that the NHS long-term plan can be implemented?
Baroness Manzoor
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we need the staff to deliver the long-term plan and that without them we cannot do that; it is very important. We recognise absolutely that Brexit is a pressure on the system, but we should also recognise that 4,800 more professionals from the EU are now working in the NHS than there were at the date of the referendum. We are of course lifting the cap on Tier 2 visas so that more nurses and skilled clinical staff will be working within the NHS. We value EU and international staff because they genuinely make a difference to our NHS.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, if there is the shortage of nurses that the Minister describes, will the Government consider auxiliary and volunteer nursing staff along the lines of VADs in the past? I declare an interest as a former VAD nurse.
Baroness Manzoor
I recognise the point made by my noble friend and she is right to say that we need a diversity of people coming in to the profession. We have plans to train up to 5,000 nursing associates through the apprenticeship route through 2018 along with up to 7,500 in 2019. That offers a foundation course from which student nurses can move into other areas, involving either further apprenticeship or nurse degree courses.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Following the question the Minister answered about the European Union, while I am happy that she has confirmed that nurses from the EU are still welcome, what about the proposed threshold of £30,000, which I gather is in the immigration purposes, when the average starting pay for a nurse is £23,000? Perhaps the noble Baroness could enlighten the House on what is happening in the discussions between her department and the Home Office?
Baroness Manzoor
I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that we work very closely with the Home Office. As a transitional measure, our temporary workers route will allow employers to bring in migrant labour at all skill levels for short periods, subject to strict conditions. Many jobs in the NHS, along with senior care roles, are still at skill levels above RQF 3, which is the equivalent of A-levels. Migrants will be able to come to the UK through our new skilled worker routes. We will also be asking the Migration Advisory Committee to keep salary levels under review. However, at the moment, as far as I am aware, there are no plans to curtail those.
Army: Divisional Manoeuvre and Deployment Training
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they propose to deploy a largely fully formed and supported division into the field for divisional movement and manoeuvre training.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Army has a substantial and sophisticated exercise programme in place to ensure that it is trained and ready to operate at the divisional level. This includes training with allies and partners. There are currently no plans to deploy an Army division into the field for training.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. In the face of a resurgent and irresponsible peer opponent, rather than massively increase military capability and defence expenditure, would it not be far more cost effective to test, demonstrate and perfect our supposed ability to deploy at divisional strength against a peer opponent?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a very good point. The issue to stress in this context is that if we were to fight at divisional scale, we would likely be doing so as part of a multinational force, probably NATO. The Army therefore regularly exercises with allies and partners, and a good example of that was Exercise Trident Juncture held last November, which involved some 50,000 personnel from 31 allies and partners. That was a really good opportunity to test every element of our war-fighting capability on land.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, the proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is to have troops ready for deployment training. However, it is important that in such an exercise we only deploy troops who are available for deployment. Will the Minister link that to the comments that were attributed to the Ministry of Defence this weekend about the fact that more than 20% of the total staff of the Army are medically unfit for deployment?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the press coverage on this has been somewhat overdramatised. A person can be medically downgraded for a whole variety of reasons, most of which are minor and temporary and do not prevent them fulfilling their core duties. A good example would be a sports injury. Medically non-deployable, another category of personnel, can include more serious circumstances but also includes pregnancy, which—my brief says—is a self-limiting condition.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, is there not one issue underlying both this Question and that from the noble Lord, Lord West? There are insufficient funds in the defence budget, and if we wish to live up to our international obligations and our aspirations, and to defend this country and our interests abroad in the way we say we do, we may need to spend more on defence.
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes an extremely important point, and we in the Ministry of Defence are always very conscious of the point he has stressed. But it is also important for all three armed services to look at the resources they have to see how they can use them even more effectively. The SDSR in 2015 and the modernising defence programme recognise the changed threat that faces us, and as a result the Army will be able to generate a more capable war-fighting division, at higher readiness, as part of the Joint Force 2025 programme.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I note that it is not the intention of the Government to deploy and manoeuvre at a divisional level, but I assume it is a capability we believe we have. Is that a capability we have? Do we have the logistics capability and the trained staff necessary for the complex task of manoeuvring large bodies of troops?
Earl Howe
My Lords, yes, the Army is already prepared to deliver a division, albeit at best effort. As I have just said, it is working towards its Joint Force 2025 structures that will deliver a more capable force at higher readiness. The point the noble Lord makes about enablers and logistics is well made. The exercises in which the Army has participated recently have been a very good test of those enablers.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Does the Minister agree that the exercise proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his Question is much more satisfactory than any desk-bound exercise, if I may put it that way, not least because it allows the demonstration of capability as a practical illustration of deterrence and provides reassurance for our allies? Why does the Army not take the opportunity of a showcase to show that it possesses all these qualities?
Earl Howe
With respect to the noble Lord, in effect it has done so. Exercise Saif Sareea in Oman, for example, which the noble Lord will be aware of, demonstrated very capably the Army’s ability to deploy in strength overseas with partners. I can reassure the noble Lord that the training the Army undertakes, both in the field and by way of simulation, is fully up to the standards he would expect and enables the Army to be confident of its ability to field a division.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the essential prerequisite for putting an Army into the field is the capacity to recruit enough soldiers. Without that, you can do very little. We now have the smallest Army since the Napoleonic wars. We have a reduced target of 80,000, which we have failed to meet by several thousand, and we have just launched a campaign through newspapers and the media to recruit snowflakes. This must terrify the Russians. Who is responsible for this? Is it Ministers, civil servants or the outsourced company that has failed so miserably to produce our soldiers?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the responsibility for Army recruitment lies chiefly with the Army itself in conjunction with Capita, with which it has a partnership agreement. I completely accept that Army recruitment figures have fallen seriously short of target. A great deal of work is going on to remedy that. Encouragingly, the number of applications to join the Army over the last year is at a five-year high. The challenge now is to improve the conversion rate between those who apply and those who join, and there are signs of progress in that area as well.
Migrants: Channel Crossings
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of France about ensuring that migrants crossing the English Channel are dealt with in a humane way.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom ensures that all migrants crossing the English Channel are dealt with in a humane way. We have deployed two additional Border Force cutters to the UK to help protect those being placed in life-threatening positions, as well as to further secure our border. The Home Secretary spoke to Interior Minister Castaner last week and has invited him to London for further discussions.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Is the Minister concerned that, on 29 March, we will depart from the European Union and, when we do, we will also go out of the Dublin III agreement? That means that no country will be obliged to rehome those for whom this is the first country in Europe that they come to. In the United Kingdom, whether we have transitional arrangements or some sort of other deal, we alone will have to look after those who reach our shores, with no other recourse. Do we have any plan at all for what we will do on 30 March, which is 79 days away?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am not concerned that, when we leave the European Union on 29 March, we will in any way resile from our obligations to give refuge in this country to people who need it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am coming to the noble Lord’s point about Dublin. We have resettlement schemes for people in the MENA region but, if we have a deal, Dublin III will apply during the transition period. If we leave without a deal, we will not be bound at all by the Dublin regulation. Nevertheless, this Government are committed to continuing the long history of giving asylum in this country to people who need it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that, in our discussion with the French authorities, we will set a high stake on the right of migrants who have reached Britain to claim asylum in this country, and those who have reached France to claim asylum in that country? That is a fundamental right under the Geneva convention, and it seems to be being weakened by some of the statements of the Home Secretary.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there has been a long-established acceptance that people seeking asylum should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The noble Lord is shaking his head slightly but, if a migrant or asylum seeker arrives in France or Italy, they should seek asylum in that country. If they do not, and decide as some have to take the treacherous journey across the channel, they not only put their lives in danger but are going against the Dublin convention.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, does not the “first safe country” principle rather let this island nation on the west of Europe off the hook from its responsibilities to asylum seekers globally? Given this, and given the Government’s proper concern with safety, should they not do much more to open up safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, as called for by the British Red Cross and others?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, when noble Lords make this point, I am never quite sure whether they feel that asylum seekers should claim in the first safe country or that they should then go on to other countries. However, claiming in the first safe country is the swiftest way for those fleeing torture and persecution to get protection.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, children granted refugee status in the UK have no rights to family reunion. This sets the UK apart from all other European countries. What are the Government doing to ensure legal protection and mental health support for these children? Will they consider granting rights to family reunion?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the last thing that the Government want is for children to be sent across in order to bring their families across. We do not want children to act as a pull factor for people to make these unsafe journeys. We do not intend to change that principle.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers and she seemed to imply that the Dublin regulation appeared to be the responsibility of those claiming asylum and refugees. Does she not understand that it is in fact burden-sharing between countries, which have an obligation—we have an obligation—to protect those who seek asylum? The House would find it helpful if she could give a more adequate answer than she has so far.
In the Minister’s Statement yesterday, when my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark raised this point with her, she spoke about the various agencies that were working together and co-ordinating, such as Border Force, Immigration Enforcement, the coastguard and the National Crime Agency. How many people smugglers, who bring people into the country and put them in danger, have been prevented from doing so? How many of those criminals have been detained, and how many have been prosecuted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On the last question first, I will try to give the noble Baroness details. I am not sure that I will be able to obtain the figures, but I will certainly try. She made a point about the Dublin regulation being an obligation or burden on the person claiming asylum. In fact, as she knows, it is an EU-wide agreement that asylum seekers will claim in the first safe country they reach. To suggest that they should do it any other way is dangerous to the lives of those people.
Universal Credit
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat as a Statement an Answer given to an Urgent Question in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, universal credit is a vital reform that overhauls a legacy system that trapped people out of work. With six different benefits administered by three different government departments, it was utterly confusing for claimants. All new claimants now receive universal credit. In the future, we will move claimants who have not changed circumstances from legacy benefits to universal credit in an approach known as managed migration.
It is right that the Government should seek to align provision for all, in order to eventually operate one welfare system. The department has long planned to initially support 10,000 people through this process, in a test phase, before increasing the number of those migrated. This first phase will give us an opportunity to learn how to provide the best support, while keeping Parliament fully informed of our approach.
Universal credit is proceeding as planned, with no change to the timetable of completing managed migration by December 2023”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. I woke on Sunday to news suggesting that universal credit rollout was being delayed. Joy, I confess, was unconfined in Sherlock Towers and doubtless all around the land. But it was not so. It seems that the Government are pressing ahead with the 1.4 million people currently getting universal credit, and another 1.5 million people will join them in the next year. So any delay seems to relate only to the regulations on managed migration, which Ministers had told us were incredibly urgent. These are very controversial because, rather than transferring people across to universal credit, in practice the DWP will simply end legacy benefit claims and invite people to apply for the new benefit. The DWP was to pilot it this summer and roll it out to some 3 million people from next year.
Our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee urged Ministers to take only the powers and regulations to run the pilots and then come back to the House before going for the full rollout—so I hope that maybe that is what the Government are doing. But Ministers down the other end could not confirm this at all.
I do not want a general bit of debate or flannel: I just want to know what is being delayed and until when. So will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are delaying consideration of the managed migration regulations until after the pilots have been evaluated? If so, how will they get the powers to run the pilots and introduce the concession they have made on the severe disability premium? If they are not doing that, what on earth is going on?
Baroness Buscombe
I will respond by saying first that perhaps we should ask the press what on earth is going on. The news that there is a delay is wrong. The Government previously committed to hold a debate on the affirmative regulations in relation to managed migration, and that will happen in due course on the Floor of the House. We will debate them as and when parliamentary time allows, but we will also make sure that we meet our commitment to severe disability premium recipients. To ensure a start date from July 2019 for those 10,000 people, we have long said that we will work with a test-and-learn process.
The noble Baroness talked about a pilot. We have always called it a test. It is perhaps just different terminology. In my response to a debate put to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, on 1 November, I made it very clear that we were always going to have the test-and-learn phase starting at the end of July 2019, whereby we would manage-migrate only 10,000 people through the following 12 months. A debate will be held on the regulations to allow for the managed migration.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this change in so far as it separates the regulations in the first phase to do the testing and learning. It was argued for very forcefully by the scrutiny committee and others. I welcome the Government paying attention to that. However, a timing issue flows from it, because if we do not get the evaluation of the test-and-learn phase in time to be useful when the comprehensive spending review comes around later this year, we are going to be short of money. If we are to learn anything between now and July, time is very short, so the managed migration regulations need to be laid and they need to be evaluated in time to be useful to get resource put into universal credit in the longer term for the future.
Baroness Buscombe
I very much take on board what the noble Lord said. This has been very much part of our thinking in the department. It is very important that we make sure that we have an opportunity to debate the managed migration regulations prior to the end of July 2019 and the pilot phase—as it is now popularly referred to, rather than, as we have called it, the test and learn phase—whereby we will be co-designing the whole system with 70 stakeholders working with us to make sure that we get this right. So there is no question of us not being very cognisant of the fact that we want to ensure that we protect recipients of the severe disability premium so that they do not in any way have a gap in receipt of their severe disability premium. We want to make sure that that happens as soon as possible.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, in the debate at the end of last year, I asked the Minister specifically about those with mental health illnesses who are struggling with the complexity of the system. In the light of recent changes, can my noble friend say a little more about the specific support that will be available to those struggling with mental health conditions, and how they will be helped to manage their way through this process?
Baroness Buscombe
I thank my noble friend for this question, because of course our focus is very much on all claimants. Each claimant has a different bespoke need. The reality is that they have a work coach and a caseworker supporting them in a bespoke way that never existed under the legacy system. In relation to those who are particularly vulnerable and have particular mental health issues or disability needs, we are committed to gathering better data to support those claimants and to prioritise this as part of the wider Work Programme for universal credit. Anything we do will be introduced incrementally and could cover a broad range of complex needs rather than focusing on one particular group.
We have been focusing very much on training staff and increasing the number of staff. For example, we have introduced a function to pin key profile notes so that they are instantly visible to all staff helping a claimant. After a small trial, this feature was rolled out in September last year. We are thinking all the time about how we can help people in a bespoke way. A number of Peers who joined me at the Department for Work and Pensions at the end of last year saw for themselves the work that we do and how we focus to the best of our ability on what will be 8 million people when the whole system is fully rolled out, each and every one of them having perhaps a slightly different issue but being part of the system that works for everyone.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may go back to my noble friend’s question. We will be debating exactly the same regulations that were laid last year, with their sink-or-swim approach that has been widely condemned by the Social Security Advisory Committee, any number of parliamentary committees and all the voluntary organisations on the ground. The only thing that has changed is that the regulations that we were told had to be agreed by 12 December have disappeared.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the noble Baroness is wrong to say that the regulations have been widely condemned. Why do 70 different stakeholders want to work with us if they condemn what we are trying to achieve? I feel very strongly about this. The noble Baroness herself came to the department to see the fantastic work done by our work coaches. She may laugh at what our employees do day in and day out, 24/7, to help benefit claimants in a far better way than ever happened under the legacy system where, frankly, people were left to—
Baroness Buscombe
I am sorry. Under the legacy system people lived, as it were, in the shadowlands of dependency. We are lifting people out of poverty and encouraging more people into work. The universal credit system is working but we want to make sure that, prior to the volume migration of those on legacy benefits, we work carefully and slowly with the 10,000 people who are coming forward so that we do it correctly. It is also important to make sure that we protect those with a severe disability premium.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the time that she has given to a number of us. The session that we had at the DWP was very informative and helpful, and I thank her for it. However, I am still confused as to why, when we met the Minister, we were told that these regulations had to be dealt with before Christmas, yet we are still not clear exactly what regulations we will be asked to debate. Can she please clarify that?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I am trying to clarify it to the best of my ability. The reality is that, as I have already said, we want to make sure that we protect those with a severe disability premium and we need to do that by the end of this month. I think that noble Lords will accept that at the moment we are in an unusual place when it comes to the parliamentary system and the timetable, but I am absolutely clear that, when parliamentary time allows, we will debate on the Floor of this House affirmative regulations for managed migration.
Seaborne Freight
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, as you know, this Government are working towards ensuring that we leave the European Union in March with a sensible agreement for the future through the withdrawal agreement that this House will consider next week, but any responsible Government need to plan for all eventualities.
As part of this work, the Department for Transport has been undertaking a wide range of activities to mitigate the impact on the transport system of a potential no-deal EU exit, particularly around the movement of freight. My department has, for example, delivered measures, including passing the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act, which puts the systems in place if a permit system is required and to ensure that UK HGVs can continue to be used in the EU.
We have also put in place Operation Brock as a replacement for Operation Stack, in order to deal with disruption at the Channel ports. This is not simply a Brexit-related measure. We do not want to see any repeat of the issues that Kent faced in 2015 with the closure of the M20. Operation Brock should mean that during any future disruption at the ports, for whatever reason, the motorway is kept open while we prepare the long-term solution of a lorry park.
Yesterday, Kent County Council and my department carried out a live trial of one part of Brock, on the route from Manston. We were satisfied with the number of vehicles that took part, which was more than enough to determine a safe optimum release rate from Manston to the Port of Dover via the A256, causing minimal traffic disruption along the route.
This is a range of examples of the sensible contingency planning that a responsible Government are carrying out to make sure we are prepared for a range of outcomes. But we are committed to ensuring as frictionless as possible movement across the UK border whatever the outcome. However, without planning there could be significant disruption to the Strait of Dover, particularly if no agreement is reached.
Given the importance of these routes to the UK economy, it is vital that we put in place contingency plans to mitigate against any disruption that might occur in a no-deal scenario. Now the department is working with the Port of Dover and the Channel Tunnel as well as our French counterparts, at both official and ministerial level, to ensure that both operate at the maximum possible capacity in all instances.
Those discussions are positive and I am confident everyone is working constructively to ensure that the Dover-Calais route, and particularly the Port of Dover and the tunnel, continue to operate fluidly in all scenarios.
However, in order to ease any pressure on those routes, my department has completed a proper procurement exercise to secure some additional ferry capacity between the UK and the EU. Following this process, three contracts were awarded to operators, totalling a potential £103 million. Almost 90% of this was to two well-established operators: £46 million to Brittany Ferries and around £42 million to DFDS.
These contracts provide additional capacity on established routes, through additional sailings and in some cases additional vessels, into ports in northern Europe and other parts of France. A third, smaller contract worth £13.8 million potentially was awarded to Seaborne Freight, a new British operator, to provide a new service between the Port of Ramsgate and Ostend.
Now let me stress, no money will be paid to any of these operators unless and until they are actually operating ferries on the routes we have contracted. No money will be paid until they are operating the ferries. No payment will be made unless the ships are sailing and, of course, in a no-deal scenario money will be recouped through the sale of tickets on those ships.
But as the House, I believe, knows, Seaborne is a new operator looking to reopen the route, which closed five years ago. As a result, we ensured that its business and operational plans were assessed for the department by external advisers, including Slaughter and May, Deloitte and Mott MacDonald. This included Seaborne’s plans to charter vessels for service, as is common across many transport modes including airlines and rail operators. We also conducted searches on the directors of Seaborne, via a third party, and found nothing that would prevent them contracting with government.
Mr Speaker, I make no apology for being willing to contract with a new British company, particularly one which has a large number of reputable institutional backers. We contracted with Seaborne Freight as the service it proposes represents a sensible contingency in the event of disruption on other routes.
I am pleased that this award supports the Port of Ramsgate, which operated as a commercial ferry port as recently as 2013 and has taken ro-ro services as recently as last year. I am looking forward to seeing ferry services resume from this port. The infrastructure work to make that possible has already started and is one of the most visible and symbolic elements of how seriously my department is taking contingency planning for all Brexit eventualities”.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating that incredible Answer to the Question in another place. The Transport Secretary has awarded a £14 million contract to a company with no money, no ships, no track record, no employees, no ports, one telephone line and no working website. The Minister calls this a sensible contingency plan; I call it a crisis. In a crisis, you turn not to the lowest bidder but to the contractors that can ensure safety and reliability. I have two specific questions. First, what risk assessment has been carried out in awarding the contract to Seaborne Freight and were issues such as shipping experience, maritime safety and financial robustness taken into account? Secondly, what guarantees can the department provide on the uninterrupted delivery of critical goods such as food and medicine?
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I said, 90% of the contracts were awarded to established operators. With Seaborne, the proposal was subject to technical, financial and commercial assurance as part of a standard due diligence procedure consistent with that undertaken on all government contracts. Our contractual arrangements with Seaborne clearly reflect its status as a new ferry operator, and it is obliged to meet a number of stringent time stage requirements to demonstrate that it can provide an effective service, with break clauses in the Department for Transport’s favour if it fails to meet them. I reiterate the point that no taxpayers’ money will change hands unless these services are provided.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, from my ministerial experience, I recall that the usual due diligence process involves ensuring that the company has appropriate experience—Seaborne has none—and that it is financially secure. I wonder who its shadowy financial backers are. It also requires directors to be of good financial standing. Can the Minister tell us whether the unpaid tax bill of the managing director’s previous company, which went into liquidation, has now been paid?
The Statement refers to three very reputable companies which are supposedly involved in the due diligence process. Can the Minister assure us that all three signed off on the awarding of this contract, and if one or two of them did not, can she tell us which? Have the Permanent Secretary for the Department for Transport or the director asked for written ministerial direction in this case?
