House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
The local government financial settlement confirmed that core spending power for councils is forecast to increase to £46.4 billion, a cash increase of 2.8%. This real-terms increase in resources will be key to helping local authorities to deliver local services, support vulnerable residents and build stronger communities.
Mr Bailey
Ofsted has said in its latest monitoring report that despite the good work of my council, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, it is still deeply concerned that children risk abuse due to unbearable case loads and a real problem in recruiting staff. Does the Minister think that that might have something to do with the £180 million in funding that the council has lost since 2010, and will he say whether the proposed community fund will fully and adequately restore the appropriate level of funding?
James Brokenshire
I recognise that, over some years, Sandwell has had some specific issues in relation to its children’s services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman therefore welcomes the increase in Sandwell’s core spending power to £268.6 million. He will also know that the funding that was set out in the financial settlement underlay additional funding for social care, and children’s social care in particular, but clearly we will keep in contact with the Local Government Association and others in respect of councils’ needs.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
James Brokenshire
I am sure that the whole House will want to send its condolences to the family of Jodie Chesney, my hon. Friend’s constituents, and equally, to the family of Yousef Makki, who also lost his life over the course of the weekend. My hon. Friend highlights the appalling situation with knife crime, which has claimed too many lives. I assure her that my Department is working closely with the Home Office to look at issues of prevention and, through programmes such as troubled families, is seeking to provide preventive services. In the last couple of weeks, I have provided £9.8 million for a fund supporting families against youth crime, to help workers to intervene early to prevent such senseless violence.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I have previously raised with the Secretary of State the Government’s proposal to remove deprivation as an element from the foundation funding part of the local government allocation. Is he aware of the research done by the University of Liverpool and the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that although deprivation accounts now for only a 4% difference in spending, if we go back before austerity in 2010, in the early years before the disproportionate cuts in grants to the poorest communities, deprivation accounts for more than 10 times the amount of spending? In the light of that, will he review his decision to remove deprivation as a key element of spending allocations?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, is obviously aware that there is an ongoing consultation on the formula. He highlights a point in relation to the primary formula and the way in which deprivation plays into that. We will look closely at the evidence that is presented to us and I encourage him to take part in that consultation.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. At its budget last week, the council confirmed that it will achieve a 10-year council tax freeze, and despite cuts in Government spending it has maintained all frontline services and support for the voluntary sector. Is that not an example that other councils should follow?
James Brokenshire
I warmly commend Kettering Borough Council for the work that my hon. Friend outlined, and indeed councils for the way in which they have risen to the challenges. I commend all the work of the members and officers in Kettering for being able to deliver good-quality services in an efficient way.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
James Brokenshire
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point about asylum dispersal and the costs of that. Obviously, the Home Office leads on how funds are supported in different authorities—indeed, in Scotland as well—and I will certainly pass on his points to the Home Secretary.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
On funding to local communities and the Stronger Towns fund announced earlier today, can I get an idea of how much Crawley constituency will get? It has two of the most deprived wards anywhere in the south-east. I do not want to hear from the Front Bench that we are on the B list where we can bid for funding. This funding is needed now.
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will know, there is a statement coming up later this afternoon, so I will save my comments for that, but it is a £1.6 billion fund, with a competitive element, and I would encourage people to bid into that.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) will be in his seat for that statement and will leap to his feet to make his point with his customary force and alacrity.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
James Brokenshire
I remind the hon. Gentleman of my response to the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). That issue is part of our consultation on the review of relative needs and resources, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take part. Our view is that a lot of the measures are based on population distribution, but we will reflect on the evidence as we see it.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and our excellent local government Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for the additional moneys given to East Sussex County Council for this year, but rather than additional one-off funds to top up, can we have more certainty in the future so that all local authorities can plan for the future?
James Brokenshire
I recognise the desire for long-term local government funding, and we have the local government financial settlement, which the House recently approved. We also have the spending review to come, and I will certainly be making the case for a multi-year settlement.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The European regional development fund moneys of €476 million and the European social fund moneys of €465 million have had a significant input into local government funding the length and breadth of Scotland. With the removal of this EU cash imminent, can the Secretary of State tell us precisely how much money the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland will get after we leave the EU?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady will know the guarantees in place in relation to structural funds currently provided by the EU, but clearly we want new arrangements in place through the UK shared prosperity fund. We will come forward with the details of that fund, and the spending review will set out the monetary aspects.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
After nine years of this Government’s slash-and-burn approach to deprived areas, the Secretary of State has announced a new fund for our left-behind towns, but since 2010 we have seen a cut to Wigan Council’s spending power—the Government’s preferred measure—of £67 million and a cut of £45 million to Blackpool’s. As a region, the north-west has lost almost £1.5 billion but will receive just £281 million over seven years under this initiative. Does he understand why Members across the House feel disappointed and patronised by his announcement today?
James Brokenshire
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not recognised the additional funding that will be going into local government this coming year. The cash increase I have outlined is a real-terms increase to local government that is focused on supporting issues such as social care. Yes, the Government recognise the hard decisions that councils have had to make, but we are now supporting councils to do the right thing for their communities and ensure the improvement we all want to see.
Andrew Gwynne
It is only an increase for councils because it is predicated on those same councils’ increasing their council tax to mitigate a £1.3 billion Government grant cut. The announcement that the Minister has made today means very little, given that he plans to shift the funding formula away from those very same left-behind towns in future years to favour the wealthy Tory shires. Will he now remove any uncertainty, and ensure that deprivation is factored into any future fair funding review so that it is actually able to live up to its name?
James Brokenshire
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has clearly not been through the consultation, which demonstrates on various issues such as social care where deprivation is firmly relevant. We are ensuring that we provide support for councils—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman keeps saying “baseline”; he seems to have gone into some kind of trance. We are providing £650 million for social care in the settlement for the forthcoming year because we absolutely recognise local authorities’ demands and needs; it is about seeing that local government is well supported for its communities.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
Last year more housing was delivered in England than in all but one of the past 31 years, but there is still much more to do, from reform of the planning system and developer contributions to deploying Homes England as the WD40 of the house building industry, working on the recommendations of the Letwin review, and accelerating decision making in the Department. We are stretching every sinew to build more and better homes across the country, and to build them faster.
Mary Robinson
Building homes that people want to live in should be a challenge that we set ourselves as we aim to tackle the housing situation. Modern methods of construction encompass new and innovative building methods, including off-site manufacturing, to produce more homes in less time. During a recent visit to a modular homes factory, I saw how well constructed, well insulated and adaptable homes for life can provide quality housing in weeks rather than months. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities should recognise the diverse range of construction methods when developing their local plans to meet housing requirements?
Kit Malthouse
With her usual accuracy and perception, my hon. Friend has put her finger on one of the most exciting developments that we are currently seeing in house building, which is indeed off-site manufacturing. That technique holds enormous potential, not least because it is deployed to a significant extent in other parts of the world. We have a £450 million fund to support its development, and the first payment was made to Welwyn Hatfield just last week.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister not realise that this Government are not building enough new homes? Even the ones they are building are not in the right places for the right people. Is he not aware of the scandal—a situation my constituents cannot understand—that so much of the money that went to Help to Buy has ended up in the pockets of chief executives of building companies?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is right, in that Governments of all stripes have failed to build enough homes over the last few decades. Indeed, our efforts to correct that were hampered by the destruction of 50% of the small house building industry in the crash of 2008, when his party was in government. We have tried very hard to correct that, and last year we managed to reach a total of 222,000 homes, but we must push forward to 300,000. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in encouraging civic leaders throughout the country to embrace that ambition, and to build the homes that the next generation needs.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and, for that matter, for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) could all very legitimately shoehorn their inquiries into this question if they were so minded. That is merely a gentle hint; it is not obligatory.
Gordon Henderson
Kit Malthouse
I sincerely agree with my hon. Friend that the Government’s objective should be to create a big, wide menu of tenure options from which young people can choose at different stages in their lives, and depending on their circumstances. We want to ensure that everyone can acquire good-quality homes for themselves and their families, but critically that everyone in the country, at some point in their lives, should have a shot at ownership.
Catherine West
Kit Malthouse
As I hope the House knows, this Government are extremely ambitious about our environmental targets and want to push further and faster in order to achieve them. The hon. Lady is right that there is enormous potential, particularly in the affordable homes programme and the new generation of council homes that we hope will be built to create higher environmental standards. I saw this for myself on a visit to a factory in Aldridge in the west midlands, where Accord Housing is producing modular homes for social and affordable rent. They said to me that so good are the environmental standards in those homes that they have lower arrears in buildings built that way because they are easier to heat and light.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Would not the best way to reduce the time taken to build new homes be to support my Housing Reform Bill? Since I have not yet persuaded the Minister for Housing of that, if I bring it back in the next Session with a few tweaks, will he undertake to take another look at it?