Finally, has Seaborne now signed a contract with Ramsgate and Ostend ports? On 3 January they had not even done that, let alone begun building or requisitioning the ships. Clearly no one looked properly at the company’s website—unless, of course, they were wanting to order a pizza.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we conducted searches on the director of Seaborne via a third party and found absolutely nothing that would prevent the company contracting with the Government, which is why we went ahead. There was no ministerial direction in this case. The company has been working to open the service for over two years. Since we have given them the contract, it has been developing that service, and there will be updates in the near future.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that international haulage operators are today threatening to drop their channel business because of the risk of customs delays and that those who remain are upping their costs by 5%. Can the Minister confirm this? And how can the Ramsgate-Ostend freight service be viable when the cross-channel freight rate for vehicles, which is linked to the Channel Tunnel rate, stands at £180 per container or lorry? That was the rate in 1981 and is still the same 37 years later. Is it not true that numerous attempts have been made to rekindle that service and all have failed? Is it not also true that after dredging—even at those rates—a four-ship, two-rotation, sixteen-sailings-per-day service is still not viable? Is this just a joke?
Baroness Sugg
I assure noble Lords that this is not a joke but part of our contingency planning. We are concerned that in the event of no deal, there will be disruption at the port of Dover. Our first priority is to minimise that disruption on the narrow straits, but we are aware it is a real issue, which is why we are making these contingency plans and why we are looking at alternative ways of ensuring that trade carried on ro-ros can continue to come and go from this country.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend consider other ports, which do not require dredging and which operate ferries? I declare an interest: I represented the port of Harwich for 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament, and I was a frequent user of DFDS when it operated ferries to Denmark. Would my noble friend consider looking at the option of a new ferry service out of the port of Harwich? I am sure the port would benefit too from this revitalised process.
Baroness Sugg
As I said, the current work at Ramsgate will certainly benefit that area. With this procurement, the Government set the criteria of the additional freight capacity, within which the port of Harwich would have been in scope, but we did not specify the origin or destination ports. We left that up to the commercial operators. We regularly engage with a wide range of ports across the country, including Harwich, and we will continue to discuss how the Government can support them in the development of the maritime industry.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister explain her comment that no money would be paid to this company until the service is started? It actually started dredging at the weekend. Who is paying the probable millions that will be spent on dredging? Are the Government or someone else paying? Secondly, who will guarantee the traffic on this ferry service, if it ever starts? Who will set the prices? As my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, it is an open competition now between these ferries. Will the Government direct trucks where to go?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the dredging of Ramsgate, which the noble Lord said is already happening, is separate from this contract. We have a prioritisation process in place to ensure we can facilitate trade in the goods that we need to. That is an ongoing process that will continue up until we reach a deal with the European Union.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, when did any British Government in any field last place a major contract with a company that had no experience whatever of operating? Are the Government confident that the contract given to Seaborne Freight is fully in accordance and fully compliant with our rules on public procurement and the European public procurement directive?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are absolutely confident that it is fully compliant. We duly published the details of the contract. As with many operators in the maritime sector, it is not uncommon for it not to own its own vessels. Many operators charter them through third parties, as Seaborne is doing.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, who is paying for the dredging at Ramsgate? The noble Baroness did not answer that question.
Baroness Sugg
It is not part of this contract. I believe that the cost is around £1.5 million. I will have to get back to the noble Lord with the exact details of who will pay for it.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister give us a clear statement that there are no financial connections between Seaborne Freight and close family members of any Minister?
Baroness Sugg
I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that I am not aware of any such connection. This contract has been brought about to try to facilitate the easing of trade should we be in a no-deal scenario. There is certainly no ulterior motive to it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that a great many of us recognise that what the Department for Transport has done broadly to meet the possible problems at the end of March is greatly welcome? Nevertheless, it seems that this particular contract is not exactly straightforward, to put it mildly. Against that background, it might be beneficial if Her Majesty’s Government and the department found an alternative supplier for the 10% of this supplementary work on a more regular basis, perhaps on a standby basis, if and when this contract does not quite produce what it is put forward to do.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are confident that we will be able to provide the facilities to carry goods to and from for the 90% of the procurement contract. Should the contract with Seaborne fail we will of course look to make alternative measures. I thank my noble friend for his comments. As I said, the Department for Transport is making a number of contingency plans in the event of no deal. I am certainly not saying that no deal is an ideal situation or indeed one that we want to be in. We are trying to avoid it through getting agreement to the Prime Minister’s deal.
Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 8th January 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 143-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (7 Jan 2019)
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the House do now resolve itself into a committee on the bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness McDonagh
Leave out from “do” to the end and insert “not resolve itself into a committee on the bill until the Committee stage of the Trade Bill is set down in House of Lords Business”.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in my name on the Order Paper. It is a Christmas miracle: I now have evidence that Santa Claus exists. The Trade Bill finished Second Reading on 11 September, and with the looming date of 29 March, I thought, “Gosh, we are going to get it back in October”, but there was no Trade Bill to be seen. It had to be November, but there was no sign of the Trade Bill anywhere. It must be December, then, but no sign of the Bill. So, on 19 December, I went to see the clerks and put down this amendment. I know many of my colleagues also started to ask to questions about the Trade Bill. It is a miracle: we get back from Christmas, and we have four days for Committee at the end of January.
This is part of a wider political strategy. I understand that some incompetency is involved in this—of course there is Chris Grayling—but this is part of a bigger strategy. Six months ago, the Government adopted a kick-the-can-down-the-road strategy, where every day when they got up they hoped something better would happen. When they realised that was not going to happen, they adopted a new strategy, called the cliff-edge strategy. We saw it at the weekend with the Prime Minister’s media interviews, and with the Answers to Questions yesterday from the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. The strategy is that “Either you agree with me, or I will wreak chaos and havoc on this House and this country”. It is never true when people tell you there is only one way. There are always other options, and the possibility of preventing chaos.
While I say today that I will not be moving this amendment and pressing it to a vote, I put the Chief Whip the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on notice: if there are any further delays in legislation, any holding up of Bills that should go back to the other place, any dumping of hundreds of SIs without the time given to debate them, I will have no hesitation bringing such a Motion or amendment back to the House.
I think nearly a majority of Back-Benchers in every group in this House feel the same way. Even if the Government are not going to prevent chaos, we are.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, for the purposes of the Committee stage of this Bill, I declare my interest as in the register as a director of the London Stock Exchange plc.
This Bill, as was elaborated at Second Reading, is intended to provide a way to land so-called in-flight legislation. However, as many noble Lords also observed during Second Reading, the scope for amendment of that legislation is wide and not limited to the type of onshoring provisions of the withdrawal Act. Indeed, there is no promise of onshoring at all. This point is noted by the Delegated Powers Committee in paragraph 17 of its report on this Bill. The fact is that there is just a wide power to make legislation related to any of the provisions in any of the legislation in subsection (2) or specified in the list in the Schedule. There are no provisions defining how close it must be to that legislation, and the power is not anchored only to withdrawal from the EU.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the mechanism is an alternative to primary legislation. Although the power is time-limited, I do not consider that that is sufficient control to replace primary legislation entirely. It cannot be left open for the Government to cherry pick, to diminish, to add or to do things that depart from expectation, in terms both of the policy in the EU instruments that the power covers and the policy that has been laid out by government with regard to relations with the EU after Brexit.
The doubt starts right at the opening words, which state:
“The Treasury may by regulations make provision … corresponding, or similar, to … any of the provisions, of any specified EU financial services legislation”.
The use of “or” clearly implies that the regulation may make provisions that are corresponding but not similar. A simple suggestion may be to make a penalty for a failure in a corresponding position, but not the same penalty. So, too, could it be the other way round: a provision may be similar but not corresponding. A penalty may be moved to somewhere else or attached to a different provision. We often talk in particular about criminal penalties, when we are equalising them out between different types of provisions.
Amendment 1 would replace “or” with “and” so that it said “corresponding and similar”, thus making the objective clear: it corresponds to a particular EU provision and it is in similar terms. That seems to be a good and clear start to the Bill rather than the imprecise start that it currently has.
On its own, the amendment would not solve all the problems, including the Government’s plea for some flexibility. In other amendments in later groups, I probe how that might be done. Other noble Lords have amendments in this group which suggest further limitations on power. As it has fallen to me to speak first, I shall briefly comment on them
Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharkey, makes a good point about not changing the primary purpose of the EU legislation, and it could sit alongside my Amendment 1 as well as standing alone. Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and others, would limit the provisions to the circumstances of withdrawal from the EU. I am interested in the debate around that point. How far would the Government intend to stretch the term,
“adjustments in connection with the withdrawal”?
What other form of amendment not connected to withdrawal might they be contemplating?
Amendment 7, by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, progresses the limitation to reflecting the UK position outside the EU. In later groups, I have put forward some probing amendments that would limit the scope of amendment in other ways but which are a little more permissive, so, for now, I reserve my own position on Amendments 5 and 7 save to say that, if it is not feasible to construct suitably restrained flexibility, limitations of the kind set out in Amendments 5 and 7 would have to become the default position. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 3. At Second Reading, there was much discussion of the wide powers that the Bill gives to the Treasury via secondary legislation. All the amendments in this group deal with that issue.
Clause 1 contains clear Henry VIII powers. It allows the Treasury to make policy and new laws entirely by means of statutory instrument. It even allows such new laws to be wholly unrelated to the UK’s exit from the EU. Unusually, it allows these new laws on to the statute book without any parent primary legislation. There will be no parent Acts for these new laws: no context, no detailed parliamentary discussion and no effective parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, there is no need for me to repeat the arguments put forward in respect of the earlier measures considered here, so I will speak predominantly to Amendment 5. I looked carefully at the Minister’s summing up at the end of Second Reading. These issues had been articulated widely and we did not think that the Minister was at that time in a position to make forthright improvements, but we are worried now because we are now in Committee and we all recognise the privations of time. It seems to me that, with issues as serious as they are, the Minister ought to consider whether there is a basis for discussion between us outside the Chamber to resolve what, after all, is an essential part of the Bill but is not satisfactory, as it reads at present, to the Opposition parties.
Amendment 5 limits the adjustments—I notice that the word “adjustments” covers a multitude of potential activity and I am not sure that I am entirely happy with that as a defence of where the Government expect the Treasury to go—that the Treasury may make to specified EU financial services legislation to,
“adjustments in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.
At present there is no restriction on these adjustments: they could be made in the context of circumstances other than the main purpose of the Bill. We must all recall that this is a Bill of a very specific kind; namely, to cope with a no-deal situation, with the expectation on the Government’s side that it will not become law—that is, it will not be necessary for it to become law because a deal will have been achieved. That is a position that verges on the optimistic at this point, but of course it will be clarified by debates both in this House and in the Commons over the next few days.
As currently drafted, the Bill allows the Treasury to make any adjustments it may consider appropriate. That is the dreamland of the Treasury. I should think it is probably the dreamland of any adviser to the Minister, or any Minister, on any Bill, that he should have that capacity; that there should be provision for adjustments to be made subsequently. Of course, these will be adjustments that the Treasury—the Government—considers to be appropriate. That is scarcely anything other than a pretty outrageous position to adopt.
I also want to comment on Amendment 7, which limits the adjustments—that word again—that the Treasury may make to provisions of specified EU financial services legislation
“to preventing, remedying or mitigating deficiencies in retained EU law”,
and prevents the regulations under Clause 1 from making policy changes,
“other than to reflect the United Kingdom’s new position”,
if we have a deal and have left the EU, vis-à-vis the European Union. The wording of this amendment comes directly from what the Minister said to the House at Second Reading. It comes from the Government’s own explanation of the powers they are using under the EU withdrawal Act for onshoring SIs. I cannot see how the Government can resist accepting the concept of this amendment. They surely do not want to arrogate to themselves powers different from those defined in Amendment 7, which follow the position the Government have adopted up to now. But the Minister must be sufficiently anxious that, in addition to the amendments we have just discussed, from both the Liberal Benches and ours, we have real anxieties about the way in which the Bill stands before the House. The response we received at Second Reading satisfied none of us; otherwise, we would not have felt moved to table these amendments. We will need to make progress because as far as the Opposition are concerned, these are central issues to the Bill if it eventually becomes law.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, at Second Reading it was obvious to many of us across the House that the Bill was a useful safety net for in-flight legislation. As such, there was a spirit of collaboration and helpfulness. However, since then we have received the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is quite scathing about some of the inconsistencies in the Bill. I quote from paragraph 5:
“Furthermore, the assumption that the Bill will only apply in a ‘no deal’ scenario has led in our view to inconsistencies in the drafting of the Bill”.
I still recognise the importance of getting the Bill on to the statute book but we cannot allow it to become a blank cheque. It is important to recognise that there are inconsistencies in the Bill. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee drew attention to the comments it had made during its consideration of how HMRC was covered in the withdrawal Bill, saying:
“We judge powers not on how the Government say that they will use them but on how any Government might use them”.
The Minister is an extremely honourable man, probably one of the most honourable in your Lordships’ House. It would be of enormous value to the Committee if we could get this cleared up. It may not be possible at this stage but certainly by Third Reading we should at least have something in the record of the debate that deals with these inconsistencies on a sequential basis. Noble Lords have already referred to some of the difficulties. There will be further opportunities to explore these in the amendments that we will be considering in due course. But this is an important and necessary piece of legislation and it does not help anybody to have gaps left in it that can create difficulties for the future.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Liddell has made an extremely important point. As the debates and scrutiny have progressed and further information has become available on the Bill since it was initiated, the concerns have become greater.
In my experience with legislation, as Ministers—particularly Ministers of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Bates—explain issues to the House and seek to meet concerns, there is normally a narrowing of points of difference. But in this case the points of difference have expanded as it has become clear that the extent of the powers granted under the Bill is much greater than originally explained; they were, as my noble friend said, to do with in-flight provisions. As we have elucidated the scale of the potential breadth of these powers, the concern has become greater, not only because of the report which my noble friend referred to but because we have now been able to look at the list of measures to which they will apply. We have also been able to study the Minister’s speeches at Second Reading, which have led me to be considerably more concerned than I was before.
In his opening and closing speeches at Second Reading, the Minister said, in essence, that in the event of provisions coming forward which are not to do with continuity or in-flight but are basically to do with us either anticipating changes that will be made by the European Union or implementing those which have been made in the institutions of the European Union—to which we may or may not have agreed ourselves—the Government have the right to implement them on their own judgment, by decree, provided that it is within a two-year period. I think we will be pressing the Minister time and again—and, to be blunt, this may well lead to him losing significant parts of the Bill on Report—on the fact that there is a complete answer to the situation in which he finds himself.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The noble Lord has already referred to the two-year sunset clause. Does he accept that in the short run, the imposition of the Brexit deadline will require things to be done quickly, and in those circumstances, if the sunset clause were shorter, would he be happier?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the sunset clause is for two years, which is nearly half a Parliament. The fact that there is a sunset clause does not somehow legitimise everything that takes place in that period. There is no case for these provisions at all. Let us be clear that we are talking about further changes to the existing law; these are the provisions that are causing such difficulty for many of us in the House. We are prepared to grant the Minister powers to simply transpose existing provisions into UK law—indeed, I am not even sure that under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act he needs legal powers for that. The key issue here is that it all concerns further changes to the law. The statute book constantly needs to be capable of being updated; the whole purpose of Parliament is to debate further changes to the law, and we have established procedures which go back to time immemorial for doing that. They involve Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading stages in both Houses of Parliament.
There is no reason whatever for subverting those principles simply because the Government are overloaded, which is essentially the argument at the moment. The answer is either not to make those changes in law, if effectively they can be made only by exercising powers by decree, or to create the necessary time to do so, which means the Government having the right priorities in what they put before Parliament. We always have to set priorities. As a former Minister, I know that what you do and do not put in the Queen’s Speech and the legislative programme is a matter of priorities. If necessary, the House must sit for longer.
Finally, if it comes down to whether this House should sit somewhat longer to debate major changes to the law of the land on financial services, I for one feel that it is our duty to sit here, debate these changes and not give the Government the power to legislate by decree. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, feels the same because he has been responsible for financial services regulation in the past. That is effectively the power being granted here, potentially in significant areas that are not to do with simply transposing existing or in-flight European law into UK law. I am sorry to say this to the Minister, but the objections to the Bill are fundamental, not incremental. He may well find that, unless he can meet those objections, substantial parts of the Bill will be removed by the House on Report.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to the debate and speaking to their amendments. Let me set out the Government’s position regarding the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the amendments spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Davies. I will then come back to some of the points made during the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
I will speak to Amendments 1, 3, 5 and 7 together, if I may. They relate to the breadth of the amending power, which was central to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the ability to account for the UK’s specific position outside the EU for the two years in which the power would operate. As I understand it, Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, stems from her concern—repeated by all Members who spoke in the debate—that the power is currently drafted too broadly. The amendment would require that no legislation can be made under this Bill which is corresponding but not similar, or vice versa, to the original EU legislation. It is clearly important that we go into the precise definition of each term, as they have different interpretations and implications. In doing so, I hope that we will add to the body of information that can be referred to in future to clarify the Government’s intent in this process.
First, we take “corresponding” to mean “identical in all essentials or respects”. The term “similar” means “having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity without being identical”. In practice, of course, the legal interpretation of the two terms can vary, with some judging that “corresponding” affords a wider latitude. However, it is nevertheless clear that on the basis of the current drafting, any exercise of the power would need to be limited in subject matter and purpose. It will be possible to exercise the power only to achieve the aim of the original EU legislation, with an option to make adjustments to account for the specificities of UK markets, rightly reflecting the fact that we will no longer be a member of the EU. It will not, therefore, allow for wholesale changes to the character and intent of the original legislation.
For example, if the Government were implementing a file on pensions regulation, they would need to seek to achieve the same purpose, even with adjustments, and remain focused on that subject matter—not extend it to another policy, such as insurance. However, the Bill provides the ability to best reflect UK circumstances in the implemented legislation, which is key. The intent is to clarify that, in a no-deal scenario, the UK has the tools to ensure that it remains an attractive and competitive place to do business and continues to implement the latest international standards, with regulation that reflects the best interests of UK markets and those international standards. The wording suggested in the amendment would allow provisions to be made under this Bill only should they be corresponding and similar. This would require the legislation as it is implemented to fulfil two different legal standards simultaneously. We consider that this would be a highly uncertain legal bar to pass and in some cases it may even make the power essentially unworkable.
I would also like to reassure the Committee that the formulation “corresponding, or similar” is well established and has been used—to provide recent examples—in the Pension Schemes Act 2015 and the Recall of MPs Act 2015. I hope that this will reassure the noble Baroness regarding the limitations that will apply and the formulation “corresponding, or similar”, for which there are precedents. In short, the current wording is already intended to ensure that the powers under this Bill cannot be used to create substantively new policy outside the bounds of the original EU legislation.
I turn to Amendment 3 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. I understand that this comes from a similar place, intending as it does to forbid the Government’s amending legislation in such a way that it would create significant new policy separate from the original EU legislation, a concern also expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Davies. I hope that my response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, will provide noble Lords with some degree of the reassurance that is needed. As drafted, the Bill would not allow the Government to significantly alter, expand or run contrary to the primary purposes of that original legislation.
I turn now to Amendments 5 and 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Davies, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. They would limit the power in the Bill to make adjustments in a similar manner to the limitations in the EU withdrawal Act—limiting changes to legislation purely to a fixing of legal deficiencies. I understand the concern across the Committee that the power in this Bill goes beyond that of the EU withdrawal Act. I have already touched on the importance in a no-deal scenario of ensuring that European Union legislation implemented in domestic law best serves the interests of UK financial services, so I will not rehearse the same arguments again at length. However, I will reiterate that we cannot be certain about what files will look like once they are finalised or of the context in which the files will be implemented. The powers in the EU withdrawal Act are strictly limited, and the purpose of the legislation we are making under the Act is to ensure that there is a workable legal framework in place at the point of exit and to minimise disruption to financial services firms and their customers who currently operate under the existing EU rules. It is therefore appropriate to keep any changes made on exit day to a minimum.
There is a fundamental difference between this legislation and the EU withdrawal Act, and this comes directly to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The withdrawal Act deals only with the legislation which has been agreed at the EU level, with the UK present at all stages of the negotiations. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out in his intervention, this Bill provides a temporary solution, specifically in a no-deal scenario, to deal with the dynamic regulatory landscape for the financial services industry after the UK has left the EU negotiating table and taken its own path. This is a different challenge that requires a different solution.
Lord Adonis
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In that case, why should there not be primary legislation?
Lord Bates
For the points I will come to in a minute, which the noble Lord has slightly pre-empted. Obviously he has read the wind-up speech I gave at Second Reading—the arguments about volume of legislation and timeliness remain consistent—but I will come back to that.
Lord Flight (Con)
Would I be correct in describing the reason for that legislation as enabling us to meet equivalence requirements going forward if we have not otherwise dealt with things?
Lord Bates
Equivalence is one of a range of considerations that could be taken into account at that point.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
We will have amendments discussing equivalence more directly later, but will the Minister confirm that nothing could be done to step away from or undermine equivalence, or does this allow that? That is certainly the way it has been read by most Members of this House.
Lord Bates
We will have the debate under the future group of amendments on equivalence. We are not setting here the test or the bar as one of equivalence. We are simply talking about the specific directives and regulations before us and mentioned in the Bill: the 15 here; the four already agreed, which are mentioned on page 1 of the Bill; and the further 11 mentioned in the Schedule accompanying it, which have not yet been agreed. Because they have not been agreed and may be under debate or amendment without the UK at the negotiating table, we are simply adding in that greater level of power to say that the UK, in the event of leaving without a deal, would need to look after the interests of the UK financial and industry sector and could not give a blank cheque in the opposite direction to the EU to pass whatever regulation that we would automatically implement because of adherence to a notion of equivalence. That cannot be right for UK financial services. We need to look at what comes to us, then act within the interests of the UK financial services sector at that time.