Kit Malthouse
Mr Speaker, it will not surprise you to know that I am in constant conversation with my hon. Friend about his various ideas for the housing market from self-build to the reforms he is outlining, and I hope to continue those conversations. He is a veritable cornucopia of thinking and policy ideas in this sphere, and they are to be welcomed.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
We need to build new homes but they must be the right homes. In 2017, the then Secretary of State the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) said:
“It’s unacceptable for home buyers to be exploited through unnecessary leaseholds”,
and added that “enough is enough”. He said that real action was needed and announced that the Government were banning the sale of leasehold homes. Last summer the current Secretary of State promised no new Government funding schemes for leasehold homes, yet the Government’s own figures show that Ministers are pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into a state-funded racket by subsidising large house builders for the sale of leasehold homes through Help to Buy—some 17,000 homes over five years, half of which have been sold since the Government promised to ban that. Can the Secretary of State tell us: have the Government forgotten what they said, has he changed his mind, or can he let us know when he will deliver on his promises?
Mr Speaker
I enjoyed the hon. Lady’s question, but it would nevertheless have benefited from the generous application of the blue pencil.
Kit Malthouse
I urge the hon. Lady to take care with her opinion of Help to Buy as a scheme: it is one of the few Government policies for which people actually stop me in the streets to thank me. [Interruption.] Even though it had nothing to do with me, I am quite happy to take the credit for the policy—for the origination of it in any case. Several people have stopped me and thanked me for it, because it gives young people access to homes that otherwise they would not obtain.
The hon. Lady is right, though, that problems have been experienced in the market with leasehold, and we are determined to bring about change. The new Help to Buy scheme will be used to bring about some of that change, and the Secretary of State tells me he has not resiled one ounce from his promises.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
I am delighted to announce that this year will see the return of our Great British High Street awards, in proud partnership with Visa. That is part of this Government’s determination to keep high streets at the heart of our communities, not least supported by our future high streets fund.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Paignton town centre is in need of reshaping and regeneration to create an attractive destination for the future, hence it will be the focus of a bid for support from the future high streets fund. Can the Minister confirm that Paignton is precisely the type of town centre he has in mind that will benefit from this fund?
Jake Berry
My hon. Friend is a redoubtable campaigner for his high street and I have previously met him and local authority leaders to talk about their ambition for their area. It is a competitive fund, but Paignton is indeed well placed to apply for this transformative cash, led I am sure, as always, by my hon. Friend.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
One of the problems the Minister might encounter in improving the high streets could be described as a roadblock, because it is a roadblock: the problem is that our roads are just so poor. I was disappointed that Hull missed out on the transforming cities fund to improve a road that is notorious for being an absolute roadblock: Calvert Lane. Will the Minister therefore look favourably on Hull when it bids for this money again—or alternatively just give us the cash now?
Jake Berry
I suspect that we are going to hear many special pleadings on behalf of hon. Members’ constituencies across the House. This is an ambitious fund that is designed to transform towns, just like the towns fund that we have announced today. I am sure that the hon. Lady and the area that she represents will bid for all the appropriate funds to drive forward her community.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
One of the main findings of the recent Select Committee inquiry into town centres was that strong local civic leadership is crucial. Given that, may I ask the Minister to ensure that, when judging future bids to the fund, strong local leadership is a key criterion?
Jake Berry
My hon. Friend, an expert in this area, rightly points to the excellent Select Committee report on high streets. He will be aware of the recommendation of Sir John Timpson, one of Britain’s best loved and best known retailers, that local leadership should be key to driving forward the future of the high street, and we will certainly be looking at that as part of these fund applications.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Government’s plans for a puny 2% digital tax on mega online firms that avoid paying their fair share is an insult to shops on the high street in towns such as Grange, Windermere and Kendal. Will he support higher taxes on tax dodgers, which would raise enough money to slash business rates for our town centres and help to save our high streets?
Jake Berry
The Government have been clear that online taxation in retail needs to be done as part of an international agreement, but we have also been clear that, if we cannot get such an agreement, we will come forward with our own 2% tax on online retail to ensure that we can continue, as we did in the last Budget, to give relief to those retailing on our high streets.[Official Report, 4 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 8MC.] This year, we have already slashed a third off the business rates of shops with a rateable value of under £51,000.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting question. Preventing and reducing homelessness and rough sleeping are key priorities for this Government. We have implemented the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and allocated more than £1.2 billion in funding through to 2020. Through the rapid rehousing pathway early adopters, we will enable more than 80 navigators to work with up to 1,600 rough sleepers.