I will deal with some of the specific points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, talked about the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I pay tribute to the work it did on this and the quick turnaround and punchy conclusions it arrived at. We are considering its recommendations, which the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, asked us to look at. I will be happy to meet with noble Lords ahead of Report to discuss where we stand. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its work and recognise that it raised some very pertinent issues. We want to look at them in greater detail, and I would be happy to discuss that with noble Lords ahead of Report.
I hope I have gone some way to addressing noble Lords’ points at this stage. We will come to a number of the other points in future debates and groups.
Lord Sharkey
It seems the Minister has relied heavily in his responses on Clause 1(1)(a) by using this to demonstrate that there is really a tight restriction on what kind of things can be done by Clause 1. But he has not at all mentioned Clause 1(1)(b), which in many ways is the root of the problem because it contains the word “adjustments” and the phrase “consider appropriate”. To many of us, that seems to extend without limit the reach of the Treasury’s powers. That was the underlying purpose behind almost all the amendments in the first group. Could the Minister speak to Clause 1(1)(b)?
Lord Bates
I am happy to do that. As the negotiations on these files continue, further amendments may be agreed, proposed or dropped that the Government will wish to domesticate or remove using the powers under this Bill. As the final outcome on many of these files is still unclear, we need to make sure that we can bring them into UK law in a way that works best for UK markets. This might, for example, include areas where the final parts of legislation could, if unchanged in a no-deal scenario, present inconsistencies with the UK regulatory framework, with global standards or with the UK’s position as an open global financial market. It is important therefore that we have the power to adjust these inconsistencies when bringing them into UK law. I acknowledge that this is a—
Baroness Kramer
I am sorry, but the Minister just said that Clause 1(1)(b) allows an interpretation not to remain with the objective described in the European directive. His whole argument under Clause 1(1)(a) was that the words “corresponding” and “similar” provide, in different legal ways, for us to take steps only where it is consistent with the objective of the European directive. He is now directly saying that Clause 1(1)(b) allows us to take steps that are directly opposed to or completely inconsistent with the European directive. Could he provide us with some clarity on this? It seems that the power allows the Government to move in any direction they wish, and that is exactly the issue we are trying to raise here. Under those circumstances, is that for Parliament to decide or for the Treasury to decide through statutory instrument?
Lord Bates
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. There is a difference between the two elements and between the use of “adjustments” and the terms used earlier, “similar” and “corresponding”. Effectively, they relate to the two different groups that we have here. The first group is those for which we have been party to the negotiations and to agreeing. Following engagement, we know that the industry is keen to see those transposed into UK law, and we support it in that respect. Then there are those other elements that are incomplete, the final shape of which we do not yet know. Once the final shape is known—in all likelihood, that will be after the date in this scenario and once we have left the European Union and the negotiating table—we will have the power to adjust. Those are the two different elements.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks as if there is not that power at the moment. There is: it is the power to introduce primary legislation. The Government do not lack this power; it is the power the Government have, in all cases, to recommend to Parliament changes in the law. What he has not made the case for is why the power should be given to the Government to make these changes by decree, which is, let us be clear, what Orders in Council amount to, with just a straight yes/no power in respect of the whole provision. He has not made that argument at all.
The Minister says that it is restricted, but the restrictions are entirely unsatisfactory. There is a time restriction of two years, which is more than enough time for the Government to do what they like with large parts of the statute book. The second, to which the Minister has just referred as though it is some kind of safeguard, are the measures listed in Schedule 1. But the list is incredibly extensive. These are fundamental and wide-ranging changes to the law, which in many cases, as the noble Lord himself has just said, we will not have played a part in agreeing within the democratic institutions of the European Union. Effectively, the Minister is saying that we will neither have played a part in agreeing them within the democratic processes of the European Union, nor will this Parliament have a proper role to play. The only people who will agree them are the Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a few officials in the Treasury, and we will then be expected to rubber-stamp them. I am afraid that that is totally unsatisfactory.
Lord Bates
That is not the case. I accept that the noble Lord is presenting a caricature of the situation that proves a particular point, but of course that is not what will happen. First of all, certain guarantees are presented in terms of reporting, which we will come on to again later. There are certain processes in terms of scrutiny of secondary legislation, not only by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which does incredible work and of course has a role set out in Standing Orders as to how it must scrutinise secondary legislation. Also, the affirmative SIs must be debated in your Lordships’ House. In addition to that, we have also undertaken that there should be proper engagement with the industry in talking about this and with other stakeholders too. There is a wide range of things.
We will delve deeper into some of the points in the noble Lord’s own amendments later. I appreciate that the role and purpose of Committee is to elicit from the Government further explanations about what these terms mean. We may have a difference about whether the noble Lord’s view is shared by the Front Bench, and whether all these matters should be dealt with by primary legislation in 15 Bills or by secondary legislation, which has been the convention, particularly when it comes to financial services.
Lord Bates
I will just finish this point if I may. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I and indeed the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, spent so much time in Grand Committee talking through various pieces of secondary legislation on financial services. That has been the conventional way in which we have worked. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, believes that the legislation ought to be primary in this case. That is his view. It is not the Government’s view and it is my job to outline the Government’s view on this. We are following established procedures and providing powers under scrutiny to allow us to deal with a unique set of circumstances, which we have never had to deal with before.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, this is genuinely a question of clarification. Is the Minister saying to me—I cannot read it in the language of the Bill—that Clause 1(1)(b), which states:
“with any adjustments the Treasury consider appropriate”,
excludes the category of in-flight legislation described as,
“specified EU financial services legislation”?
I assume that it includes that. Therefore, the Minister’s argument is that the Government will have to stick with the underlying objective for specified EU financial services legislation—which is what Clause 1(1)(a) is talking about—but the same legislation can then be overturned and dealt with completely differently under Clause 1(1)(b), which frankly allows adjustments as long as a piece of string. That is what I am trying to clarify. I understand that they are two different groups, but paragraph (b) surely applies to both groups.
Lord Bates
Perhaps it would be helpful at this stage to agree that these issues will be addressed in future groups. We will choose some wording—if not today, then certainly before Report—that is quite rightly required by the Committee to reassure itself about what is and is not referred to in that respect. With that, and with the undertaking to meet with colleagues specifically on the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee before Report, I invite noble Lords not to press this amendment.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
As a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, I specifically draw the Minister’s attention and the attention of the Committee to our paragraph 16, which states that:
“The power to make adjustments is a very broad one with no restrictions”.
We have very deep concerns about the powers proposed in the Bill. I hope, listening to the Minister, that he will address this issue and recognise that it is fundamentally important.
Lord Bates
I am happy to give that undertaking. I thank the noble Lord for his work on the committee and thank it for its report, which raises specific concerns. I will address those initially through a meeting with interested colleagues ahead of Report and then, more formally on the record as a result of that, on Report.
Lord Judge (CB)
I am not proposing an amendment to an amendment, but I wonder whether it would help clarity of thinking for all of us and for the Minister, when he is reflecting on the various arguments that have been put forward in the debate, if we took out “(i)” and “(ii)”, put “(b)” before “any provision”, and took out “but” and that “(b)”, so that the provision read:
“corresponding, or similar, to the provisions, or any of the provisions, of any specified EU financial services legislation, or
(b) any provision that might”.
We could then limit the adjustments point to the second part.
Lord Bates
Her Majesty’s Government are, of course, very frugal and are always willing to take free legal advice, particularly when it comes from such a distinguished source. I shall add that suggestion to the others that I will take away. We appreciate it. Oh, something has miraculously appeared. It cannot be in response to the last suggestion—that would be far too quick—but is in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. “Adjustments” applies to both provisions, but the limitations come from “corresponding, or similar” and the limitation implied by the word “adjustments” itself in the glossary. Just for clarification at this stage, let me add the definition that we are working to so that people can see it. “Adjustments” means that it will be possible to exercise the power to achieve the aim of the original EU legislation only with an option to make adjustments to account for the specificities of UK markets, rightly reflecting the fact that we will no longer be a member of the EU. It will not therefore allow for wholesale changes to the character and intent of the original legislation. “Adjustments” is an inherently limiting word. With that, and with the commitments that I have given to reflect on the comments made by noble Lords and the legal advice that has been given, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment—
Lord Adonis
What the Minister has said was clearly written for him by the Box: “‘Adjustments’ is an inherently limiting word”. Will he explain to the House how it inherently limits?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is familiar with the way this works. I used to sit on that side of the House while he was having similar words prepared for him. Adjustment leads to an altered version of the original. Changes that produce something completely different go beyond adjustments. Dictionaries make it clear that adjusting is about making small changes to achieve a desired fit or to adapt to a new situation. I hope that helps.
Lord Adonis
Therefore only small changes can be made, not large changes. My reading of the provisions in the Schedule is that they involve large, not small, changes.
Lord Bates
I am getting a certain sense of déjà vu having sat through the early morning debates on the EU withdrawal Bill, as it was at that stage, on words such as “appropriate”. I do not particularly want to rehearse them here. It is very important that, when we use terms, the Government are required to define what they mean by them. I have presented what we believe is meant by “adjustments”, which is that it is inherently limiting in capacity. Should we wish to clarify that further, we will do so on Report. Similarly, if noble Lords have further suggestions, they are at liberty to table amendments suggesting additional wording at future stages.
Lord Adonis
Let us be grown up about this. The Minister knows that people disagree about the meaning of “limited” in these contexts. I do not think that we think that the Minister’s assurance that the provision will be limited amounts to much, because then we will of course have a big argument about what “limited” means. The only way we could have a meeting of minds on this would be if there were some satisfactory procedure for deciding what “limited” means. The procedure which comes to mind is an independent committee, such as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Minister is extremely open-minded about suggestions from the Committee. Would he suggest introducing an amendment on Report giving the committee responsible for deciding on these regulatory powers the power to decide whether in fact a regulation meets the word “limited” in respect of adjustments?
Lord Bates
I am not going to direct what committees of this House opine on—it is certainly not within my powers to do so—and of course they are at liberty to express their views. From a constitutional point of view, having placed on the record, as a Minister of the Crown, our belief of the interpretation and meaning of the word “adjustment” in this context, I think that, when assessing an affirmative statutory instrument against the measures in this Bill, bodies such as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee will seek to link the two to test whether that is in fact the case. I am sure that the very fact that I have made that remark will be picked up in years to come as the various statutory instruments make their journey through your Lordships’ House. However, we will of course reflect on all these elements between now and Report.
Lord Eatwell (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the chairman of a regulatory organisation, I find the discussion about the word “adjustment” very disturbing. I shall give the Minister an example. If a door is open and then you close it, you adjust the door, but it is still in essence the same piece of wood moving within a frame. Taking that over to financial regulation, if a particular regulatory structure permits a given activity and you then close the door and that activity is no longer permitted, that is an adjustment within a given framework. I suggest that when the noble Lord takes this back, the word “adjustment” should be considered very carefully, because in a regulatory context it does not work in the way that he has described.
Lord Bates
I certainly defer to the noble Lord’s great experience in this area of regulation. One purpose of this Bill is to give assurances and certainty to precisely the people whom he has spoken of—the regulators—so that they are clear about the Government’s intent. When we spoke to the regulators and the industry, they pointed out that we do not know what will be contained in these files once they land in a legislative context post Brexit in the unlikely event of no deal. Therefore, there has necessarily been a widening of the powers to cope with potentially changing circumstances of which we are not aware at this stage. However, I will certainly take back the points made by the noble Lord and others, and I thank Members of the Committee for raising their concerns.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I want to make one point. When we were dealing with the withdrawal Bill, one of our greatest fears concerned these Henry VIII powers. This is the first time that we are having to apply them in a specific Bill, and we are already scared about the consequences. Noble and learned Lords are already asking, “Have you thought about wording such as ‘adjustments’ and the interpretation of words?” From my experience, every time there is a grey area in a contract, it can be interpreted in different ways. It leaves the door open, and that is very dangerous. I ask the Minister, whom the whole House respects, to take all that into account; otherwise, on Report this will be badly defeated because a precedent is being laid here with a fear that the Henry VIII powers will demolish our whole democracy and the reason for our Parliament. That is really frightening.
Lord Bates
I hear what the noble Lord and the Committee have said. That is what a Committee stage is for: it is for the Government to listen to what noble Lords have to say. I am grateful for what they have said, and I undertake to take it back, reflect on it and discuss it with colleagues ahead of Report. In the meantime, if the noble Baroness is happy to withdraw her amendment, I shall be grateful.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his replies. Part of his early response sounded quite encouraging when he said that things would not move outside the bounds of the original EU legislation, but it got a bit worse later on when he said this meant that things could still be domesticated or removed to match the peculiarities of the UK financial markets, which basically means not doing it if we do not feel like doing it. That is certainly how it was presented, interpreted and ended up in the EU when I was in charge of putting through a lot of this legislation.
With regard to my own amendment, I think he has said that “corresponding” is tight, in that the provision has to be identical in all respects. But he went on to say that this is one of two definitions that give wider latitude; “similar” was somehow a looser term but did not have that same latitude. He made the point that trying to satisfy two different legal criteria can be confusing, and I would side with that view. He also said, I think, that one of the terms was meant to apply to one category of the legislation and the other, looser term—whichever that turns out to be—applied to the other.
If I understood correctly, he said that the list that appears in subsection (2)—which is the finished though not yet active legislation: there are no changes, it is all done and we know what it says—would be subject to the tighter of the definitions, which is possibly “corresponding”. Those in the annex, which have not been finished and possibly might not be finished until after we have left—so we will not be involved in the last tweaks—may need to be tweaked more and will be subject to the term “similar”. This starts an interesting discussion, which we can continue when we talk on other groups, of whether we should completely separate out how we deal with the legislation that we already know about and can already analyse regarding whether it works for the UK markets, as opposed to where things are not definite and one needs more reservations. I push that out as a point.
Other amendments, particularly Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would also solve some points, as they go back to the question of the “primary purposes”. The key anxiety is that this Bill enables legislation to be made through a secondary method which is incapable of having scrutiny and will not necessarily have had scrutiny even at the European level by way of the adjustments, and there is no way to amend it. It could depart from the purpose, no matter what is said, because the Bill does not actually say there is to be no departure from the purpose. If you put in Amendment 3, or some other amendments that we will come to later, then you can tie it down and make clear where you will depart and where you cannot do so.
Let us be clear that one of the elephants in the room is whether we will implement the legislation at all. There is nothing compelling this. One can cherry pick it—we will come on to that in the next group of amendments—but there is nothing that says it will be onshored, so one could simply not have it at all. It is absolutely clear if you look at the first articles in subsection (2)(a),
“Articles 6 and 7 of the Central Securities Depositories Regulation”—
we know what the issue is there. I am sure there are people in this Chamber right now who could debate the benefits and otherwise of those particular articles. It was thought that the EU might not be able to make the technical standards, or that they would somehow be withdrawn. But no, the technical standards have been made; we know what they are and the likelihood that they will become active in 2020. The question could be put now: are we going to have it, or are we not? If we are not going to have it, should that be at the whim of the Treasury? This has significant repercussions on all kinds of other parts of the market where we may or not be deemed to have equivalence. We might as well discuss this now. It should not be someone sitting in an office and saying, “Well that can go and damn the consequences”.
We have a lot more to discuss around this as we go into the next groups but for the time being I beg leave—
Lord Adonis
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I just want to say that all the points she has made, and made extremely well, seem to me to be met by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham’s excellent Amendment 7. Most of the problems the Minister has encountered could be solved by him simply accepting it, because what Amendment 7 says is that:
“Regulations made under subsection (1) shall be limited to preventing, remedying or mitigating deficiencies in retained EU law”.
I have not yet heard a good argument put before the Committee, least of all by the Minister, for why we should not accept that amendment. The Minister says he wishes to discuss it further; I am not exactly sure what there is further to discuss, because unless my noble friend Lord Davies or the noble Baroness resile from this amendment, it is a very clear-cut position of principle, which seems to me to be fundamental to the maintenance of our proper parliamentary procedures.
So would the noble Baroness agree that the right position is for the Liberal Democrats and my noble friends to stick resolutely by Amendment 7, and unless the Minister is prepared to meet us on that, we should simply vote on that and seek to carry it, I hope with support across the House, because it is fundamental to the operation of parliamentary sovereignty? On Report, we should not get involved in a long technical discussion about how much additional power we might grant the Minister simply because he has put a proposal on the table in the first instance which is straightforwardly outrageous.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He will recall that I reserved my position on that amendment but said that I thought it is the default if we cannot find something workable that gives more flexibility to the Government. I will come on to why there may be a case for flexibility in the next group, where I have a set of amendments related to it, but I can give noble Lords a preview in that I think it is quite difficult to define what that flexibility should be, and so it is going to take a lot of work to better Amendment 7. What the noble Lord suggests as the common position might well come, but we have a duty to explore further. There is more to mine away at within this Bill, and so I will not give an absolute yes to that question. Furthermore, there may be others within the group who want to consider the points. With that, in order that we can move on, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, as I explained, I have three amendments in this group. They fit together as a set, but Amendment 2 can also be a useful standalone provision.
Amendment 2 would delete the words “or any of the provisions” from line 4. On its own, that amendment is intended to prevent the cherry picking of favourite bits of the legislation. Taken to its extreme, such cherry picking would even enable the cherry picking of revocations of prior legislation—such revocations might appear in the schedule because they are amendments to other pieces of legislation. So you might be able to enact them without any kind of replacement.
More generally, EU legislation is interwoven with checks and balances, and if some are left out, the nature of the legislation can be changed or rendered ineffective, for example if penalties are taken out or time limits changed. The DPRRC makes a similar point in its paragraph 17, which says that,
“the overall effect of the legislation might vary quite substantially depending on which provisions are implemented and which … are not”.
Whether on its own or in combination with other amendments, it would be a useful amendment to rule out the prospect of simply cherry picking.
Amendment 4 is a linguistic amendment that links to Amendment 6. It might not actually be necessary, but I tabled it to deal with the kind of omissions that might be necessary—for example, taking out things that are not relevant to the UK. An obvious one would be something to do with monetary union, which is not relevant to us. The amendment’s purpose is to clarify that “adjustments”—that nebulous word; maybe we need something else—includes omissions. Then, whether it is an adjustment, change, omission or whatever we want to call it, all become subject to the same controls I would put in with Amendment 6 and elsewhere. This does not work if you try to do it using the wording appearing earlier in the clause. It looks a bit bizarre to take out the possibility of omissions in one place and put it in somewhere else, but this is just to ensure that one could establish that the conditions imposed apply to all of it. At the time of drafting I thought it clearer to reference “omissions” than “provisions not provided for” or something of that nature.
The more substantive Amendment 6 states that any omission or adjustment made under subsection (1) that is not subject to similar conditions as those in the withdrawal Act—that could be tightened up to refer to a particular provision of that Act—and does not fall under that kind of provision is,
“only to be considered appropriate if the Treasury has at least three months previously laid before Parliament a report on the policy and reasons for omission or potential omission”.
Here I am, as I said I would try to do, crafting something using the ideas of the reports in subsections (8) and (9) so that, if the Treasury comes forward with some proposal, Parliament is not surprised by it because it has been laid out and possibly even debated and understood.
That would be very helpful, but, having put forward this suggestion as to making flexibility, I came to the conclusion that I do not think that that on its own is sufficient. It still gives far too wide a leeway for change because the kind of reporting we get when statutory instruments to do with EU exit are brought before us—the Minister will know that we spend hours on them in this Chamber and in Grand Committee—is a bit perfunctory. Anyway, even if they are reported, it does not mean that they can be stopped. Maybe I have not got this right. My point is that one still needs to have some other overarching provision that stops things going too far, which might come back to Amendment 7, in which case all these other ones would not be necessary, to my noble friend Lord Sharkey’s Amendment 3 or, when we get to the next group, to my Amendment 8.
I am trying to find a way to give the Government the possibility for flexibility, because I know as well as anybody else what EU legislation could look like in the absence of a strong input from the UK. I have said before that I know what it would look like if I had not been there. I concede that we have to have some defences. If the defence is not to be primary legislation, to go through it all again—and I am very conscious of the volume of that—then there need to be some guidelines. It cannot be just a simple free-for-all. We need to know what is going on, and the reporting has a huge input there, but we have to be able to say no if the departures are substantive. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is seeking to do: to tease out from the Government whether they are prepared to agree to new reporting requirements, which would be helpful. There is nothing in the new reporting requirements which I think is objectionable. On the contrary, the more the Government are prepared to explain their policy to Parliament, the better. I know the noble Baroness said she and her colleagues are considering what their stance will be when it comes to Report. Can I recommend Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham? It is significantly superior in this respect. It makes a clear distinction of principle between Orders in Council which are,
“limited to preventing, remedying or mitigating deficiencies in retained EU law”,
and, because they are so limited, an Order in Council procedure is justifiable; and changes to the law that go beyond that, and which, as a matter of principle, should be subjected to the primary legislation procedure. The Liberal Democrats do not want to give decree-making powers to the Government, so I cannot see an argument for not subjecting substantive changes in the law that go beyond,
“preventing, remedying or mitigating deficiencies in retained EU law”,
to primary legislation, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham sets out in his Amendment 7. I encourage the noble Baroness and the Liberal Democrats to be true to their liberal principles and not to give dictatorial powers to the Government, and to support my noble friend’s Amendment 7.