John Lamont
Scots account for 12% of the homeless population in London. Borderline is the only charity that provides support to Scots in London, yet, astonishingly, the Scottish Government stopped its funding last year. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Borderline on the work that it has done and continues to do? What more can this Government do to support homeless Scots in London?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for his tenacious work in looking after Scots wherever they might be, north or south. The withdrawal of that funding is, sadly, a matter for the Scottish Government, but we have allocated more than £220 million of funding to London, largely through the flexible homelessness support grant and the Move On fund. Our expert advisers are supporting local authorities to tailor their services according to local need, particularly for our Scottish friends.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The number of homeless households seeking help in Hounslow—including some from Scotland—has doubled in the past 10 months. Hounslow has an admirable record, including a five-year programme of delivering 3,000 new social rent homes, yet it is losing council stock faster through the right to buy. Will the Government recognise that they have to take responsibility for delivering adequate numbers of social rent housing in order to deal with the homelessness crisis?
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Lady is quite right to say that ensuring that we have enough affordable homes in London and elsewhere is a high priority for this Government, which is why we changed the rules on housing revenue account funding, and I look forward to the authority building even more houses than it has already.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
This Government have recognised the pressures facing adult social services and have provided councils with access to an additional £10 billion of dedicated funding for adult social care for the three years up to 2019-20.
Thelma Walker
I thank the Minister for his response. However, 96% of all local authorities told the Local Government Association that there is a major national funding problem in adult social care. Demographics are changing and demand is growing. What are the Government doing to provide long-term sustainable support to local authorities such as Kirklees Council, so that they can deliver vital services to our most vulnerable citizens?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. In the short term, £1 billion of extra funding for social care services was announced in the Budget. In the longer term, the Department of Health and Social Care will soon outline its Green Paper and a longer term sustainable settlement. However, the answer is not just about the amount of money that we spend. Her council is a fantastic example of providing good outcomes for social care by using taxpayer resources prudently. Just last week, it was named a top 10 council for social care.
Julie Elliott
The Princess of Wales Centre dementia day-care facility, which is based in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) but serves the whole of Sunderland, recently announced that it will close in June, partly due to the cut in local government funding. What will the Minister do to help to support my constituents and those of my neighbour before the extra funding becomes available? Will he meet me and my colleagues to discuss the matter?
Rishi Sunak
I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues or, indeed, her local council. Obviously, as she just heard me say, the Budget announced an extra £1 billion for social care, which her local authority will be able to use on its own priorities, perhaps including the example that she raised.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Honours were even on Saturday.
I congratulate the Minister on what he has done on adult social care, but one problem is that many people are asset rich but cash poor, and early intervention is required to prevent those people from degrading. What can he do to encourage local authorities to intervene early so that people live a healthier, longer life?
Rishi Sunak
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right about the importance of early intervention, whether it is with young families and children or people who are older and frail. The Government recently announced an increase in the disabilities facilities grant, which does exactly what he says and helps people proactively to adapt their homes so that they can stay independent for longer. That is an example of the prevention work that he mentions, and he is right that we should focus on that in future.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in commending the excellent work of Conservative-controlled North West Leicestershire District Council? By building the new homes that our country needs and attracting business, investment and jobs, it has managed to freeze council tax since 2010 and it has pledged to freeze council tax for a further four years, if it is successfully re-elected on 2 May.
Rishi Sunak
I praise North West Leicestershire District Council, which I know well. My hon. Friend is a well-established champion of the council and he is right to highlight its focus on creating a pro-growth culture in its area, using the tools at its disposal to drive economic growth, keep taxes low for its taxpayers and provide high-quality local services.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
Has the Minister read the letter to the Prime Minister—it was sent last week but published over the weekend—from Health for Care, which is a new coalition of organisations that speak passionately about their view that social care is on the “brink of collapse”? Will he meet me to discuss the coalition’s concerns, the report published by the Health and Social Care Committee, which I chair, and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, our findings and the work that we did with the Citizens’ Assembly?
Rishi Sunak
I praise the work done by both Select Committees in producing some options for the social care Green Paper, and I know that they are being actively considered, as they should be. To the hon. Lady’s broader point, her characterisation is perhaps a little unfair, because good things are happening in social care. The recent publication of the delayed transfer of care statistics showed that they have halved since the peak of a couple of years ago, which shows that good progress is being made.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
The most recent local government finance settlement confirmed that core spending power in Newcastle is set to increase by £3.4 million in 2019-20. The North of Tyne devolution deal, for which there will be an election this May, will see £600 million invested in the area and, as part of the 2017 Budget, we announced our support for the £0.5 billion investment programme for the Tyne and Wear metro system.