Baroness Kramer
I say to the noble Lord—and perhaps to clarify for others—that I think there is a real difference regarding the in-flight legislation, which has gone through an extensive European process that we have been engaged in. That is a highly democratic process involving scrutiny and consultation on a scale that we rarely experience here in the UK. It has gone through the Council and Parliament, and the technical language is nearly all in place. That is in a different category from other provisions, which are typically dealt with in the schedule; everything is at a much earlier stage and—if we leave—we will not be engaged in the on-going process that shapes that outcome.
We can look for some flexibility on the first category. I say that in part because we are all incredibly conscious that just getting through the essentials of the legislation on our plate is overwhelming. The last thing I would wish to see is for us to fall out of equivalence by accident, because the Government put elements on which we have been engaged and on which we agree at the back end of their legislative priority list, and we find ourselves by default stepping out of an equivalent situation. That is a concern, and it is one of the reasons why we would like to explore some of the options my colleagues have been outlining.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I think the two groups of amendments in many ways cover the same issue. They are essentially about how much flexibility the Executive should have in using this new law. Taking noble Lords back to the creation of the withdrawal Act, it was an extremely painful process because we were naturally reluctant to give the extensive powers in the withdrawal Act to government. But we were in a sense battered into the very realistic understanding that, given the volume of work that had to be done, the only way to do it was through statutory instruments enabled by the withdrawal Act.
Lord Judge
I apologise for not leaping to my feet before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe; I was looking at something else—I am very sorry. Perhaps I may be allowed to say just a few words in support of the general idea behind Amendment 6.
We are going to embark on a huge body of secondary legislation. I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about secondary legislation and I think that my views on its dangers are quite well known to a number of Members. One problem with secondary legislation, if we are honest, is that we have no idea what we are looking at. When secondary legislation comes through, I doubt whether more than 1% of the Members of this House actually look at it; I doubt whether more than 5% of the Members of the other place look at it, and it goes through.
We are here dealing with very complex legislation and doing it as best we can in a hurry, in the demanding situation that we are in. Would it not be helpful for an explanation to be given about any individual piece of secondary legislation, identifying, for example, the legislation in the EU with which it corresponds or to which it is similar? We could then look at it and say, “Yes, that’s fine. No need to argue about it”. Otherwise, we tend to leave it so that we examine it blind. There is something to be said for us knowing what is going on.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank noble Lords on all sides for their constructive suggestions during this short debate. I am grateful for these contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made a fair point about the approach we have taken on considering secondary legislation in Committee. We have brought through 16 statutory instruments so far—we have the joy of another four awaiting us in Grand Committee tomorrow afternoon—out of a total package of some 60, 47 of which will use the affirmative procedure. So there is an element of scrutiny. The noble Lord rightly focused on the provisions of the EU withdrawal Act, which is the substance of Amendment 7, but then we were dealing with known entities and rules.
In introducing this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, made a very fair point and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, added to it. If I am paraphrasing her correctly, she recognises that, had she not been there, the legislation coming across to us might not have been dealt with in the interests of the United Kingdom financial services industry. I agree with that, from what I know of her role on that committee in that Parliament. Her input—and that of other members—at that stage was vital in shaping the legislation which subsequently came across. We thank her for that service. She is no longer there and, in the scenario for the future files that we are dealing with, neither will her successors be. Therefore, there needs to be a difference in the way these are treated—between the narrow definition in the EU withdrawal Act, when we knew what we were dealing with, and directives and regulations into which we may have had no input and no responsibility for shaping. These could, potentially, be damaging to the UK financial services industry. There is a long way to go with this debate, but that is the crux of it.
I turn to Amendments 2, 4 and 6, the aim of which is to require the publication of a report three months prior to the exercise of the powers under the Bill. This report would need to explain any policy adjustment or decision to omit aspects of the originating file. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, also referred to this. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s clear intention would be to set out this information in the reports currently required by the Bill.
Further to that, as is standard practice, the Government would of course seek to engage with interested parliamentarians and the industry on the legislation before taking any statutory instruments forward. Where the secondary legislation omits aspects of any EU files, it would certainly be in the public interest to be open about the choices the Government have made in not implementing them.
Regarding the requirement to publish the reports three months ahead of each exercise of the power, the Bill currently sets the requirement that any implementing legislation be subject to the affirmative procedure. This would require laying the relevant statutory instrument before Parliament, and an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum setting out the policy intent, before the debate on the SI itself and well ahead of implementation. This is the established process for scrutinising such statutory instruments and for this reason it is the model we have chosen to follow.
I am also mindful of the fast-moving nature of financial services. In particular, there may be a need to respond quickly to market developments, and it may be important to avoid imbalances with the EU for even a short period—for example, where the files may be of a deregulatory nature. With respect, I suggest that a three-month gap between a report and laying is too long to respond to market developments. Such a three-month requirement would place at risk the basic aim of the legislation, which is to safeguard the reputation, competitiveness and efficiency of UK financial markets. However, having listened to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, made in moving her amendment and to the subsequent points of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I am willing to consider, ahead of Report, exactly how a process might run in the future to keep noble Lords better informed. Just to manage expectations, we will probably regard three months as too long for what might need to be very fast changes to ensure that UK financial services are not disadvantaged, but I signal my willingness to discuss the issue with the noble Baroness and see whether we can find an acceptable way forward.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Does the Minister accept that the problem he faces is bigger than that? It is not just about this group but about the fundamental fact that we parliamentarians dislike secondary legislation that changes the law. He faces a significant defeat in this House if we cannot come to some compromise agreement that seriously limits the ability of the Executive to impose law upon this Parliament. It is important that he recognises that—otherwise, we will end up deciding what the Bill says, and that is usually not good in terms of using the law in the future.
Lord Bates
I am always willing to engage and it is helpful, if I may say so, to engage in that debate, because the point the noble Lord is making is more on general principles than on detail. I subscribe to that, provided that we can agree to recognise that what the Government are seeking to do here is to deal with, effectively, processes that I am not aware have ever been dealt with before. We may be giving an undertaking to implement certain directives and regulations over which we have not had control and of which we do not yet know the precise nature. That is a different challenge from the normal routine of the types of onshoring that we are doing with the other statutory instruments. I am prepared to accept the noble Lord’s point if he will recognise the difference that we are dealing with between those two different types: that would be helpful.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I recognise that there is a difference, but at the end of the day my noble friend Lord Adonis’s point is valid: in day-to-day life the world changes, we have to react quickly to it and, where needed, we have to enact primary legislation. We are not creating a new environment where the Government enjoy executive power to change the laws in this area; surely we are seeking only to manage the transition. I do not see that it is the end of the world if the Government see something develop in Europe, say it is wrong, and say that that will not be covered by this Act and that we will have to bring forward primary legislation. We have done it in the past and we will have to do it after two years; that is the way new ideas should be introduced to this Parliament.
Lord Bates
I hear what the noble Lord is saying. Without wanting to rehearse Second Reading again or to undermine any of the progress that I feel we have already made on this in Committee, I will conclude by saying that from my perspective, the noble Baroness has made a proposal to deal with the length of time and the reporting—to address the noble and learned Lord’s point—about where there are changes, what changes have been made and why, and whether that report could be received in advance of the statutory instrument being laid and then debated in the House. In the spirit of recognising the points referred to, I have said that I am prepared to look at that. Three months may be too long but I am prepared to have a discussion ahead of Report on whether another time period may be more acceptable. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I thank the Minister for his response. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, the meat, if you like, in this group of amendments is in Amendment 6 and some mechanism of having reports to Parliament so that we are not surprised by what is going on. I think that that means more than just laying a finished instrument. When I was drafting it, I was looking more at the reports that are required by subsections (8) and (9). The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has tabled some amendments and I signed some of them because I think that good work can be done on the issue of reports. Perhaps my Amendment 6 ideas will go into that pot.
I think we are getting to a situation where some statutory instruments will be able to go through because there will not be significant changes or the sorts of changes that would lead to a loss of equivalence or a change of purpose or however we define it. But there will be some others, if there has been an unsatisfactory conclusion to some of this in-flight legislation, where the changes will be larger, and for which therefore the process that uses secondary legislation may not be appropriate, so one will have to fall back on primary legislation. That does not mean that that will be the destination for all of them, because they will not necessarily all be unsatisfactory. There will be an incentive, perhaps, to stay aligned and do some, but the fact that one or two might require primary legislation is not something that can be run away from.
I will just put in a plug for Amendment 2, the anti-cherry-picking point that you cannot pick and choose between the provisions; it should be on a whole basis. If we were to pursue Amendment 7 as the mainstream amendment, I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the Labour Front Bench that something like Amendment 2 would perhaps slot in quite well, if it is not inherently covered by the wording, which I would have to analyse further.
I think we are slowly making progress, but my conclusion is that everything is still too wide, so we need to move on to the other groups. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) But no adjustment may be made under subsection (1)(b) that jeopardises potential equivalence with the EU.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, this amendment is a simple, overarching provision that says that no adjustment may be made,
“that jeopardises potential equivalence with the EU”.
This goes to the heart of what is allowable under a statutory instrument and what is not. It seems to me that it is one thing to seek short-cut arrangements—if I might call them that—to land in-flight legislation without needing primary legislation but quite a different matter to then land that legislation at a destination that is very different from the one that was expected. This is especially the case for legislation under subsection (2), which is no longer under negotiation but which has in fact landed, even if it is not yet operational.
It is worth pointing out that everything the Government have said about Brexit, under whatever type of Brexit, is to try to obtain or retain equivalence—that is the expectation. It may be that equivalence does not work out; it might be due to things that the EU does which become problems for UK markets—and, as I said, I know pretty well how that might happen—or it might just be that the EU Commission delays or decides not to make an equivalence finding because it does not see it as in its interest. After all, it is EU Commission policy to make equivalence decisions only when the EU needs them—although it tends to find out in the end that it does need them. I know full well what an infuriating process equivalence can be, as I have played my part both in making sure that it gets into the legislation in the first place and then pressing EU officials to get on with it.
However, despite all those difficulties around equivalence and whether we will have it or not, that will not be decided overnight—even, if I may say so, in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Thus to abandon notions of equivalence, even at any time within two years of Brexit, would be a big step and a decision that should come before Parliament in primary legislation. I do not say that it should not happen, but it is a big departure. I do not remember that anybody’s manifesto said that they would abandon equivalence willy-nilly. Everything that has been said on every occasion, on everything to do with the Brexit negotiations, has been to try to get something better than equivalence, so it would be a big departure to set it aside. This is where the dividing line comes, and this would be the gatekeeper of those things that you do: “It’s okay—you’re keeping equivalence. No; you can’t do it this way if you want to break away from equivalence”.
The truth is that we have already given regulators sufficient leeway that they could make rules that led to an abandonment of equivalence by them not matching EU delegated Acts legislation. The way we have set it up, that has been given to the regulators. However, I do not think that our regulators would tend to go down that track—and if they did, I suspect that it would feature prominently in their consultations. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not in his place, because I commend his amendment that we will come to later on, in which he suggests that some reporting from the Bank of England should be included. Possibly, if we are to have these reports that tell us what is going on across the piece, it would be a good idea to include in that what the FCA is doing, whether that is done through the FCA having a section of the report or through the Treasury dealing on its behalf with that aspect of the report that it told us about.
As I have already indicated, we know that there are concerns about certain bits or pieces of legislation, but we have to bear in mind that abandonment or significant alteration of any policy element of what is essentially EU primary legislation may well remove the hope of equivalence for part of the market, or indeed for other parts or entities that are not necessarily the direct beneficiaries of those adjustments. I could construct an argument around the changing of the buy-in regime. If that was dropped, it could have ramifications for equivalences in many other places, and that matter is already weighing on the consciences of those who are having to think about which way they would want to push that debate.
As I said, the business about what we do with equivalence needs a great deal more thought. As my noble friend Lady Kramer said, we cannot let it go by default of not doing something or by rushing something through in a statutory instrument that we cannot amend, knowing that it might lead to a loss of equivalence. I beg to move.
Lord Flight
My Lords, the hope is that if everything were sensible, the amendment would be appropriate and powerful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, pointed out, it is possible that the EU may go down paths of regulation that are not very sensible. In that situation, given that the market for the UK’s financial services industry is not just Europe, it may not be practical for the UK to use and follow equivalence. Indeed, there may need to be changes to the benefit of the industry other than vis-à-vis a Europe that has gone off the rails with its regulations.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I added my name to the amendment because I consider it one of the most important in the range we are addressing today. Two fundamental issues seem to underlie our concerns about the legislation. One issue comes from a constitutional perspective, concerning Henry VIII powers. It matters; we discussed it in other contexts but it is important in this context too. It has an impact on the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, including applying the ability to exercise policy power and Parliament’s role in scrutinising policy.
One aspect of that is particularly substantial in the Bill. In the two-year period when the regime discussed in the Bill holds sway, we will be in a critical time, determining our future relationship with the European Union and whether our financial services industry continues to have access to European markets for financial services. That is a huge discussion and decision; it should not be handed over to the Treasury to enact simply through statutory instruments. I am exceedingly concerned that using this legislation, we will find ourselves in a position where because of Treasury decisions, our negotiators will find that no matter what they wish at the end of their negotiating period, we will have diverged significantly in financial services, making it almost impossible to reconnect parts of the market. If the industry sees that we will go through a period in which that may happen, it will make decisions about where it puts operations, activities and jobs that would not be in the long-term interest of the UK. That two-year period—exactly the period when this legislation applies—is critical. We will basically delegate decisions on whether equivalence continues to be UK policy that come into effect in this House only through the weak medium of statutory instruments.
I see this measure as a safeguard. I recognise what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Flight: that some things about future European regulation in the financial services industry may be unsatisfactory and that we may decide to diverge from them. But it really should not be the Treasury’s decision to do that and it should not be the Treasury’s decision to shut off the possibility of creating a long-term equivalence regime. That is why I support this amendment. If we accept that within this Bill and the Government decide that there are indeed instances where they want to diverge, they can bring forward primary legislation. It is simply that they could not do that through secondary legislation in the way that this Bill would currently allow them to do so. That is too major and fundamental a decision.
I remind the Committee that the financial services industry is probably the most important sector in our economy. It delivers something like £76 billion a year in taxes which support our public services. To make a decision that will fundamentally impact on key aspects of the industry and with all the consequences that that entails must surely need to be done only through primary legislation and with the full and total engagement of this House. That is why I am particularly concerned about this clause.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we are superficially attracted to this amendment and we await the Minister’s comments with interest.
Lord Bates
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I shall begin by looking at what I think is an area of common ground: we all recognise the importance of the financial services industry to the UK. Perhaps I may pick up on a point made by my noble friend Lord Flight, that one of the main purposes of this Bill is to ensure that the UK remains an attractive and competitive place to do business, retaining our place as a world leader in financial services. To do this in a no-deal context, it is essential that the UK retains sovereignty over our rules. From the perspective of financial stability and protecting the UK taxpayer, it is essential that the Government, the Bank of England and the FCA have the tools available to ensure that the UK markets are appropriately and effectively regulated.
It would be wrong to set a condition over the UK’s regulatory framework that means decisions which are made about the UK’s future regime are determined through the lens of maintaining equivalence to the EU, irrespective of the quality of those rules and how future legislation and the market itself may evolve.
Baroness Kramer
I think that there may be a misunderstanding. This would mean that statutory instruments could not be used to create divergence—it does not mean that primary legislation could not be used to do so. That is the underlying point.
Lord Bates
The legislation we are dealing with is in its very composition a temporary measure; it is a temporary piece of primary legislation with a sunset clause.
Baroness Kramer
I know that we will discuss the sunset clause later. It does not mean that the statutory instruments created under this legislation die after two years, it means only that the powers in the overarching legislation will die. However, those two years are the critical period, so the sunset clause does not have the consequence that I think the Minister might suspect it does.
Lord Bates
To go back to first principles, I am saying that the power in this Bill is not in effect to make policy—rather, it is the ability to produce secondary legislation that has a policy content to it and which would then be subject to scrutiny in this House. That power is being put in place for an extraordinary set of circumstances—I think we all agree that these are extraordinary circumstances and in fact I should underscore that we hope that these powers will not be required to be acted upon, because there will be a deal and we will continue to have access to the market in financial services across the EU. That is our aim, but we are preparing for all eventualities.
The noble Baroness will be aware that equivalence determinations are autonomous decisions with the EU and, in turn, the UK retaining autonomy for determining if a foreign jurisdiction has equivalent standards and supervision. The EU takes a varied approach to assessments of equivalence, tailoring its approach to individual regimes with regard to how the assessment is conducted. The Commission itself has stated:
“It is the equivalence of regulatory and supervisory results that is being assessed, not a word-for-word sameness of legal texts”.
Indeed, for a recent example, one need to look only at the EU’s statements on equivalence in a no-deal scenario. Within these, the EU has been clear that equivalence decisions of the UK will be made where justified in the interest of the Union and its member states, with time limits and conditions to their decisions where appropriate. As such, it is very difficult to judge what the EU will take into account in its future assessments and how its autonomous third-country regime will evolve. Such an approach, plus the breadth and variety of considerations that form part of equivalence determinations, from the rules themselves to supervisory approaches, means that it would be very difficult to determine what effect, if any, a change or adjustment that the UK makes to our laws might have on a future equivalence determination in a given area, given that these are autonomous decisions taken by the EU. It is therefore difficult to see how the test set out in this amendment could be met.
Let me reiterate the importance of, in the case of a no-deal situation, retaining the ability to adjust our legislation so that it best serves the aims and objectives of the UK once we have left the EU, as my noble friend Lord Flight has identified. It is crucial to ensure that we can bring into force pieces of legislation in a way that works best for the interests of UK markets. The Government are also committed to doing this as transparently as possible, which is why we have set out the strict reporting requirements to which I know we will return on Report. In the light of that, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I thank the Minister for his response. I shall deal first with the point that this might be legislation that will never need to be implemented. But the fact is that something like this will probably be needed when we get to the next cliff edge, and in any event by passing this Bill, we will also set a precedent for what might then follow in subsequent legislation. You cannot get some dodgy things through on the basis of reasoning, “Oh, we might never need it”. We know only too well the effect of having let something slip through once. I can assure the Committee that that is not something I had a reputation for in Europe and I would not allow it here if I had anything to do with it.
Like my noble friend Lady Kramer, I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that the legislation might not be “sensible” when looked at from the UK perspective. This is what is meant by not being able to fit in with the specificities of the UK. However, the trouble is that that is a very vague description. We would need far more of an indication of what is meant by that to allow it to be any kind of gatekeeper. I think that the point about equivalence is fundamental and it can be a gatekeeper. It is probably completely wrong not to contemplate having an equivalence Bill which actually lays out in more detail the sort of tests that would be applied. Looking further into the distance of how we deal with financial services legislation, we are not going to bring to the Floor of this House all the detail set out in the regulations and directives that I had to negotiate. The majority of that will no doubt be passed off to the Treasury and the regulators in some way that will not concern us. I am not sure that I agree with that, but I can see the writing on the wall. However, something big such as whether we want to stay aligned or whether we think that it has progressed too far—it is too uncertain, we cannot deal with this kind of uncertainty, and what are the tests?—could well be put into legislation.
I reject the notion that we cannot have a limitation such as this in some form or other as a guardian within this legislation because of the attitude of the EU and how it makes decisions. You know for sure that doing certain things would remove any chance of equivalence—such as leaving out a couple of articles of the main legislation. Boom! Not equivalent. There is no question. Because certain things are done in a slightly different way, maybe tweaking a little bit in a delegated Act would not be a bar, so that could possibly pass the test and go through.
I come back to subsection (2). The very first item there is a yes/no decision: are we having this, or will we neuter it to the extent that we do not have the buy-in regime of the CSDR? That is what it is all about. If we did not have the buy-in regime of the CSDR, we would not be equivalent in quite a lot of things to do with securities transactions, and maybe in things to do with our clearing houses or our exchanges. I remind the House of my interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange. These things are under active consideration, so doing something like that would, in my personal judgment, put equivalence at risk. I think you can make a dividing line through this.
Especially if there is some tentative encouragement from the Labour Front Benches, I think this is one of those amendments that usefully goes into the pot that we should be working on. The alternative is that you get even less, probably a very tight and improved version of Amendment 7, because an amendment such as this might offer not a great deal but a tad more flexibility—a tiny bit more. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
“( ) It is an objective of the Treasury, in exercising its powers under this Act, to ensure—(a) that financial markets in the United Kingdom and their participants are in no worse competitive position than if the United Kingdom had not withdrawn from the EU, and(b) that financial services regulations do not impose a disproportionate burden on small listed companies.”
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, at Second Reading this Bill was slated as a technical, tidy-up, hypothetical Bill. It has proven much more interesting than that. I remind your Lordships of the declaration of interests I made at Second Reading, predicting it would happen the following day. With my noble friend Lord Bates’s best wishes it did, so I am now a deputy chairman of an AIM-listed financial services company. Although I have made the declaration, it is not yet on the website, so I repeat it in Committee.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Bates said:
“In the event of leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement and without a future economic partnership the UK will not countenance accepting EU laws wholesale. It will therefore be vital to ensure that any legislation implemented in the UK can be adjusted to work best for the UK markets outside the EU in a no-deal scenario”.—[Official Report, 4/12/18; col. 935.]