Chi Onwurah
Since 2010, successive Conservative Governments have cut funding for children’s social care in Newcastle by 40% and, at the same time, the number of looked-after children has risen by 40%, which is obviously untenable. Instead of talking about strengthening local authority funding when he has halved the amount available to Newcastle City Council, will the Minister instead say whether he agrees with the national charity Action for Children, which has called these cuts “devastating and dangerous”? Will he give us the money to look after our children?
Jake Berry
We have just announced an additional £400 million to tackle exactly that. The hon. Lady and I have met in her city on occasion and talked about the northern powerhouse. I am sure she has heard me say that Charles Parsons, that great Newcastle inventor, is my inspiration for the northern powerhouse. A great danger for continuing growth in the north-east of England is the unfortunate selection of the Momentum, hard-left candidate for the Newcastle and North of Tyne election. I am inspired by the engineers of the north-east; he is inspired by Ken Livingstone and Derek Hatton. My hon. Friend the Housing Minister and I are from Liverpool, and we know where that leads.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
We are determined to support our high streets and we have consulted on a package of proposals. A decision will be made shortly about how best to proceed.
Mohammad Yasin
The announcement that Bedford will lose its Marks & Spencer store after 100 years is a massive blow for our town centre. Will the Minister accept the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report and commit to helping local authorities such as mine that need urgent funding to redevelop our town centres?
Jake Berry
I said in response to an earlier question that I think the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report is excellent, and we are considering it at the moment. I have sympathy with the local authority in Bedford and the challenge it faces with the closure of M&S, which is why I recommend that the hon. Gentleman, together with his local authority, makes an expression of interest in the Government’s future high streets fund by 22 March. The fund is designed to help areas to ensure that high streets remain at the heart of their community, which is exactly where they should be.
Helen Goodman
People who live in Spennymoor, Shildon and Bishop Auckland in my constituency feel that the decline in their high streets symbolises the fact that they are not listened to in general. So cannot the Minister understand that the proposal to bypass the planning rules on permitted development is exactly the wrong way to go? What we want is more involvement and more control for local neighbourhood communities.
Jake Berry
On a recent visit to Bishop Auckland, I had the privilege of visiting the hon. Lady’s high street. I am sure she would agree that the inspirational work taking place at the Bishop Auckland project, where a charity, in partnership with the local authority, is coming forward with an ambitious plan to regenerate the high street, is exactly what the Government should be looking to support as part of their future high streets fund. Although I am sure we are both passionate about Bishop Auckland, I disagree with her, because one way we can ensure that high streets thrive is to ensure that the free market can determine planning and that people are free to open shops in the sectors they see fit at the appropriate time.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In high-value areas such as St Albans, previous planning reforms have meant that office space has been turned over to residential. Couple that with high business rates and there is a serious danger of losing much of our high streets in many areas similar to mine. What more can be done to help on business rates? The £51,000 limit is welcome, but it has not helped many of my businesses in St Albans.
Jake Berry
The reduction in business rates for shops with a rateable value under £51,000 is, of course, part of a wider package. My hon. Friend, as a campaigner for her high streets, will appreciate that the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, and the other changes to make revaluations more frequent—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) must not beetle out of the Chamber in the middle of the exchanges on his question. I know he has asked his question, but there are further questions on the matter. I feel certain that he is interested in not only what he has had to ask, but the views expressed by other Members.
Jake Berry
You never know, Mr Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman might be interested in what I have to say, although I doubt it. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The Whip says that the Minister is pushing his luck, but he must not get down on himself. People should be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say. The hon. Member for Bedford has, belatedly, stayed after all and we are pleased about that.
Jake Berry
This is not just about the help the Government have set out on business rates; it is also about ensuring that high streets can remain fit for the future. It is all very well for the Opposition Front-Bench team to scoff against the free market, as they did during my response earlier, but let us not forget that the people who ply their trade and work as retailers on the high street are the embodiment of all that is good about British entrepreneurship.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Mendip District Council has made some excellent inclusions in our local plan for rejuvenating high streets in the district. Will the Minister commend the council’s work and look favourably on any bids it brings forward to help to fund the transformation of our high streets?
Jake Berry
I absolutely commend Mendip District Council and my hon. Friend for their work on taking forward a bid for their high street. He and his area will be aware, as will all other areas in the country, that they have until 22 March to put in an expression of interest—100% of the boroughs that receive the cash will have applied for it, so I suggest they get on with it.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Tackling home- lessness and rough sleeping is a key priority for this Government. We are spending more than £1.2 billion on homelessness through to 2020, with our rough sleeping initiative delivering more than 1,750 additional beds and 500 support staff. We recently published our delivery plan for the rough sleeping strategy, which will help us see rough sleeping become a thing of the past.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I say to him unequivocally that there are still not enough resources going into rural shire counties such as Shropshire to deal with this issue and many others, but does he agree that the rapid rehousing pathway announcement will be crucial in solving rough sleeping?