I agree. It is important, both for the continued success of UK financial services and for the maintenance of equivalence with the EU post-withdrawal, that the competitive position of the sector is not adversely affected by the implementation of EU legislation.
The thrust of my remarks on the first part of the amendment is that transcribing EU legislation directly into UK law does not necessarily have the same result as if the UK were still part of the EU. It can in fact produce perverse and unintended outcomes. The best way of explaining this is by the example of the aforementioned central securities depositories regulation, CSDR. Leaving the EU will make the UK a third country under that regulation, so CSDR settlement discipline will not apply to EU dealers trading UK shares. But if we merely duplicate the CSDR in UK legislation, settlement discipline and the associated fines may be imposed on UK dealers trading UK shares in their own domestic market. That would leave the UK financial services participants at a competitive disadvantage to their EU peers while they are trading in the domestic UK market—clearly a nonsense. It illustrates why each piece of in-flight EU legislation should be considered separately, and why the Treasury should have the objective and power to amend each one appropriately, to ensure that the playing field remains at least level and that financial markets in the UK and their participants are not in a worse competitive position than if the UK had not withdrawn from the EU.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. My noble friend has raised an important point about Brexit itself and its implications for the regulatory regime. I do not propose to follow up on his technical discussion, but there is a wider point to be made. Here, I will draw on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who said that, in the two-year period during which the Bill provides powers, things will happen. We can set out our regulatory stall, but our strategy for regulation needs to become clearer during the two years in which the Act will be in effect.
It is important that the Government do some serious thinking about how this country will present itself to the world via its financial services as part and parcel of the new regime. Noble Lords will know that, for a number of years, I was a director of one of the self-regulatory organisations which governed the City before the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act. A wise old bird once told us that we should think about it like a high jump. If you set the bar too low, everybody can clear it and you will attract to your market all sorts of undesirable characters and firms, and there will inevitably be failures and problems, which will damage your overall reputation and therefore you will lose your world standing. By contrast, if you set the bar so high that nobody can get over it without enormous cost, bureaucracy, time and difficulty, you may have a market relatively free of failure but it will have very many fewer participants. I encourage the Government to think about how we set that high-jump bar for regulations, given the comments my noble friend made in his opening remarks.
The only other point I want to make is this: regulation tends to be on an upward lockstep. For the most part, regulators do not have a reverse gear. Few regulators come along and say that, given that the world has changed, they no longer need the powers they have because they can do a perfectly satisfactory job without them. Rather, they are left with those powers, which then have to be enforced and have a cost. The commercial vessel then gets more and more barnacles and slows through the water, and it is never able to go in for a hull clean.
My remarks are not an argument against regulation per se. They urge the Government to have regular reviews of regulation to ensure that it is properly focused and achieves a worthwhile result.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the longer the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Hodgson, spoke, the more concerned I became about their intentions in relation to the powers proposed in the Bill.
I fully accept the noble Lords’ perfectly reasonable intentions. We can have a debate on the right hygiene bar for the regulation of financial institutions—if Britain leaves the European Union, it will be a debate. The Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, opened it last week in his speech in Singapore, when he set out a vision of Britain being Singapore-on-sea, with a light-touch regulatory regime, offshore from Europe, ready to start competing—as I took it—on a lower bar. It perhaps will not be as low as the hygiene level mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that starts to discredit us as a reputable financial centre, but he clearly wants it to be lower—he is a Tory, and generally speaking this is what Tories want. There is no great secret around what it is that the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Hodgson, want.
The crucial issue, however, is how the noble Lords’ intentions relate to the capacity of the Government, under this Bill, to effectively legislate by decree. If the Government want to make big changes in our regulatory regime, they should be debated openly and fully in this House and in the House of Commons. Indeed, if they are substantial departures from existing practice, the more difficult it will be to deliver paragraph (b) in the amendment, which states that,
“financial services regulations do not impose a disproportionate burden on small listed companies”.
That is all the more reason why they should go through the full and proper legislative procedures of this House: Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. That way, we can debate whether the hygiene level of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is satisfactory. They make no argument whatever for giving the Government the power to rule by decree.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
For the Hansard writer, I did not say “hygiene”, I said “high jump”.
Lord Adonis
I did not hear the noble Lord across the Chamber, but it does not affect the point. He wants to vary the level of the bar—that is the issue. I do not object in principle: he has a right as a parliamentarian to put forward proposals for changing the level of the bar. However, I object strongly that the Government should be allowed to make those changes by decree, the power that is given to them by this Bill, but we will return to that on Report.
At the moment, the intentions of the European withdrawal Act are elaborately debated in this House, precisely to meet the objective rightly set out by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe: that there should be a transposing of European legislation to British law and any further changes to the law should be sufficient only to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in retained EU law. That is a limited objective which justifies the power of the Government to do this by Orders in Council. As soon as we get to much wider political objectives—the kind that the noble Lord has just set out and as set out by this amendment—it completely undercuts the justification for this Bill. The justification for this Bill should surely not be for major departures of this kind in the law and the regulatory regime to be made by Orders in Council rather than by the full, open and proper debate which is necessitated by introducing primary legislation.
Lord Flight
My Lords, first, I declare my interest in the register. I want to make a small point, to which no one has referred so far. There is quite an importance in the various trade and regulatory bodies to discuss with the Treasury, and potentially with the regulator in the EU, what makes sense and what does not. That is a check on the Government having too much power where they will potentially have to do things in a way that is not approved by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my declaration in the register of interests, particularly my chairmanship of PIMFA, the organisation that represents independent financial advisers and wealth managers.
I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the meaning and purpose of this amendment. But I have to say to my noble friend that one of the reasons for this amendment is that many of us are very concerned that the Treasury in particular should take very seriously the issues of the financial services sector and the contribution that it makes to the British economy. That seriousness has not always been evident.
Secondly, the European Commission has been very helpful in listening to the British applications and those of our colleagues in the rest of the European Union and, should we leave the European Union, which I trust will not happen, we would certainly expect to have at least as much access as we have on the present stage and certainly as much influence.
I am concerned because in the past we have sought to pass amendments that asked the Treasury to bear in mind important matters. For example, an amendment some years ago stated that the Treasury should insist that regulators bear in mind the need for savings in our society. That was pooh-poohed by the Government who said that it was entirely unnecessary and of course everybody knew that. The result has been that regulators have not taken that issue into account and indeed pointed out that the Government did not accept when it was suggested to them that saving as part of our society was important. So it is important to bring home to the Government the issues raised with this amendment.
I want to make two further points. First, this is a very competitive world. We need to have legislation if we are not a member of the European Union that enables us to continue to be as competitive as possible. This may not be exactly the right wording, but it carries that meaning. Secondly, small companies find much of the legislation not only burdensome but unnecessary—points that my noble friend Lord Leigh properly made. That is not because one wants lower levels of legislation.
At this point, I want to take serious objection to what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. I happen to be a Conservative. I sit on the Conservative Benches and I have been a Conservative Minister for longer than almost anyone else. But I am very much in favour of this regulation. The industry that I am happy to work in is also very much in favour of sensible legislation because we do not like cowboys either. They produce extremely bad reputations. Nobody can be tougher about the fact that we need proper regulation. There is no question in these amendments that somehow or other we would lower the bar. That is not the issue.
I would agree about some of the remarks made about Singapore. I am deeply upset to have a Foreign Secretary who thinks that Britain should be compared to Singapore. Fundamentally, that is as about as helpful as suggesting that we should be like Liechtenstein. I am sorry, but it is not a sensible comparison for so many reasons, not least because of the autocratic Government of Singapore. I do not want to be associated with them as a comparison.
However, our financial services need proper regulation. We want regulation, but it has to be proper regulation within the context of our competition. Therefore, it is proper to say that we do not want regulation that either makes it more difficult for us to compete or lays a disproportionate burden on the shoulders of small companies. Those seem two such simple and reasonable things to suggest that, on this occasion, my noble friends here and I are helping the Government.
Ministers are always suspicious, particularly when I say that I am trying to help the Government, but I am, on this occasion, trying to help them. I am doing it in great difficulty because I do not like this Bill at all. I do not want to leave the European Union. It is more and more clear that leaving the European Union is barmy, and we are having to spend time talking about barmy things that will take two years and then go away. It is a pretty insulting thing for this House, but that is what we are having to do. So I ask Ministers please to take this seriously and not to take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in the way that he put it, but merely to agree that the amendment is sensible. If the Government cannot give us that undertaking, I have to say that the financial services industry will be very suspicious. If the Government are not prepared to do at least as well as the European Union has done in negotiation and discussion, I will be very sad.
I hope that people notice just how good the Commission has been when they attack the European Union for bureaucracy and suchlike. It has been more open and more able to discuss, and more concerned about the issues than any of our governmental structures. We have to remind people that the European Union is more open, more willing to listen and more concerned to be there for industry than the Treasury has been in history, which is why this amendment has been tabled.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that every alarm bell went off in my head when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, basically argue that this would be a route to get naked short selling on AIM. This is essentially a mechanism that will allow people to enter into contracts which they know if they had to fulfil they would be very unlikely to fulfil—talk about risk. That general underlying principle worries many of us who think that a less speculative financial services industry is, in the long run, much more sustainable than a far more speculative financial services industry. That is exactly the point. It is people selling short shares that they will not be able to buy if they are ever forced to close on the contract.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
With great respect, I must say that that is not the situation in respect of the AIM market. This is where market-makers who are bound to make a market respond to requests for specified sums or amounts of shares with quoted prices. I think that the noble Baroness is talking about a different type of short selling.
Baroness Kramer
I thought that the noble Lord described naked short selling, which I thought I just defined. Anyway, I am nervous about the idea of policies such as this. There will be enormous pressure to use this opportunity, where the Treasury alone is the decision-maker, basically to loosen the regulatory structure that we have in the UK. That issue is a fundamental one for Parliament.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who talked about the need to find the appropriate place and that it is good that we can have those discussions with the Treasury, to have them with Parliament because there is another side to the argument. One reason why the UK been spectacularly successful as a financial centre is because the regulatory environment in which it functions is considered by many to be a global gold standard. If the noble Lord goes to countries such as China, India or other places, the level of trust and respect in financial institutions that are framed within those EU parameters—he could say it is foolish or sensible—is very high. It annoys the United States to heaven and beyond because so often it has loosened its regulatory standards but has not seen the business shift out of the EU into the US.
If you talk to companies, part of that reason is the reputational issue. For many companies, to be able to turn to clients and say, “I operate in the gold standard regulatory environment which means that you can trust me and what I do”, is so key to the future of their business that clients will reply, “If there is a significant loosening of standards, it might in the short term increase my profits but in the long term it will damage my regular relationship with my client base and I will need to move to the place that carries that gold standard kitemark”. Losing the kitemark is significant. That is something that this House and the other House should consider and should not be simply left to a conversation between the industry and the Treasury. It backs up our whole argument that this Bill, by transferring all those decisions simply to statutory instruments, is running into very dangerous territory.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, a couple of interesting points have been made in the context of this amendment. As it reads, it looks reasonably acceptable as we do not want gold-plating, which could potentially happen. I echo that the Commission has been particularly good at dealing with smaller companies and businesses. My experience is that that has not always been reflected in the UK when the dispensations have been a matter for the member state. On more than one occasion, I have written to regulators and others about that.
One of the points was about asymmetric effects and the fact that when we are no longer a member state the law will bear down on us when we replicate it, or nearly replicate it, in a different way from when we were a member state. It is not only in financial services legislation that this could potentially happen. It happens with contractual obligations. When we replicate Rome I and Rome II, if the other party is in, say, New York, the penalty for breach of contract will be different in the UK from what it would be in France because we no longer tick the member state box. It essentially means that the higher New York penalty will apply rather than it being limited.
I sit on one of the secondary legislation scrutiny committees, and there have been various occasions when asymmetries have come up. There have sometimes been attempts to balance them, but sometimes not. It depends. These judgments about asymmetries already appear to be going on under the withdrawal Act. From the ones that I have seen, by and large it has not looked as though we could have dealt with them differently, but the issue is worth investigating. To say that the Treasury should do what it can for small businesses is a good thing, whether or not we say that we should not be put in a worse competitive position. Our markets are bigger and, because we have bigger global markets, we may have to regulate in a way that looks stronger rather than weaker. There may be other ways that it does not suit the specificities. I would be a little worried about “no worse competitive position” taken to its extreme, but in the general sense it is possibly more acceptable.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, listening to this debate, one cannot but feel that this is about a policy decision. The last thing I want in this Bill is policy decisions which will introduce different levels of regulation and proportionality. That may not have been the intention. I did not find the words very attractive because they led me to all sorts of different scenarios. I think I heard it advocated as quite a narrow concept to provide against unintended consequences as a result of slavishly transcribing a piece of legislation. If that is the intention, it may have some attraction, but as drafted, the narrowness of that is in no way clear and the breadth of it would involve serious policy changes. It is not the purpose of this Bill to introduce serious policy changes.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I again thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Leigh. His amendment touches on the critical point with regard to the Bill, which is the importance of safeguarding the competitiveness of the UK’s world-leading financial services industry as well as maintaining proportionality in the regulations that govern these markets. These are two of the key reasons this Bill has been introduced. It will ensure that our regulatory system remains up to date in the period following a no-deal exit and that UK firms are not left at a competitive disadvantage as regulations are updated in the EU. I can of course assure my noble friend that the Treasury will exercise its powers under this Bill with competitiveness and proportionality firmly in mind, which my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Hodgson encouraged, and which my noble friend Lord Deben urged it to do.
When people are talking about the market in the City, people instinctively think of very large institutions, but having worked in the financial services industry, I recognise that it is made up of many small firms delivering outstanding benefits and value to their clients. There are some 58,000 small and medium-sized businesses operating in financial services.
In answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the reason the UK is so successful and the City of London so respected around the world is the strength of the regulatory basis. Reputation and trust are all when it comes to conducting financial services. If people are investing their life savings or pensions with organisations, they need to have confidence that the organisations they are investing in will look after them well and that they will get the return or benefit that they anticipate.
I therefore appreciate my noble friend’s helpful and well-intentioned amendment. However, I am mindful of the difficulties of placing these assurances on a statutory footing, given the difficulties of defining these terms clearly in legislation. In particular, judging the exercise of powers against a hypothetical case—for example, the state of the UK financial market had the UK not left the EU—would be highly challenging. It is also worth noting that many of the files are themselves being designed, with the UK’s input, at the moment, to aid competitiveness and proportionality issues. It is right that we put that on record at this point. My noble friend Lord Leigh set out clearly at the beginning that we pay tribute to the work of the Commission in listening to the voice of small business, a point to which my noble friend Lord Deben returned. Examples are the prospectus regulation listed in Clause 1, which creates a more proportionate regime for all firms, including SMEs, and key measures such as the introduction of a new growth prospectus—a lighter, less burdensome document—to be used by SMEs within the regulation. I hope my noble friend will recognise that the Government are alert to his concerns in this area and support the need to maintain the competitiveness of the UK financial services industry and to ensure that any regulatory burdens are applied to small and medium-sized enterprises in a proportionate way. In the light of these reassurances, I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I thank my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Hodgson for supporting this amendment. They have become the wise old birds. I was very pleased to have two people supporting this amendment who have started financial services businesses in London and grown them to be global financial services businesses. It goes to show the power and expertise that resides in this House.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his comments. I am sure he was not seeking to stereotype Tories. Curiously enough, although many people would regard captains of industry as natural Tories, one finds that the large multinationals are the companies that want more, not less, regulation because it consolidates their position. From the perspective of small businesses, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, we look for more appropriate regulation, rather than less regulation.
I am very grateful to him and to my noble friend Lord Bates for picking up my complimentary remarks about the EU Commission. I am a bit worried that I will be drummed out of the ERG after this. Nevertheless, it is true that the Commission has listened. My worry is that it listened to us because we had a voice. However, if we leave under a hard Brexit, we will not have a voice through bodies such as the QCA and therefore, because it does not really understand AIM and other aspects of the financial services industry in London, it will produce inappropriate regulation. We will need a very effective and immediate reaction to that, which I believe the Treasury is capable of doing.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the naked short selling by market-makers in the AIM market is essential to liquidity. It is not to be confused with naked short selling by hedge funds, which is a very risky and different proposition. It just goes to show that it is a complicated area. I will be honest: I am not wholly sure that I understand it or how it works but I understand that much—that it is essential to liquidity.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is right. Essentially this is about unintended consequences; none the less, it is always nice to get into legislation protection for the financial services sector and small businesses.
With the very welcome reassurances from my noble friend Lord Bates, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I can be brief because we have already had at least four debates this afternoon on the exact issues that this amendment and Amendment 11 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe deal with. It all revolves around the fact that we are not prepared to give the Government and the Treasury primary powers over issues that would normally require primary legislation just because this Bill has some exceptional qualities to it. It does indeed have exceptional qualities, as has been pointed out on all sides. It is meant to have a lifetime of a bare two years. The vast majority—I will withdraw that remark; I cannot qualify it. Some people who have spoken today have sought to make some improvements to the Bill but I do not have the slightest doubt that they hope that the Bill will never be necessary and that we will not crash out of the European Union without an agreed position.
Two debates ago, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, did exactly what we seek to do with this amendment—that is, to identify just where our limits are with regard to the intention in the Bill and to point out that it is misconceived because it attributes to the Treasury powers that we ought not to allow it to have. We thought that we had spotted the area where the debate would flare up most significantly in Henry VIII powers terms, but in fact these issues have already been discussed without the need to mention that moniker too often.
I therefore move this amendment on the basis that the Committee and the Minister know only too well the strength of feeling on all sides that this Bill cannot be a Trojan horse to allow the Treasury and the Government to introduce measures that they would ordinarily introduce through primary legislation but which they are trying, through the enabling quality of this Bill, to introduce through statutory instruments and Treasury adjustments. We have debated this matter long and hard. We all know where we stand and I therefore beg to move, although I do not expect too much in the way of contributions in support.
Lord Bates
My Lords, first, I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee in thanking the noble Lord for his succinctness in presenting his amendment. I recognise the old adage that everything needs to be said but not everyone needs to say it. That is a good principle. In following him in that spirit, I will put on the record a few comments that I believe will be helpful for our wider debates.
We appreciate the concerns across the Committee regarding the Henry VIII powers and, where they are proposed, it is clear that their necessity must be well evidenced. In the case of the financial services legislation, to which the power in this Bill will apply, I hope that noble Lords will accept the need for such a power.
An inability to amend existing primary legislation such as the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 will render it impossible to implement this necessary body of legislation. Further, as noble Lords will be aware, the exercise of many functions under financial services legislation is carried out by the independent regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England. The capacity and expertise of the financial regulators will be absolutely crucial to the effective implementation of these pieces of legislation and, consequently, to the resilience and prosperity of the financial services sector here in the UK.
The amendment would remove the ability to delegate to the regulators because, as a general rule, a power to make secondary legislation does not include a power to sub-delegate. An inability to effectively delegate powers to the regulators in implementing the legislation contained in this Bill would severely undermine the value of transposing the original legislation into UK law. In many cases, it would effectively render legislation unenforceable, and the Bill would simply not be able to achieve its central goal of ensuring that the UK continues to be an attractive and competitive place to do business in the immediate two-year period post exit, in the unwelcome and unlikely event of a no-deal scenario. Given this context and the context of the previous debate, I invite the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Adonis
Lord Adonis
My Lords, my Amendments 11A, 11B, 12A and 15A seek to establish fuller procedures for the consideration of any changes to the law that the Government might wish to make that go beyond simply transposing European law in the shape of seeking advice from the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee or any other committee charged by the House of Commons or the House of Lords with fulfilling similar functions, as well as advice from the Bank of England.
Given the gravity of the issues that are potentially at stake in these changes in the law over and above simply transposing existing European law, advice from these committees is essential because we have to make significant decisions where the only power that we have is to say yes or no to statutory instruments. We will not tease out the issues, as we do in the normal course of Committee debates such as this. As one long experienced both as a Minister and as an opposition Member going through that process, I know that it is hugely valuable for the House at large in coming to understand and get to grips with the issues at stake. However, by definition those processes will not be available under this Bill because its whole purpose is to give the Government the power to legislate by means of statutory instruments, which are either subject to no debate whatever in this House or subject to only a short debate with the power to say yes or no.
In those circumstances, imposing on the Government a requirement to seek advice first from the Treasury Select Committee, our own delegated legislation Select Committee and the Bank of England, and to make that advice available to Parliament, would be both an important means of informing your Lordships and Members of the House of Commons about the issues at stake and, to be blunt, a check on the Government’s acting without seeking proper advice, while exposing their proposed changes in the law to proper scrutiny.
Lord Deben (Con)
I hope that my noble friend the Minister has listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on this matter. We are faced with a real difficulty here. We have agreed to many kinds of legislation, of which this is only one, to protect ourselves against the extraordinarily damaging situation whereby we leave the European Union without a deal. One of the dangers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed, was that, if we are not careful, we will be so sure that something is not necessary that we will not look at it as carefully as we ought.
The reason I suggest that my noble friend take Amendment 7 and the amendments that we are now discussing very seriously is this: the whole purpose of Parliament is to make sure that we expose the full extent of decisions of the Executive; it is to curb the Executive in the sense that it ensures that things do not slip through with unintended results.
I am sure that the Government have every intention of using this legislation properly; I am in no way criticising them about that. However, it is true that decisions made primarily by civil servants, which are not open to public scrutiny, can be disastrous. Any of us who have been Ministers know that; we know that one of the most important, perhaps the most important, protection the public have—and the most important discipline that one has as a Minister—is that decisions have to be debated and discussed. My noble friend knows that in this House, where we have limited powers, it is still true that very often during Committee and Report terrible gaps have been shown in legislative proposals. These are gaps which, once they have been revealed, the Government are rapidly determined to fill: to change what they are proposing because they had not meant to have that result.
In those circumstances, it is difficult, is it not, to give these powers so totally to the bureaucratic system? That is so even if one imagines that Ministers themselves have no intention of delivering other than what is perfectly in line with these legislative requirements. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should in all circumstances be a public discussion. The Government’s usual response is, “We can’t possibly do this as there isn’t time”. I am prepared to accept that as a generality, but this is not to impose a long-winded system; it is merely to say that what is proposed shall have sufficient public exposure and discussion to enable people to see whether it is within the proper confines of the Bill or reaches beyond it.
Although I had to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on an earlier amendment and his view of it, this one seems to draw attention to a very real issue. My noble friend and I share a considerable desire that these circumstances shall never arise. He is in no position to share my further desire, which is that we shall not leave the European Union anyway—I have no idea what his personal views are but I know what his views have to be at the Dispatch Box. The public will become less and less enamoured with this whole unprofitable and unacceptable process. If the Government want to protect themselves, at least to some extent, it is extremely important to make sure that these matters are processed in public. If they were ever to come about, the Government would find that protecting and defending what they have done was extremely hard, but why not accept that some further process beyond that allowed for in this Bill would be a democratic help in circumstances which will, we hope, not occur?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I agreed with the amendments of Lord Adonis; I do not agree that they are not needed, even with Amendment 7. There is still the issue of sequencing in terms of what is and is not being done; Amendment 7 does not solve the cherry-picking point or various other things. I attach quite a lot of importance to the reports provided by subsections (8) and (9). In that context, I read the amendments that added in the Bank of England. The noble Lord has explained that in the sense of taking advice from the Bank of England. But when doing these transpositions, there are inevitably delegated acts and other associated things that will be done at the level of the regulators and will not even be contained in a statutory instrument. Therefore I thought it was right that the regulators reported how things are dealt with as well as the Treasury. I support the amendment but would add the PRA and the FCA. In that way, we get the full Treasury report through to the regulators, so that we see that we are all on the same page and where the tweaks, even within the available limits, are made. So I agree with the noble Lord.
As to whether Amendment 11A is needed, there is no harm in putting it there. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and other committees will still be doing their part when the things come to them, so I see no reason not to give some work to the Treasury Select Committee.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we have an open mind on the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, hit the nail on the head in saying that the gap between primary legislation and the SI process is too wide. Since we are shovelling a lot of stuff into the statutory instrument process, this is a good time to consider some intermediate action. I do not move from my commitment to tighten up what is available for secondary legislation under this Act, and we will be pursuing that, but I shall listen to the Minister’s response with care to see whether this would be the occasion to make some progress in this important area and give two views of a piece of secondary legislation, instead of the usual process. No matter how hard the Minister and I, and colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, try to give some life to the affirmative SI process, we know in our hearts that we are not going to vote against it because we are not going to provoke a constitutional crisis. Some process in between the two—this may be the right one—deserves careful consideration.
Lord Bates
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for introducing his amendment, and all noble Lords who have spoken. I will touch on some of the points made, but before I do, perhaps I may say that, as we are moving rapidly through the different groups, it is important that we keep updating where we are. In earlier groups, I was responding positively to my noble friend Lord Deben’s point that the legislature needed to be better informed about the effects where changes are made and where we are derogating from existing directives that are in flight. I dealt with the concerns that had been raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and agreed to meet and talk further about them—so as we move along I do not want to lose sight of the fact that this is an unfolding story. Already, three hours into Committee, we have agreed to undertake and look carefully at some of the points raised.
I recognise the immense wealth of expertise which is here, not least in ministerial office from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I would not dare try to calculate the years of ministerial office represented by my noble friend Lord Deben, especially when I have my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham to my left; between them they could put up a cricket score of years.
There needs to be proper scrutiny; I accept that. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee already scrutinises all instruments laid before each House that are subject to parliamentary proceedings, and it is required to draw to the special attention of the House those instruments which are politically or legally important, or which give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. In addition, Standing Orders set out that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments must report on affirmative statutory instruments before debates can be scheduled. This is the established process for scrutinising statutory instruments, and it is a model we have sought to follow.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I certainly was talking in terms of what was delegated and how it was dealing with the things that it then had to deal with. I am not sure that that was the same as the mover’s view, but mine was in the category of doing what was within its power.
Lord Bates
I agree, in that spirit, to take back that point and look at it in the wider context of my opening remarks in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage, because we will return to these issues in some detail at Report, hopefully with some more to say.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that characteristically open-minded and engaging response. I would welcome the opportunity for further discussions. The interaction between my amendments and Amendment 7 is crucial. If Amendment 7 is carried, the scope of the changes we are talking about reduces so markedly that the need for advice also reduces. In particular, if Amendment 7 is carried, it is not clear to me that the generality of the issues in the Schedule would come before the House in the form of statutory instruments anyway; they would come before the House in the form of primary legislation.
Primary legislation is of course subject to all those processes of parliamentary scrutiny and decision-making that deal with the underlying concern that there will not be enough exposure of the issues at stake to debate and consultation. The interaction between Amendment 7 and my amendments is crucial. A good deal of the case for my amendments depends on what the Government and the House decide to do in respect of the issues raised in Amendment 7.
However, the wider issue that has come out in this debate and comes up time and again in this House is well worth us considering further on Report: namely, how Parliament deals with secondary legislation and statutory instruments. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, is completely right. I thought it was neatly put by my noble friend: there is far too big a gulf between the way we consider statutory instruments and the way we consider primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned bars. We have a very high bar for changing the law by primary legislation, with hour after hour of debate—in discussing this two-clause Bill we are now in our fourth hour of Committee. We have had a Second Reading, and we will have Report and Third Reading. Those procedures are tried and tested.
When it comes to secondary legislation, much of which introduces changes to the law—particularly under this Bill, potentially—that are equivalent to changes brought about by primary legislation, our consideration of these changes is cursory. It is a brief debate if you are lucky when a statutory instrument is debated by the House, and there is no power to amend it. As my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe said, if we try to reject it we will get immediately into a constitutional crisis because there cannot then be the process of reconciliation between the two Houses that takes place in the case of ordinary legislation.
Time and again we come up against this issue. To be blunt, time and again we duck it, because there is no great desire on the part of the Government to give us powers to amend statutory instruments or to have more elaborate procedures for discussing them, precisely because that would, in fact, make your Lordships more powerful on statutory instruments because we could then amend them and ask the House of Commons to think again. The issues raised by the Bill and all the requirements to do with leaving the European Union put this in stark relief, because a very substantial part of the legislative business of Parliament over the next two to three years if we leave the European Union will be conducted by means of statutory instruments, including all the fundamental changes to the financial regulatory system set out in the Schedule.
The conclusion I draw from all this is precisely the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Deben: we are at one on the fundamental issue that we should not be leaving the European Union in the first place. One of the reasons why we should not be doing so is that we are not taking back control but giving the Government unprecedented powers to rule by decree—which is, of course, farcical. We have far more control at the moment, from the combination of our established procedures for primary legislation when it comes to our changes in the law, plus all the democratic processes we have within the European Union in respect of changes to the law made at the European Union’s behest, than we will ever have by leaving it and having no role to play in the changes recommended or brought about by the EU, and then having to go through this truncated rule by decree process in this Bill and the EU withdrawal Act.
So the right response to all the debate we have had today is not to leave the European Union and to have a people’s vote to give us the opportunity to express the ever more pronounced view of the public that this whole thing is deeply antipathetic not just to the best interests of the country but to our proper parliamentary procedures. But it is probably going a bit too far to press the Minister to accept that whole case just in responding to my one amendment, so just for now I will beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12 I will speak to Amendments 13, 14 and 15, all of which are consequential. In this we will touch on some of the points raised in Amendment 6 by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I am extremely grateful to her for having put her name to these amendments, as I am to my noble friend, Lord Leigh of Hurley.
The debate at Second Reading on 4 December and the debates on the amendments we have had this afternoon showed the very wide executive powers the Government are taking under the Bill’s provisions, notwithstanding the existence of a two-year sunset clause. The Government argue, in my view with some justification, that in the event of a no-deal Brexit these wide powers will be needed to cover the wide range of eventualities that might result from such an outcome. Further, given the great importance to the UK of the financial services sector, these powers are doubly needed. But if the Government accept, as I believe they do, that these powers are unusually wide, they surely cannot object to the legislature having a higher degree of transparency regarding when and why these powers will be used, so that it might undertake its proper constitutional role—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others—while scrutinising the activities of the Executive and holding them to account.
I respectfully suggest that the Bill as drafted fails in this purpose. Under Clause 1(8) the only evidence or check of the Government’s use of the power is the report by the Treasury, which it must provide at the end of 12 months—that is, April 2020. Noble Lords will be aware that this is already half way through the two-year period. The phrase about shutting stable doors and bolting horses comes to mind. No less importantly, while Clause 1(8) requires the Treasury to report when it has used the powers, it does not require any explanation as to why they have been used. The Treasury report in April 2020 under this subsection could be just a series of one-line entries.
My amendments have two very simple purposes: to shorten the reporting period and to require the report to include some qualitative explanation as to why it was felt necessary to use the powers in the first place. Amendment 12 would shorten the reporting period so that instead of there being just one report during the Bill’s life, there would be three: in October 2019, and in April and October 2020. Amendment 14 would require each of these reports to give a forward look on any expected use of the powers in the next six-month reporting period. Finally, Amendment 15 would require an explanation of the reasons why the powers are being used in the period under review and why their use is planned in the following six-month period.
Under the Bill, the Government are taking exceptional powers that, as has been pointed out repeatedly this afternoon, could in certain circumstances be used quite arbitrarily. I do not have the purity of approach of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—perish the thought. I am not sure that his purity of thought is entirely aimed at preserving the UK constitution; I think that he might have a wider objective, but never mind. However, I accept the broad argument of the unique challenge of a no-deal Brexit justifying the Government’s approach and the powers they propose to take. But I cannot and do not accept that the Bill as drafted gives sufficient opportunity for the legislature to scrutinise, let alone obtain justification of, their use. These modest amendments would redress this imbalance, achieve the degree of transparency commensurate with the seriousness of the intended powers and so help to maintain public trust and confidence. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I have Amendment 16 in this group. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, I added my name to his amendments and I thank him for trying to bring some better order to the reports and to increase the frequency with which they are produced. Amendment 16 says that the reports must include a table setting out which provisions of the financial services legislation have been transposed into domestic legislation, and under which statutory instruments. I ask for that because it is awfully difficult to know where things have been put. The Minister will recall that on several occasions when we have been discussing statutory instruments under the withdrawal Bill, I have had to go hunting for the articles of the legislation that has been transposed, and they have popped up in a different instrument and sometimes been dealt with at rather different times.
If that kind of thing is going to happen again, we need the safeguard of knowing where things have been put. In European parlance, this was called a “coronation table”, which showed where the European legislation ended up. One does not necessarily need to do that going forward, once we are amending under our own rules, but something like it would be a first step to obtaining equivalence, because we will also have to demonstrate to the EU where everything has been put. Therefore, this seems a useful addition to these reports, thereby keeping Parliament informed about how things are progressing.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we have constantly been debating the same issue, which this amendment addresses from another direction. I am afraid that my experience of government producing annual reports is that, on average, they tend to appear every 18 months, rather than 12 months. I am not quite sure what the last report of the two does anyway, and the idea of one meaningful report every six months has a lot to commend it. Being prescriptive about its contents would also be quite useful, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bates
I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for ably introducing this amendment. A substantial part of my speaking notes is remarkably similar to those for Amendment 2, when I responded to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on early reporting. Again, we have made some progress, so let us perhaps just leave that on the record.
I will make a couple of specific points about my noble friend’s amendments, and those which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has put her name to as well. These amendments would require the Government to lay reports on the use of the power every six months, rather than every year; to set out why the power would need to be used; and to include a table setting out the provisions of the EU legislation that have or have not been transposed into domestic legislation, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, mentioned in an earlier debate. Again, I can assure noble Lords that the Government’s intention has always been to set out such reasoning and detail as part of the reports referenced in subsections (8) and (9).
As to the frequency of the reports, the current drafting has been designed so that the reports will provide an overview of how the powers have been used in the first year, and how the Government propose to use them in the second year. The intention behind this is to allow enough time to pass for a meaningful report to be drawn together. I hope this helps to clarify the Government’s intention to be as transparent as possible in the exercise of these powers.
As with the amendments tabled earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I have listened carefully to the arguments being presented on all sides, and particularly in this instance by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. It may be that we need to consider further exactly how such a process can run, so that we can provide the House and Parliament with the necessary assurances that it seeks. In that regard, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, given my commitment that we will look again at this issue and seek to make some constructive suggestions on a new way forward at Report.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I thank all those who have taken part. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his two-thirds of a loaf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, whose amendment I should have referred to in my opening remarks; it was rude of me not to have done so. A table of derivations and destinations is what I think such a table would be called in UK law; it would be a very helpful addition to the schedule to the reports that we have in mind. My noble friend was smooth—to the point that I thought he was going to turn me down on, but at the end the horse swerved in and jumped the fence. I am glad that he has agreed to put this into the mix. I am grateful to him and happy to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Lord Sharkey
“Expiration of regulations
Any regulations made under section 1 expire after the period of four years beginning with exit day.”
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, given the debate so far I can be very brief. If the Bill proceeds as currently drafted, it will enable the Treasury to create a new set of laws and policies for our financial services industry, all via secondary legislation. These new laws and policies will not have been exposed to proper parliamentary scrutiny and will not have been amendable. This stands in extreme contrast to the careful, detailed and very lengthy scrutiny given to all previous changes in the laws and policies for our financial services industry—scrutiny which has frequently resulted in very significant amendments. This is an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I know we will come back to this on Report.
But if we are to have legal and policy changes introduced by SI, then we should at the very least have the opportunity to review them after the fact. That is what my amendment proposes. The Bill as it stands contains a sunset provision for the powers in Clause 1. My amendment proposes a sunset provision for the regulations created by the powers in Clause 1. The sunset provision for the powers extends for two years after we leave the EU. My amendment proposes that the new regulations expire two years after that.
This would have two effects. It would give time to assess how the new regulations were working in practice. It would also mean introducing primary legislation to reinstate and/or modify or add to new regulations. This would guarantee what we do not have in this Bill: a means of proper, full parliamentary scrutiny of new laws governing a critical part of our national and economic life. My amendment would restore to Parliament the ability to debate and amend these new laws in the proper context of primary legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
I want to make one very quick comment to add to those of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. There is a real danger that the pattern within this Bill becomes a precedent, and that for future financial legislation we in effect see this process of Treasury decision enacted through statutory instrument. This sunset clause would make that impossible. It would make sure that this was, in effect, a one-off, and that there was a return to normal practice following the end of four years.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is time to be kind to Ministers when one gets to this end of the Bill. My advice to the Minister is to indicate what a logjam of SIs there would be four years on from the consequences of this strategy. I understand entirely, and sympathise very much with the intent behind the amendment, but if I were the Minister I think I would point out a few of the practical difficulties.
Lord Bates
There speaks the voice of experience. From his time speaking from this side of the Chamber, the noble Lord has perhaps pre-empted some of the concerns that we would have about this proposal, but let me put them on the record.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us an opportunity to debate this important area. In implementing files under the Bill, it will be necessary to amend existing legislation to reflect updates to the regime. Should all powers under the Bill lapse at a stroke, without replacement, the legal effect on amended legislation would be unclear.
At a time when we should be seeking to provide industry with clarity and certainty, I am afraid that the amendment would have the unfortunate and unintended effect of providing just the opposite. Rather than minimising the cliff-edge risks, it would create a new series of cliff-edge challenges to be faced in the coming years. The potential for this legislation to lapse without replacement does not provide certainty to firms. Compliance with new regulatory regimes can be costly, and it would have a negative effect on firms’ confidence in the Government’s ability to set effective and proportionate regulation should we implement vital legislative reform only for it to drop away after a given period.
I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that regulations made using this power will have a lasting effect on the structure of the UK’s financial services regulatory framework. This is why the power can apply only to a limited set of important files, which have been set out on the face of the Bill. In a no-deal scenario, implementing those files could be crucial to avoid conceding a competitive advantage to businesses operating in EU-based markets or to remain compliant with the Basel rules and meet our G20 commitment to international standards.
The noble Lord is clearly right, however, in pointing out that this cannot be a long-term model for a regulatory framework. Beyond this temporary solution, once we have left the EU in a no-deal scenario, the Government recognise the clear need for an approach that balances parliamentary oversight of financial services legislation with maintaining the flexibility and competitiveness of our regime. To that end, we will take forward proposals for a sustainable, long-term model in due course.
It is perhaps worth pointing out also that the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 requires the inclusion of a statutory review clause in secondary legislation that regulates business if the legislation continues to have effect five years after its entry into force. When taking forward SIs under the Bill, the Government will therefore be under a duty to make provision to undertake a post-implementation review after five years or to publish a statement that it is not appropriate in the circumstances to do so. In this light, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Sharkey
In the light of the Minister’s very informative response, for which I am very grateful, I am delighted to be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
“14A The European Commission’s proposal of 24 May 2018 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment.14B The European Commission’s proposal of 24 May 2018 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on disclosures relating to sustainable investments and sustainability risks and amending Directive (EU) 2016/2341.”
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, at Second Reading, I asked the Minister how the specified in-flight files contained in the Schedule were chosen. He replied:
“Those are the files that we believe will be the most important for market functioning and UK competitiveness in a no-deal scenario. Those in-flight files not listed on the face of the Bill include those that apply only to eurozone members, which we would never have implemented as a member state, those that the UK has opted out of, and those where there is not a critical need to implement the legislation in the narrow window of time covered in the Bill”.
I asked the question because I was curious about the Government’s thinking and because of the exclusion from the Schedule of two particular in-flight files.
Those files, which the amendment would add to the Schedule, were drawn to my attention by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association. Both of them have their origin in the work of the European Commission’s high-level working group on sustainable finance and its January 2018 report on the matter. The UK was heavily involved in that. We had seven of the 20 members of the expert group; France had four and Germany had two. The files are the Commission’s proposal of 24 May 2018 for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment and the Commission’s proposal of the same date for a regulation on disclosures relating to sustainable investments and sustainability risks.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I, too, raised this issue at the conclusion of my speech at Second Reading. I quite understood, with the vast range of issues that the Minister had to respond to on that day, his feeling unable to go into great detail on this one. That is why I was delighted to sign up to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. The Minister has a real case to answer here, and I hope that we will have a constructive response.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I hope I can oblige the noble Lord, Lord Davies, with a constructive response to end Committee. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I understand that several Members have received representations from the sustainable finance industry. This amendment seeks to add to the Bill’s Schedule two EU files that complete the European Union sustainable finance package.
As I have mentioned already, the Government acknowledge that the power being sought in this Bill is broad. That is why it has been designed with a number of safeguards and limitations in place. One of these is for the power to be limited to a specified set of EU legislative proposals, named on the face of the Bill. In order to focus the power as narrowly as possible, the list of files in the Schedule to the Bill was determined through an assessment of the importance of files to the stability and competitiveness of the UK’s financial services sector. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, highlighted this as one of his concerns when moving his amendment. In short, these are the files that we believe will be the most important for market functioning and UK competitiveness in a no-deal scenario.
I will, of course, be very happy to meet the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on this issue. I think we are already going to be meeting quite a bit between now and next week. I have listened carefully to the arguments in favour of the merits of adding these files to the Schedule, and I undertake to reflect on the matter ahead of returning to it on Report. In the light of this, and of the discussions that will take place, I invite the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s answer and look forward to what may be several meetings between now and Report. As the last speaker tonight, I hope that the Committee will allow me to make a very quick, general observation. As I listened to the debates today, it seemed to me that there was a real, structural problem with the Bill. It sets out to do two things: first, to onshore approved, but not applied, EU legislation; and, secondly, to make possible the onshoring of specified in-flight legislation. The problems we are discussing tonight are largely because we are trying to do both of those things using the same mechanism. That is going to be very difficult.
It might be better to consider simply applying the strict rules of Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act—or Amendment 7—to all those approved, but not applied, pieces of legislation listed in Clause 1(2)(a) and (b); and, separately, to require primary legislation to deal with the in-flight legislation coming our way, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
I thank the Minister again for his observations on Amendment 18 and beg leave to withdraw.