James Brokenshire
I know that my hon. Friend has been a champion for Shropshire and I commend him for his work on homelessness and on other issues. He rightly highlights the rapid rehousing pathway. That is a key part of our rough sleeping strategy to see that support and care are provided quickly and to see people getting off the street into homes, with all the assistance they require.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Home- lessness in Birmingham has increased by nearly 1,000% and almost 100 people have died homeless in the past five years. This is a moral emergency. My interviews with homeless people show that collapsing healthcare services are part of the problem, yet the homeless people in our city have a primary care system rated as “inadequate”. What steps can the Secretary of State take to fix this—not when the service is recommissioned in two years’ time, but now, before more people die?
James Brokenshire
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s passion, and indeed we have spoken about the situation in Birmingham. I hope he will acknowledge the additional funding that will be going to Birmingham in the next financial year through the rough sleeping initiative and the funding that NHS England has committed to health services for rough sleepers. Clearly, I will want to know and be certain that funding is applied to Birmingham and those areas where we have seen an increase in rough sleeping, for the very purpose that he underlines; we can save lives.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
Our national planning policies are clear about the importance of making full and efficient use of brownfield land, supported by the requirement for every authority to publish and maintain a register of brownfield land suitable for housing. The £4.5 billion home building fund also provides support for new housing, much of it targeted on brownfield land.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and for visiting the old power station site in Poole, one of the largest regeneration sites in the south-west. What more can he do to help to unlock brownfield sites such as that, which will provide the homes that we need and protect our green belt?
Kit Malthouse
It was a great pleasure to spend some time with my hon. Friend and his esteemed neighbour, our hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), at the power station site in Poole. I would recommend it as a place to visit, not least to see the remarkable harbour bridge, which is a feat of British engineering worth visiting in itself. There is much that we can do in terms of applying funding, but the application of Homes England is critical to getting brownfield sites over the line. Homes England is becoming much more entrepreneurial and assertive in its use of the funds and the capacity we have given it to make these sites work. As we speak, it is releasing thousands of homes throughout the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The City of York Council administration has an abysmal house building record, and we have seen a net loss of social housing. We also have the largest brownfield site in the country, ready to be developed. In order to expedite matters, will the Minister say when he plans to announce the Government’s response to the right-to-buy receipts review, so that we can get house building moving?
Kit Malthouse
I have not been a Minister for long, but I have learned to use a word well honed in government, which is “shortly”. We will respond shortly but, more than that, it would give me enormous pleasure to visit York at some point over the next few months and view what I know is a large site with great potential that Homes England has already talked about in excited terms. Having had a fantastic weekend with my family in York just last year, it would be a great pleasure to repeat the experience.
Mr Speaker
Those outside the Chamber observing our proceedings could usefully know that in government the word “shortly” sometimes contains elasticity.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
That is a remarkably crafty attempt by my hon. Friend to shoehorn in a question about student housing. He is absolutely right that brownfield land offers enormous potential for all sorts of housing throughout the country. In fact, you might be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that in 2016-17 some 56% of all new homes were delivered on brownfield sites, and that will have included student accommodation. In truth, the secret to student accommodation is the same as that for all sorts of other accommodation: supply. The more there is, the cheaper it will be and the more providers will compete on quality.
Mr Speaker
Well, I am somewhat better informed, and I thank the Minister for that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
EU funds have been used to decontaminate brownfield land, making it suitable for development. A prime example of that is at Shawfield in the Clyde Gateway area. The Clyde Gateway has received £6 million of EU funds for decontamination work in the Shawfield area in South Lanarkshire, which borders on Glasgow. Recently, hexavalent chromium contamination from the former J&J White chemical works has seeped into the Polmadie burn, and it will cost tens of millions of pounds to clear up. It would be good to hear from the Minister exactly whether the shared prosperity fund will include any mechanism to cover brownfield land. Otherwise, it will go unremediated in future.