Conflict-affected Countries: Adolescent Girls
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support adolescent girls in fragile and conflict-affected countries.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, as this debate now constitutes the last business, the time allocated to Back-Benchers can be extended to six minutes, if any Back-Bencher so desires.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, adolescence is a critical stage of life, but for girls in fragile and conflict-affected countries the combination of adolescence and conflict exposes them to maximum danger, and what happens to them in adolescence will have a profound effect on them for the rest of their lives. The lack of recognition of the critical significance of this period of their lives means that the needs of adolescent girls are falling through the gaps of the global humanitarian response. Before I progress, I declare an interest as co-chair of the APPG on Women, Peace and Security, as a member of the steering board of the Initiative to Prevent Sexual Violence in Conflict and I have an association with a number of organisations specialising in women’s issues, as set out in the register of interests.
Across the world more than 200 million people need humanitarian assistance and protection and there are currently more people displaced because of conflict and persecution than at any other time in history. It is recognised that conflict disproportionately affects women and girls, and as Major General Patrick Cammaert, Deputy Force Commander of the UN Mission to the DRC in 2008, said:
“It is now more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in modern wars”.
While we talk about putting the needs of women and girls at the heart of development, they are not a homogenous group. Certain times of life, certain groups of women, may be in particular need. INGOs acknowledge that it is rare for the humanitarian sector, or indeed the girls’ own communities, to pay much attention to adolescent girls. Over the last year, Plan International commissioned research to further understand the unique impact that conflict has had on them, focusing on two age brackets—those aged 10 to 14 and 15 to 19. I thank Plan for this research, because it has made clear that adolescent girls are affected in very different ways from their male counterparts or adult women. Plan gives the example of a 10 year-old IDP girl in South Sudan called Ruba who, although she has to make the porridge for the one meal per day that her family eats, is given the smallest amount. Ruba says that she eats least and last. Yet adolescent girls are often not specifically identified, but rather counted among children, youth or women, which results in their complex and interrelated challenges being neglected.
It is hard to take part in today’s world without education, yet an estimated 131 million girls worldwide remain out of school, and 90% of these in conflict countries are adolescent. Education in fragile and conflict situations is often the first service suspended and the last service to resume. UNESCO statistics tell us that girls are 2.5 times more likely to be out of school if they live in conflict-affected countries: access to education is often curtailed during conflict; girls are often targeted in and around schools. Sometimes, families have so little that they are unable to provide uniforms or books, which will also prevent them attending. Refugee children are five times less likely to be in school than those in stable environments. Many teachers in refugee contexts lack the minimum 10 days training required by UNHCR. In Ethiopia, for example, only 21% of teachers of refugees had any professional teaching qualification. Yet evidence shows that education mitigates the risks girls face in conflict-affected areas. It helps deliver health services, provides psychosocial support, challenges gender norms, provides protection from violence and exploitation and builds an awareness of human rights.
Quality education in conflict can also help break the cycle of violence, redefine gender norms and promote tolerance and reconciliation, as well as helping bridge the gap during conflict and conflict recovery. In short, keeping adolescent girls in school not only benefits the girls themselves, it benefits their families, their communities and their nation. UNICEF research shows that equal access to education for male and female students decreases the likelihood of violent conflict by as much as 37%.
Heightened risk of sexual violence and destruction of livelihoods often forces parents to view marriage as the most secure and viable future for their daughters, and therefore girls are often taken out of school when they reach puberty. Each year of secondary education reduces the likelihood of a girl marrying before the age of 18. Ensuring that girls stay in school gives them a better chance of safety and security and of making their own life choices and decisions. According to the OECD, nine out of the 10 countries with the highest child marriage rates are considered either fragile or extremely fragile states. For example, in Yemen and Syria child marriage has increased at an alarming rate. UNICEF states that 65% of Yemeni girls are now married before 18, compared to 50% before the conflict.
This House has discussed the horrors of modern slavery and trafficking before, and adolescent girls are particularly vulnerable, yet current efforts to prevent modern slavery globally are largely gender blind and do not address root causes such as gender-based violence, discrimination, denial of education and poverty. What consideration do our aid programmes specifically give to addressing the high danger for adolescents?
Violence against women remains an epidemic across the world, with one in three women experiencing it in their lifetime. During conflict, this spirals out of control. For example, in Afghanistan, it is estimated that 87% of women suffer domestic violence, and here again adolescent girls are particularly vulnerable. Many in this House attended the PSVI film festival a few weeks ago. I commend the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict, my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, on his work and on ensuring an additional £500,000 of UK aid support for victims of PSVI. I am also delighted that the previous holder of this office, my noble friend Lady Anelay, is taking part in this debate, but I want to ask the Minister what more we can do to ensure that the UK does not lose momentum on this important issue.
Because adolescent girls in conflict and crisis-affected settings are at increased risk of rape, there is an increased need for sexual and reproductive health services, due to unwanted pregnancy, STIs and unsafe abortion. The World Health Organization states that the risk of pregnancy-related death in adolescent girls is twice as high for those aged 15 to 19 and five times as high for those aged 10 to 14 compared to a woman in her 20s. It is chilling to consider that 507 girls and women die every day in humanitarian contexts due to childbirth or pregnancy-related complications. Access to services and information is too often inadequate and access is dependent on adults accompanying them to any safe space or health clinic where services may be provided. Girls with physical, psychological or developmental disabilities have even greater difficulty in accessing services. All this has enormous ramifications for their future lives, and 26% of adolescent girls interviewed for Plan’s research reported having considered suicide at least once in the last 12 months.
Women have a large role to play in a country’s future, but will not be able to do so if they are not well supported in adolescence. Having women involved in the policy conversation and in decision-making positions makes a difference as to whether issues which have a disproportionate impact on 50% of the population—the women—are even discussed. I know from my experience of international women’s issues how vital it is to have women around the peace table and to have gender-focused humanitarian relief to ensure peace and stability for all, going forward. The UK holds the pen on women, peace and security at the UN Security Council and I congratulate the Government on their latest national action plan, but of course there is still more work to do. Female entrepreneurs and businesswomen can also support growth and stability through diversity. Female-led microfinance and SMEs can form a path out of poverty for individuals, families and communities across the globe.
Despite all the difficulties for adolescent girls that Plan’s research bears witness to, generally young women demonstrate an impressive resilience, and key factors to their happiness in a crisis were identified as family, friends, faith, education and security. I will illustrate why adolescence is such an important time to get it right for girls. A few years ago I visited Liberia with ActionAid. In one village we talked to women about sexual violence. “Oh yes, women and girls get raped”, we were told. I asked whether there was justice when that happened. They said, “Well, there is some justice if it is a child”, so I asked what age a girl was considered to be a child. “Under 10”, was the response. So an adolescent was considered fair game. One can clearly see that if things go wrong at this point in a girl’s life, it results in early marriage, teenage pregnancy, lack of education, an inability to be economically self-sufficient and a lifetime of underachievement and, probably, near-slavery.
I know that the Conservative Government have made a number of commitments that touch on this area, as set out in the Strategic Vision for Gender Equality earlier this year. But I ask my noble friend the Minister whether we can go one step further and work with appropriate stakeholders to develop a comprehensive implementation plan to ensure that adolescent girls do not continue to fall through the gap, thus ensuring better lives for them as women.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson—my friend, I hope I can say, even if it is not appropriate to call her my noble friend—for securing this debate and congratulate her on leading us off so brilliantly. She shines a light on this subject relentlessly. She did so for many years before she was a Member of your Lordships’ House, and she has used this platform in a formidable way over recent years to raise these vital issues. I am delighted to contribute to the debate that she has managed to secure.
Like the noble Baroness, I should declare my registered interests, which include references to advising in peacebuilding situations, as well as my positions at UNICEF and in other charitable organisations that work in this area. It is partly because of that experience that I am motivated to speak tonight. I remember 10 years ago meeting a young woman in Liberia who had been sold off to one side in the civil war. She was 17 and had a child who was maybe three years old by that point. She was asked by my colleague, in an attempt to turn the conversation to something more positive, what was good about having a child, and she looked us in the eye and said there was nothing good about having this child and there never would be. At 17, that young woman was technically still a child in most countries, yet she was facing a life with a memory and all the other implications that were going to affect her deeply for years to come. I have told your Lordships before about meeting young Saffa in a refugee camp in Iraq. She was strong about her situation and determined to build herself a future, but her life was affected most by the fact that her grades in school had gone down. That was the moment that she burst into tears, showing that education is absolutely vital to these girls.
This is partly about protection and partly about hope and education. In that context, we need to see our work in this area as part of our overall work for the global goals. The global goals include in goal 16 a firm commitment to peace and justice and creating the environment in which development can happen. They also include at their very core a commitment not just to gender equality but to women’s empowerment and defending the interests of women and girls everywhere. If the global goals are driven by the objective of leaving no one behind, surely, as we look around the world, one of the groups most likely to be left behind are adolescent girls in fragile and conflict-affected states. They are more likely to be raped. They are more likely to be forced into child marriage. They are more likely to suffer from FGM—still. They are more likely to miss out on education; for example, in Muslim Mindanao in the southern Philippines, girls are three times more likely to leave school before the end of primary school than in the rest of the Philippines. They are more likely to have significant health issues. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, has already said, they are more likely to be trafficked. They face multiple issues of violence and abuse but we also know that the evidence and statistics back up the fact that these girls face these issues more often and more severely than adolescent girls elsewhere.
In our overseas development assistance and our policy towards our international work, we should be driven not only by Agenda 2030 but by the aim of leaving no one behind. I am keen to hear from the Minister: what will we see in the UK’s voluntary national review to the UN this summer of our work on the global goals? What will we say about this vital area of supporting adolescent girls in fragile and conflict-affected states? How will we use our influence at the United Nations to ensure that UN work and policy on refugees and internally displaced persons protect and empower girls inside refugee camps? Will we also be willing to continue to take a stand internationally? When people refer to these practices as cultural, religious or driven by armed conflict, will we be willing to take a stand—no matter whether the country in which these incidents take place is a friend or foe—on behalf of these adolescent girls and speak up against those who are turning a blind eye or, in many cases, are the perpetrators?
There is real evidence of the impact that can be made when we get the policies right and the right action is taken, but we need to ensure that there is not just prevention in terms of protection—with the right systems and conditions in place, not just health protection for girls affected by violence in these situations—but that there is justice. Whether it is for the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Yazidis in Iraq or women and adolescent girls elsewhere, we need to ensure that there is justice because justice provides hope that in the future others might not find themselves in the same situation. We need to ensure that we are listening to adolescent girls in all these situations, that we are taking on board what they are saying, but also that we are prioritising the action that is required to ensure that at the end of the day this particular group is not left behind.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and her extensive work on women, peace and security. I shall focus my remarks on the support needed in South Sudan, where 60% of all sexual assaults are on girls aged 18 and under. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could update the House on the work of DfID, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence to deliver that support.
It is five years since the outbreak of a conflict that has had a devastating impact on the peoples of South Sudan. It is a country where 72% of children are out of school and a girl is more likely to die in childbirth than to complete her education. My honourable friend Minister Baldwin recently announced an additional £70 million for the next round of the Girls’ Education South Sudan programme. It aims to keep girls in school and to tackle the negative attitudes to women and girls that lead to early and forced marriage. How will the Government measure the success of that project?
During the conflict there was widespread perpetration of rape. Instances of that continue today in some parts of the country. The stigma and rejection faced by survivors of rape create obstacles for them to report crimes and seek medical and psychosocial help. My noble friend has already referred to the Plan International research, which showed just how affected—how mentally scarred—people were by their experience and how difficult it is for them to get any support. Indeed, Plan International points out that there is little or no evidence that there is any professional support for mental health issues across South Sudan for girls who have suffered such horrific assaults.
When I visited South Sudan, I co-hosted with UNFPA a workshop on stigma faced by survivors of widespread rapes committed during the conflict and continuing today. It was encouraging to listen to the discussions of girls and boys who were not accustomed to being asked for their views about what should be done to improve their own lives and prevent future violence. Last month, our ambassador to South Sudan and her staff travelled to Wau because they wanted to hear directly from women and girls—not just the chiefs—about what more the UK can do to support them. That was admirable and, in perilous circumstances, risky. It is vital to include adolescent girls in the design, implementation and evaluation of the humanitarian programmes that will affect them.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently visited South Sudan himself. Just a couple of weeks ago he went to Bentiu and Malakal in the north of the country, as well as to Juba. He learned about the impact of the extensive use of sexual violence in conflict, and he wants the Ministry of Defence, instead of the Foreign Office, to lead on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, saying:
“I see defence as the department leading on this across government and internationally”.
What is the Government’s view on where the departmental lead should be?
When I visited the Protection of Civilians camp in Malakal, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence also visited recently, I learned how international support can have unintended consequences if it focuses only on the delivery of one level of support and does not look at the whole problem. I met an orphaned teenage survivor of rape, who was bringing up her child. She told me that she now felt able to risk leaving the camp to go in search of enough food to feed both her child and her younger siblings, because, she said, “Now that we have a clinic here, I know that when I’m raped, I can get medical treatment when I get back to the camp”. What an indictment of the way people have to make choices.
The Government of South Sudan, the international community, civil society and leaders of faith all need to do more to work together to ensure that such girls can face a better future.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
I thank my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for enabling us to have this debate this evening. I declare my interests as in the register: I am a member of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at the LSE, and I am on the board of the Institute for Women, Peace and Security at Georgetown.
I welcome this debate this evening. The Government have been a leader on this issue and I hope very much that they will continue to do so but will also put pressure on other countries, foundations and global institutes to increase their budgets and follow Britain’s lead.
Why should we be concerned about supporting adolescent girls in fragile and conflict-affected countries? Today, 62 million girls around the world are not in school, and at least 20 million of them live in conflict-affected and fragile settings as refugees or displaced people, or are otherwise vulnerable to human trafficking, rape and other things that we have never even thought about. So many lives are being wasted. These girls sometimes become pregnant at eight or nine and have babies. Their babies cannot become full adults because they are not fully formed. This is the battle we have to continually fight to have all girls in education.
Educating girls is the smart and the right thing to do and is the world’s best development investment. We have to persuade the British Government, and other Governments who have cut their budgets, in particular Australia and America, and persuade Japan and other countries to do more. But it is not just about the funding and commitments; we should be ensuring access to quality. We should not have teachers who we know have had just a few days’ training—we want the best and must pay the best to work in these difficult areas, to have consistent education for girls in these settings.
Why does this matter? If girls are educated, in the long term we prevent forced marriage; lower maternal and neonatal mortality; spur on women’s financial independence; reduce fertility rates; create smaller, more sustainable families; improve health and nutrition outcomes for families; shrink the rates of HIV/AIDS and malaria; and open opportunities for women’s political leadership. If more women are not educated, we will never get more women in political leadership at every level, and as we know, Britain has agreed not to go to peace talks without local women and other women at the peace table. How can we get local women if they are not being educated? Educating girls also increases children’s educational attainment levels, builds familial resilience to natural disasters and climate change, and boosts national economic growth.
To access education, displaced adolescent girls must overcome several challenges, such as transition and disruption, and problems with host countries and camps. We must have better support for them, not just using regular military people but trained military people, working with NGOs on the ground and trying to persuade people from those countries.
Four of the five countries that currently have the largest gender gaps in education also experience high levels of conflict. This is where we must start to put pressure at the highest level. We cannot just come in low down—we have to ensure that commitments materialise on the ground. However, the challenges to providing quality educational opportunities remain significant. Within this context, educating displaced adolescent girls is particularly challenging, but it is imperative for the long-term stability and prosperity of not only their countries—their GDP—but the world.
Since the adoption of the millennium development goals in 2000, significant progress has been made in increasing girls’ primary school enrolment, but secondary school enrolment remains limited. We know why that is: girls are either sold off or their parents get them married off because they think, “I’ve got rid of another problem in my life”. Fewer than one in three girls in sub-Saharan Africa and less than half of girls in south Asia are currently enrolled in secondary education. Of at least 14 million refugee and internally displaced children between three and 15, only one in two attends any form of school at all, and for how many hours? When crises strike, adolescent girls are acutely vulnerable. In these settings, girls are two and a half times more likely to be out of school as compared to their male peers. What a world we are living in. That is why I hope that we can have a more joined-up approach from the FCO, DfID and the Ministry of Defence. I know that they work together, but we need to look towards a future in which we all work together, pool the money, and get more support from organisations that have funding.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this important debate, and I acknowledge the work that she has been doing on this over many years. I first met her when I was DfID Minister for two years; I was also the ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas for all five years of the coalition Government.
I was also the Minister responsible for Africa. During that time, I do not think there was a country I went to in Africa where girls, particularly adolescent girls, were not oppressed, suppressed and violated. I will give just a few examples. In Kinshasa, in the DRC, I visited a refuge for young girls which DfID was supporting. Most of them had been thrown out of their homes and villages, often because they had been believed to be witches. With nowhere to go and no one to go to, they end up on the streets of Kinshasa, where they are often beaten or raped and end up pregnant.
I acknowledge what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about South Sudan; it was the first country I ever visited as a Minister. For the most part, girls there are considered property to be sold. Virtually no ante or post-natal healthcare is available. As the noble Baroness said, the result is that a 15 year-old South Sudanese girl is far more likely to die in childbirth than complete any stage of secondary education.
A couple of noble Lords mentioned justice. A lot of the young girls I met in these countries said that if they went to the police to report a rape or violence, they were just as likely to be raped by the police as they were to be listened to by them.
Perhaps the most striking memory for me was going to the refugee camps on the borders of the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, where there was no protection at all. At the time I left DfID, one of our missions was to ensure that the protection of women and girls in refugee camps was made a first-order priority, alongside food, shelter and water; an adolescent girl may never recover from the damage done to her by the violence she may encounter in such a situation. The need is desperate. Many girls are traumatised by what has happened to them. They have no stability. They are taken from their communities, families and homes. They are alone and vulnerable to violence, rape, HIV and pregnancy when they are children themselves. Is violence against women and girls now a first-order priority in refugee camps? What is DfID doing about that? Are aid agencies being encouraged to move forward on that front?
I am often angry with the Daily Mail but I was particularly angry about its attack under its previous editor on Yegna, an Ethiopian acting and five-piece girl group. The group was belittled, trashed and ridiculed but in Ethiopia, Rwanda and other places, it was a brilliant way of reaching young girls via videos and radio performances in a weekly drama and talk show because radio is one of the great forms of communication in Africa— people listen to it. The show addressed all sorts of issues and gave girls information on forced marriage, isolation and teen pregnancies. However, scared by the headlines, the then Secretary of State for International Development announced in January 2017 that DfID would no longer fund this work.
How do you reach girls? How do you show them a different world in places where being a girl means that you have no rights, no back-up and no power. Justine Greening—my Secretary of State when I was at DfID—had the right idea. She coined the phrase “giving girls voice, choice and control over their lives” and fully supported my work on FGM. When I arrived in DfID, the first thing I said was that we were going to address FGM; it takes a long time for a Lib Dem to get into power so I was not going to lose the opportunity. There is no clearer example than FGM of violence against girls and child abuse. I was able to announce the biggest-ever funding commitment to tackling FGM in the world: £35 million. I am delighted to say that Penny Mordaunt has now topped that with a new announcement of £50 million, which is fantastically welcome.
As many noble Lords have said, at the heart of all this is education for girls because no education means not only lesser salaries and other such problems, but a generation or more in conflict-affected and fragile states lacking the skills for rebuilding their country for the future. The education of girls is fundamental to change and progress. How many girls are we now educating in fragile and conflict-affected states? We should be proud of what we have done so far but there is a hell of a lot more to do.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for tabling the debate and for her persistent pursuit of improvement and reform in this extremely important area.
I want to tell a story this evening. It is a very short story with some uplifting elements. Early in 2002, when I was a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, I went as part of a small delegation to Afghanistan to see what we might be able to do. During my time there, I met an extraordinary young man called Aziz Royesh. One comes across extraordinary people in one’s life and he was one of them. He had an absolute passion for education, and in particular for girls’ education.
To that end he had set up a school—although it could hardly be called that: it was made up of a couple of tiny rooms in a bombed-out building in the extreme west of Kabul, which was the front line during the civil war and which had been utterly terrorised in previous years under the Taliban regime. He managed to set up a school with 30 pupils in three shifts, because there was not room for more than 10 pupils at a time. The pupils ranged in age from a little girl of seven, who did carpet weaving on the side to make money for her family—it was their only source of income—to a woman of 30-plus who wanted to learn geometry to know how to divide up her land for her sons.
I was so impressed by this venture that I began to raise very small amounts of money and send them across in brown paper bags—that was how it was done then. The money was used intelligently. For example, through the money we raised, one of the larger buildings in the village was repaired: a roof was put on it and windows and heating were put in, all through local builders. That was a masterstroke because it meant that the entire community crowded into the building in winter because no other heating was available. Aziz, who has become a very dear and close friend, used this opportunity to persuade families to be brave enough to send their children, especially their daughters, to school and also started adult literacy classes in the village.
The school has grown as time has gone on. In the last 13 years, almost 500 girls have graduated from the Marefat school, almost 98% of whom have gone on to higher education, including universities in south and central Asia, the Far East and Europe. A total of 271 full scholarships have been won by the school. One amazing statistic is that in 2012, the Asian University for Women in Bangladesh offered 16 scholarships to girls from the region, including Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh as well as Afghanistan, and the Marefat school won 11 of them. That simply illustrates the level of education provided by the school.
A total of 60 students went to the USA for high school and undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, of whom 42 were girls. On their return, these Marefat graduates worked in the President’s palace, the First Lady’s office, various ministries, the Parliament, the Independent Election Commission, the media and the academic world. Some 28% of the teaching staff at Marefat are themselves graduates of the school.