Kit Malthouse
There will be no intention to leave any sod of brownfield land unturned throughout the country in our quest for space to build the homes that the next generation needs. The hon. Lady makes a serious point and she is right that in the spending review and the consideration of arrangements as we leave the EU, we need to look to reproduce the capacity to deal with all that contaminated land, which is perhaps a relic of our industrial past but now holds enormous potential for the future.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
The hon. Lady will be aware that the recent settlement confirmed a real-terms increase in the resources available to local authorities. The Government responded to pressures faced by councils in the autumn Budget and supported financial sustainability with more than £1 billion of additional funding across this year and next.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), we are very short of time so I hint that the hon. Members for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) could usefully seek to take part in the exchanges on this question, if they were so inclined. It would work perfectly well.
Bridget Phillipson
Since 2010, Sunderland City Council has been forced to make cuts of more than £290 million, yet the announcement today of the so-called stronger towns fund will see only £105 million for the whole of the north-east region put together. Given that our communities will be hit hardest by this Government’s Brexit plan, does the Minister seriously expect us to be grateful for this announcement, and does he expect us to support another decade of Brexit-driven austerity and decline?
Rishi Sunak
I gently point out to the hon. Lady that the towns fund that she talks about has the highest per capita allocation exactly to her area, and it is something that she should be welcoming for her constituents. Beyond that, the only way sustainably to provide and fund the services that we care about is to drive economic growth, efficiency and innovation. I am glad that her council participated in our digital innovation programme, and that 100 other local authorities are benefiting from our business rates pilots to keep more of their economic growth in their local community.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
I know that the Secretary of State will be making a more detailed statement on the towns fund later when I am sure that he can address my hon. Friend’s specific question. This is a separate process from the fair funding review, which is, I know, something that all colleagues are interested to hear. That process is regarding ongoing spending and that will be done through the spending review later this year.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Will the Minister say how the financial sustainability of local government is helped by what amounts to negative rates support grants, where councils are paying in more to central Government than they get back?
Rishi Sunak
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here for the recent local government settlement. It is exactly because of the threat to sustainability that this Government eliminated negative RSG, which is something that the sector had asked for and we were pleased to meet that concern at the recent settlement.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
We take funding for county areas extremely seriously, and it is of course important that the new funding formula accurately reflects needs brought about by changing demographics on the ground. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work with him, the County Councils Network and others to ensure that our new formula is fit for the future.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Today marks 12 months on from the Novichok attack in Salisbury. Our thoughts remain with all those affected by this appalling crime, and we remain determined to see those responsible brought to justice. I pay tribute to the people of Salisbury for the strength and resilience they have shown and for the way that the community has come together at a time of incredible challenge. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking not only those involved in the clean-up operations, but everyone who has worked so hard to support Salisbury’s recovery from this incident.
At a time when we need to show our resolve in standing up against division and hatred, I want to thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the house for their incredibly moving contributions during last week’s antisemitism debate and to everyone who supported yesterday’s “visit my mosque day”. Strong communities will be a key to success post-Brexit, and I will be making a statement to the House on the new stronger towns fund later this afternoon.
Mr Speaker
I remind colleagues that topical questions are very brief. A sentence or so is quite sufficient. We do not need a long preamble. Chris Philp, get in there, man.
Chris Philp
Does the Secretary of State agree that promoting and encouraging home ownership is important? Recent figures on first-time buyers are, of course, encouraging, but what more can the Government do to encourage first-time buyers through starter homes and discount market homes and the prioritisation of first-time buyers over foreign speculators?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend has set out a number of important ideas. I certainly welcome the recent statistic showing the number of first-time buyers at a 12-year annual high. There are further measures through the national planning policy framework, which include an expectation that local authorities secure 10% of new units for affordable home ownership including discount market sales and starter homes.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
One year on from the Salisbury poisoning, we stand with the people and the city, and we applaud their resilience. The other message from Labour is also clear: such foreign aggression on our soil will never be tolerated.
Four weeks to Brexit, yet the Secretary of State is part of a Government who still threaten the country with a final collapse in negotiations and a crash-out exit. He may say that a no-deal Brexit is not his preference, but he supports this remaining an option and he is part of a Cabinet preparing for it. How many fewer homes will be built each year in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman should be more positive as to the future for our country. Indeed, we look to secure a deal that can command support from this House to ensure that our country—our United Kingdom—can look proudly to the future. Rather than talking things down, we should be talking up what we can do as a country—and, yes, securing a deal that takes us out positively and that ensures that we have that bright, positive future.
John Healey
Well, the Secretary of State has either not done the analysis or he refuses to share it. The Bank of England says that house prices could plunge by 30% on a no-deal Brexit—almost double the fall after the global banking crisis. A Labour Government kept Britain in business after that global financial crash with a big stimulus programme and a new low-cost house building programme as its centrepiece. If he still cannot say no to no deal, will he commit to a new stimulus of at least £4 billion for new low-cost homes next year so that, come what may, those who need new homes will not pay the price of this Government’s mess of Brexit?