The UK contribution to education is already very great. Almost every person who has spoken in the debate has mentioned the importance of education, which we acknowledge. Indeed, DfID has done itself proud in supporting education—but this must continue and it must expand. I have told this story simply to illustrate that it is possible, even in the most difficult conflict situations, which Afghanistan represents, to build education that is of the highest quality and to expand it beyond the community where it begins.
I think we have all acknowledged that education is the magic bullet of development. If you educate a girl, you also educate a family; you educate a neighbourhood, you educate a region and eventually you educate a country. This is the only pathway to peace.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for securing this debate. It is a great honour to be taking part and to listen to the contributions of so many amazing supporters of women and girls. I should also like to draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.
Following previous speakers, I too should like to reinforce what has been said about violence and access to education. As has been said, before, during and after conflict girls face both physical and sexual violence. It is important to note that trauma follows adolescent girls when they flee from conflict, whether they become refugees or are internally displaced. There is a high risk of sexual abuse in overcrowded, unsanitary and unsafe refugee areas. Girls face not only prostitution and the risk of early marriage; they also face isolation and a lack of access to healthcare and psychological support. I would like to ask the Minister: what specific action are the Government currently taking to support girls in these vulnerable places, and how will rebuilding peace after conflict specifically involve support for these girls?
This year, when the Government will host an international meeting on preventing sexual violence, will there be a focus on support for girls in particular? Where a country experiences violence, women and girls also face increased domestic violence in the home. Can the Minister let us know when the Government plan to introduce domestic legislation that will allow the UK to ratify the Istanbul convention? In particular, UK nationals must be able to be tried in UK courts for domestic violence committed against women abroad.
I turn secondly to education. As has been said, access to education is a particular challenge both during and after conflict. Two years ago I met Muzoon Almellehan, then an 18 year-old Syrian refugee and now at university in the UK. She has used her voice to call on the Government to increase support for girls’ education. She said that while she was in a refugee camp in Jordan, she went from tent to tent to tell parents that their daughters needed teachers, not husbands. During conflict, girls are two and a half times more likely to be out of school than boys. While the Government have committed to supporting programmes which help girls to stay in education, in 2017 funding for education represented only 8.9% of bilateral aid.
When girls receive education and are included in political and economic systems, communities are empowered and they are better off. Programmes that listen to and serve the specific needs of adolescent girls are crucial, as has already been underlined. Last week, Muzoon emailed me to say, “Frankly, what I have been through was not easy, but this journey has taught me that I should never give up and I must do the best to help myself and to help other people, and to be strong for giving hope”. That illustrates the resilience which has already been mentioned.
In responding to the challenges of both violence and education, we may need to adapt traditional methods of providing aid and assistance. Non-state actors can be effective local partners. I think in particular of the work being done in partnership with churches throughout the Anglican Communion and in particular with the Mothers’ Union. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how these sorts of relationships might be better developed.
Finally, we need to be careful about how we measure impact. Traditional value-for-money calculations may not be good at accounting for long-term work in fragile or post-conflict states. Making sex and age data disaggregation standard would help us to identify what works for adolescent girls specifically. The current UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace & Security will measure only a small number of indicators in this way, yet better interventions can be made when we know what works for girls.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute today, and I look forward to listening to the rest of this debate.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very important debate and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for introducing it so ably and with such energy. I only wish we had time to explore this issue further and in greater depth, but I know that she will continue to bring it back to us.
I should declare an interest as the chair of the Sub-Committee on Children in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I will shortly be preparing a report on how violence against children is addressed by the sustainable development goals. I shall be looking around for help and ideas, so noble Lords will hear from me.
A Lancet commission in 2016 described adolescence as,
“a critical phase in life for achieving human potential”.
For some adolescents this will be so, but for the adolescent girls we are discussing today, that potential will be blighted by abuse, sexual violence, poverty, poor health and lack of education, as pointed out by Plan International in its excellent briefing.
The lives of young, valuable future citizens are being destroyed, and this will have both national and international repercussions. One in six children is now living in a conflict zone and is more at risk from armed conflict than at any other time in the past 20 years, according to a recent report from Save the Children. Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan are ranked among the most dangerous.
International conventions and instruments have been flouted—in particular, Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which calls on states to protect children up to the age of 18 against,
“all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect … maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse”.
Very few countries are not signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We are four years on from the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict attended by 120 Governments, over 100 NGOs and experts in health, legal matters and military fields. An action plan on abuse was drawn up. I ask myself: is it time for another global summit to follow up the recommended actions and to see what has happened since?
We know from reports and anecdotes from UNICEF, Save the Children, Plan International and other organisations that the situation is dire. We know the terrible, possibly irreversible impacts on children and young people, especially girls, who are also at risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection. We know that civil society organisations work with Governments and communities to translate concerns into national policies, laws and actions. It is a terribly difficult task, with rogue kidnappings and random abuse at local levels.
What else is to be done? In 2018, a report on children and armed conflict from the UN Secretary-General called for the strengthening of partnerships to prevent violations. Partnerships exist at both government and community levels. International agreements and policies are not enough, however, unless there is a change of attitude in individual countries and communities. NGOs working on the ground engage in partnerships with communities, women’s groups, faith groups and empowerment groups for young people—all very important organisations to work with.
Specifically, more efforts and funding are needed to focus on the needs of adolescent girls in conflict situations. Gender equality, education, health and empowerment of women and girls are all vital and must be included in any protocols for intervention and measured. Targets must be set and monitored. National policies, laws and actions must be reinforced, and we can play a part in this.
This is a complex and very difficult situation, and I ask the Minister specifically how the UK plans to contribute to providing creative ideas and practical support on positive action. Generations of children, including girls, are having their lives ruined by abuse in fragile and conflict-affected countries, thus disadvantaging those countries even more. We cannot stand by and watch this happen.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on obtaining the debate this evening. I also thank her for all the work she does for women and girls in this field and the support she gives my group, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. I chair that group, and in the Commons I was my party’s spokesperson for international development. I can endorse almost everything said in the debate tonight—certainly about South Sudan, which I have visited on several occasions.
There is no question that women and adolescent girls worldwide suffer terribly. I will talk about only one aspect of their suffering: abortion. I know it is a contentious issue but, as some of you probably know, I go in for contentious issues sometimes. I feel very passionately about this one. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, in conflict situations women suffer disproportionately far more than men, and adolescent girls are frequently targeted for rape—this being part of modern warfare. Is it to dilute the genetic line? I do not know, but it has certainly become part of warfare.
Rape is a very short, small word, but in this situation it is not just a quick act of sexual intercourse. It can involve the most horrific physical and mental injuries to these girls, which lasts all their lives. It is not just a quick thing, over in two minutes. The trauma and disgrace of rape is worsened for many girls if they become pregnant as a result and a child is born. The girls are frequently ostracised by their families and live alone and in disgrace, with nowhere to go. Personally, I cannot think of a more terrible fate.
In the last few years, though, helped tremendously by Lord Lester when he was a Member of this House, we have managed to clarify the Government’s position on much-needed abortion after rape in conflict situations. The Government have acted nobly and very effectively on this, and I will talk a little more about it. The Government have declared that the UK development budget can now be used without exception to provide safe abortion where necessary and, if national laws of the country in conflict oppose abortion, international humanitarian law kicks in and allows abortion in that situation, rather than extending what amounts to inhumane treatment for the individual concerned. It is a noble position that our Government have taken and I congratulate them on it. We are one of very few countries to have taken a stand on this issue. What concerns me, however, is how often abortion is carried out under these guidelines when girls request it, and I would like clarification from the Minister. Are any statistics available?
I appreciate the difficulty and confidentiality that may be involved, but will the Minister tell us what effect President Trump’s reintroduction of the global gag rule has had on this procedure? I understand that contributions from different countries are often pooled by NGOs working in humanitarian situations. As many Members will know, the United States Administration have banned any funds going to NGOs that may collaborate with NGOs from other countries that provide abortion services.
I have some more questions for the Minister and, if he cannot answer them now, perhaps he will write to me and put the answers in the Library. Can he tell us whether and how our development budget can be separated from that of other countries in this situation so that abortion can be carried out when necessary? Will the UK commit to sustainable funding specifically for abortion in DfID’s budget and ensure that it goes to non-gagged organisations? Lastly, will our Government make clear internationally our support for access to abortion in conflict situations and ensure that those obligations are met, so that many adolescent girls will be relieved at least of one part of the suffering they have to endure?
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for the very knowledgeable way in which she introduced this important debate. I want to acknowledge the impressive contributions from noble Lords from across the Chamber, which have reminded us of the great challenges that adolescent girls face.
Man-made conflict is the source of so much of the gratuitous violence that we see in the world today, much of it directed towards women and children. It is therefore welcome that the cross-Whitehall working group on women, peace and security is supported by the Stabilisation Unit, a cross-government unit providing expertise to build stability, prevent conflict and meet security challenges internationally. The Government’s national action plan of December 2018 tells us that women are essential participants in conflict prevention and peacebuilding and that their participation leads to peace agreements that are measurably more durable. Given all that, why is it that the Stabilisation Unit’s page on the Government’s website shows no evidence of work that supports women as peacebuilders or of any projects shaped by that evidence? I hope it is an oversight, but I wonder whether the Minister could look into it.
In the same national action plan, Conflict, Stability and Security Fund projects are mentioned liberally, yet the CSSF has repeatedly come in for criticism, not least from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which awarded it an overall amber/red score in its report last year. Can the Minister assure me that aid spending through the CSSF now takes a more relevant and evidence-based approach to addressing conflict, instability and insecurity, as recommended by ICAI? I am interested too in hearing his response to the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Defence that the MoD is a suitable vehicle for becoming involved in preventing sexual violence in conflict zones.
Muriel Spark’s great quote from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie:
“Give me a girl at an impressionable age and she is mine for life”,
tells us of the importance of girls attending school, particularly secondary school. But, as we have heard today, much conspires to keep them away: the burden of family responsibility, household chores, issues of period hygiene, FGM complications and problems relating to early marriage, forced marriage, pregnancies and resultant issues such as fistula and faecal incontinence, to mention but some. Following the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, I should add abortion to that list.
We have already heard the UN statistic from South Sudan, where an adolescent girl is more likely to die in childbirth than complete her education. That is chilling, and it is likely to apply to other conflict-affected countries. Yet we know that for every year a girl spends in school, the family’s income will go up by 10%. That is a huge return. Investment in education must be led by an evidence base recognisable to communities in developing countries. But the ODI said in its report of 13 June last year, How to Deliver the G7’s Ambitious Commitments to Gender Equality and Girls’ Education, that that does not always happen. Will the Minister assure me that programmes are being designed from the outset to accommodate evidence that speaks to what works to support adolescent girls to reach their potential? I add my voice to that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester when she asked for that information earlier.
I end with what I call the curse of short-termism. We have heard much about the challenges faced by adolescent girls and entrenched social practices. However, I have found—I am sure that many noble Lords will agree—that all too often we hear of successful projects that end with no plan for a follow-up. That short-termism is short-sighted. I share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Featherstone when she talked about funding for the Ethiopian Spice Girls group that was pulled in the face of vociferous attacks from the Daily Mail. Programmes such as the Yegna project could bring prolonged benefits.
I also want to bring to noble Lords’ attention another example of a DfID-funded project in Kenya, which used football as a hook to recruit 4,500 young people—crucially, men and boys—into a programme to reduce violence against women and girls. Itad’s evaluation found that the programme would have benefited from further DfID investment, which, however, was not forthcoming. I hope that the Minister will challenge assertions that such programmes are a waste of money because they highlight the sustained, long-term engagement necessary to shift social norms and reduce violence against women and girls.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for initiating this debate. It is vital that we keep this issue high on the political agenda. As she said, violence against women is a global epidemic. The WHO estimates that approximately one-third of women globally experience some kind of violence, physical or sexual, from a partner or non-partner in their lifetimes. As my noble friend Lord McConnell highlighted, adolescent women are especially vulnerable to sexual violence, which further increases the risks of unwanted pregnancies, as we heard, unsafe abortions and STIs, including HIV/AIDS. During conflict, weakened institutions, poverty and financial hardship leave adolescent girls vulnerable to abuse, exploitation and violence.
Over the Recess, I listened to the UNHCR special envoy, Angelina Jolie, when she was guest editor of the “Today” programme. Her programme focused on discussing solutions to violence against women in conflict zones. Her themes were justice, accountability and international leadership. We have heard much about those themes in this debate. Like Angelina Jolie, I acknowledge the UK’s leadership role globally in maintaining this subject’s public profile. The critical issue that she identified, which of course your Lordships’ Sexual Violence in Conflict Committee also highlighted two and a half years ago, is that we need to maintain the momentum. We need to ensure that we have the tools, sufficient resource and the political will.
There is no doubt that since the PSVI launch in 2012, the UK has led the world in efforts to end the horror of sexual violence in conflict. I welcome the announcement of an international conference to be hosted by the UK in November, five years on from the global summit referred to by my noble friend Lady Massey. We are told it will focus on conflicts past and present and evaluate the progress which has been made by putting survivors at the heart of the event. Will the Minster explain a little more about how this will be achieved? Will there be greater civil society engagement and what support will be given to participants who are survivors of such violence?
Last year the Government allocated nearly £3.4 million to tackle sexual violence in conflict in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burma, Colombia and Iraq, and they have responded to the horrific circumstances of the Rohingya in Myanmar. Will the Minister say how the specific needs of adolescent girls were recognised and addressed in our humanitarian support and humanitarian programmes? What specific action is DfID taking to promote gender equality in these areas?
As we have heard in this debate, justice and accountability are vital parts of any strategy for tackling sexual violence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, in November film-makers came to Lancaster House from conflict-affected countries and Commonwealth countries to discuss how they could use their work making films to stamp out stigma, which is an important element of fighting sexual violence and of holding people to account so that they cannot act with impunity. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whom I congratulate on his work, called on countries to sign up to the new Murad code on sexual violence, which sets out the expected standards of behaviour from government bodies, NGOs and aid workers when gathering evidence of sexual violence in conflict situations for courts. Can the Minster tell us how many countries are expected to sign up to the code and how many have already done so?
As we have also heard, a comprehensive approach is essential, including tackling and targeting the underlying gendered norms and behaviour that cause and perpetuate sexual violence. Women endure discrimination, violence and the denial of their rights simply because they are women. We must tackle the underlying problem of a lack of empowerment, education and inclusion. Like other noble Lords, I would like to hear from the Minister about what action the Government are taking to ensure that they and others meet the commitments made at last year’s G7 conference and in the declaration on quality education for girls, adolescent girls and women in developing countries, particularly those in emergencies and in conflict-affected and fragile states. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said, education is the key to change.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this fascinating and important debate. In particular, I am hugely grateful to my noble friend Lady Hodgson for bringing it to the House. As all noble Lords have said, she is a well-known and impactful campaigner for gender equality, particularly for the rights of girls and women in conflict-affected states.
As all noble Lords said, adolescence is a critical time for girls when their experiences will profoundly affect the rest of their lives. Many face an increased risk of violence, pregnancy and early marriage, and the burden of family and community aspirations as well as new opportunities and decisions preparing for the type of life and work they wish to pursue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, asked a number of questions relating to abortion in these conflict areas. Where abortion is permitted, we can support programmes promoting safe abortion. In conflict situations, international humanitarian law principles might justify offering abortion rather than perpetuating what amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment. She asked a number of other questions which I have not answered. If possible, I will write to her with more details and place a copy in the Library.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned, women and girls bear a disproportionate burden of harm during conflict and war. In countries affected by conflict, girls are two and a half times more likely than boys to be out of school. In conflict situations, violence begins early in the lives of adolescent girls, with 60% of sexual assaults happening to girls aged 18 or under. On top of direct threats to their lives and safety, conflict harms adolescent girls in ways that are often overlooked. Violence and destruction interrupt access to education—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hodgson, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. Girls in conflict zones are 90% more likely to be out of school than girls living in peace.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, wanted to know how we are ensuring that adolescents do not continue to fall through gaps in the system. The Government work with a wide range of international partners to ensure the best results for girls. We support partner nations to develop and implement national action plans on women, peace and security, and on child, early and forced marriage. DfID has made landmark funding commitments to address the needs of adolescent girls, and we have made the largest commitment ever to ending female genital mutilation. Through the Girls’ Education Challenge, we have committed a further £400 million to promote quality girls’ education, which all noble Lords agree is one of the most important things that should continue.
Conflict also leads to a breakdown in the customary and formal laws that protect girls. This allows harmful traditional practices, such as FGM and child, early and forced marriages, to rise in times of war. The scale of the problem is enormous, today affecting 1.2 billion of the adolescent population—the largest number the world has ever known. States have a moral and legal obligation to ensure girls’ protection and safety.
In supporting and protecting adolescent girls, we are empowering the decision-makers, peacebuilders and business leaders of the future. When girls have an education and are not forced to marry early, they and their children are healthier and better educated, improving the economic and physical well-being of generations to come. The Government are committed to promoting gender equality and supporting adolescent girls in fragile and conflict-affected states. Without faster progress on gender equality, the sustainable development goals will not be achieved.
Our national action plan on women, peace and security sets out our approach to promoting gender equality through our work to build security and stability overseas, as well as our commitment to protect the human rights of girls and women. DfID’s Strategic Vision for Gender Equality is a call to all stakeholders to step up on gender equality. It highlights adolescence as a critical time and promotes support for women and girls in conflict and crisis. DfID is committed to leading the way in this area. Today, as acknowledged by most noble Lords this evening, the United Kingdom is an international leader on gender equality. The Government are committed, across departments, to putting women and girls at the heart of our work to prevent and resolve conflict in some of the world’s most challenging contexts.
At the London family planning summit in July 2017, the UK ensured that the needs of women and adolescent girls in humanitarian crises were centre stage. We committed to spending an average of £225 million every year for the next five years to expand access to sexual and reproductive health services around the world, including in areas at risk of, or affected by, crises, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
The noble Lord also mentioned Burma. The UK has led the way on the Rohingya crisis with a package of support focused on the needs of women and girls. We will reach about 250,000 people affected by sexual and gender-based violence with targeted training, psychosocial support and sexual and reproductive health services.
The UK’s support empowers girls to become leaders and decision-makers of the future. In Burma, where only 10% of national MPs are women, the UK has started new programmes with Girl Determined to support the Girls’ National Conference, creating safe networks for girls and growing their voices in politics. In north-east Nigeria, more than 2,300 girls and women, survivors of Boko Haram’s violence, have been supported to help restart their lives through intercommunal dialogue, the training of community leaders in peacebuilding, and psychosocial and medical assistance.
My noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, also raised issues relating to the work of DfID, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, particularly in relation to South Sudan, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. In South Sudan, we will help about 250,000 girls to stay in school. Also in South Sudan, the UK is funding the International Medical Corps to support survivors of gender-based violence and provide long-term prevention strategies. This work includes psychosocial and medical support to survivors, training for police on handling gender-based violence cases and working with men and community groups on addressing negative social attitudes towards women.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson talked about how specific programmes address the high danger for adolescents. The UK is leading the fight against modern slavery internationally. We also know that gender inequality is a key driver of modern slavery and have committed in excess of £200 million in UK aid to help address such exploitation and abuse, placing particular emphasis on ensuring that the needs of the most vulnerable are taken into account.
DfID’s flagship Girls’ Education Challenge programme, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, is helping up to 1.5 million marginalised girls to receive a quality education, including girls in refugee camps in Kenya and Afghanistan, and girls displaced within Somalia among other countries. In Syria, the United Kingdom helped to launch the No Lost Generation initiative, which provides education and safe spaces where children can receive counselling to help cope with the effects of violence that they have experienced or witnessed. In 2017-18, the UK reached 11.3 million children with education.
The UK will continue to be a champion for girls and women in conflict on a global stage. At this year’s UN Commission on the Status of Women, we will host an event to share evidence and secure commitments on social protection programmes to target adolescent girls. Through our work in the G7, G20 and other multinational platforms, promoting gender equality in conflict will be a strong theme.
The Government are also investing in research to understand what works to help adolescents overcome challenges and reach their potential. The Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence programme is a nine-year longitudinal research programme including 18,000 adolescents, a substantial sample of them refugees or displaced. It is important that we invest in programmes that tackle not only the basic needs of adolescent girls, including education and health, but their psychosocial well-being, voice, agency and their vulnerability to violence, child marriage and exploitation.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester asked whether there will be support for girls at the PSVI international conference later this year. The conference will take a survivor-centred approach, ensuring that the needs, concerns and priorities of all survivors—women, men, boys and girls—are discussed and addressed.
My noble friends Lady Hodgson and Lady Anelay and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, also wanted to ensure that the United Kingdom does not lose momentum on this important issue. I am pleased that a number of noble Lords were able to attend the PSVI film festival, which shone a spotlight on the stigma often faced by survivors of sexual violence. The Government remain committed to ending the horror of sexual violence in conflict, and we will host a PSVI international conference in November 2019. I praise my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Ahmad for the work they have done in this area.
There are a number of points I have not covered, but I will write to all noble Lords on their issues and place copies in the Library. Throughout our work, the Government will continue to lead by example in demonstrating how gender equality and a focus on the rights of adolescent girls is an investment in peace, security and prosperity.