James Brokenshire
That is interesting. The right hon. Gentleman might reflect on the mess that his Government caused in terms of crashing the economy. We have a £9 billion affordable homes programme, and £2 billion beyond that in terms of long-term investment in affordable homes, as well as the new flexibilities and freedoms that councils will have to borrow to build. This is about that focus on building the homes our country needs and the support that this Government are giving to achieve that.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I commend my hon. Friend for championing his constituents. I do agree that town councils can empower local communities. Southport electors can petition Sefton Council to be given their own town council through a community governance review, and I know he will lead them in doing exactly that.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
A recent report from Shelter states that permitted development is a totally
“unsuitable method of solving the housing crisis”,
and a Guardian piece at the weekend gave an example of permitted development rights flat conversions that are smaller than tiny hotel rooms and have no natural light and no communal space. The Government are presiding over a new generation of slum development. When are they going to deliver the properly planned, good quality, safe and healthy homes that our country and communities desperately need?
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
Permitted development rights have produced 46,000 homes over the past three years. Those homes have to come from somewhere. They are not, as the hon. Lady said, slums. All permitted developments have to comply with building regulations. As she knows, we are currently reviewing building regulations to see what can be required. As part of the work on the social housing Green Paper, we may well also look at the decent home standards that could, in time, apply to the private rented sector.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is passionate about the high streets in Millom and more widely across her constituency. The loss of the last bank is of concern. That is why we are supporting the Post Office banking framework, which will ensure that 99% of personal banking customers will be able to keep their face-to-face banking at their local post office.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of prevention and early intervention, which is why the Government have funded the troubled families programme by almost £1 billion over this Parliament. It is doing fantastic work, working with some of the most vulnerable children in our society, enabling them to stay out of care and out of harm’s way.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Jake Berry
The people of Morley and Outwood are extremely fortunate to have in my hon. Friend a Member of Parliament who can bring detail to retail, given her lifelong experience in the sector. I absolutely support her “Towns of the future” campaign. I am sure that she is aware of the Government’s “Open Doors” pilot, which is working with landlords and local authorities to help fill empty shops.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
James Brokenshire
I recognise the important point that the hon. Lady makes. Indeed, the specific fund I referenced earlier, through the troubled families initiative, is focused precisely on those steps, to ensure that we can support troubled young people who might be drawn into gang crime, but I am happy to discuss with her further the specific issue she highlights in her constituency.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
James Brokenshire
I am not unsympathetic to my hon. Friend’s long-standing campaign to turn Southend into a city, given that it is my birthplace. I therefore welcome any initiatives that see investment in Southend, and I commend the work that he is doing.
Mr Speaker
Indeed, Southend will probably judge that it should have its very own ambassador from the Philippines—not merely an ambassador visiting Southend, but an ambassador to Southend.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Jake Berry
I met the leader of the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership only last week, and we discussed progress on its growth deal. We remain committed to working with it to see when progress can be made, but it is absolutely vital that the leaders of the three unitary authorities and all the Members of Parliament affected renew their commitment to the deal if we are to make progress.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question; he has been fighting for this cause through high seas and low seas, and I congratulate him on all his work. Houseboat owners are protected under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The consumer rights Green Paper published by the Government last year set out principles to further improve the rights of all consumers, including houseboat owners, and the Government’s response will be published this year.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
Jake Berry
As one of the Members of Parliament from east Lancashire covered by the proposal, I can say that we certainly welcome the discussions that are taking place more widely across east Lancashire. The Department has only just received the letter—despite the press release being sent out last week—and is giving it some consideration, but surely we could make more progress if every council in east Lancashire supported it.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Amber Valley Borough Council is holding a planning meeting tonight on building 2,000 houses on the green belt across a number of sites. Can the Minister confirm that that should be a last resort and that the council has to show exceptional circumstances for each site before it does that?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The green belt should only be used in exceptional circumstances, after local authorities have demonstrated that they have exhausted all other options, including the use of brownfield, co-operating with their neighbours and looking at further density in their developments. We strengthened protections for the green belt in the national planning policy framework published in July 2018, and that should be a last resort.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The permanent secretary recently confirmed at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that the Government have undertaken no evaluation of the impact of permitted development rights since they were expanded in 2013. While the Minister states that more than 46,000 homes have been delivered under the policy, he can have no accurate idea of the quality of those homes. Amid increasing reports of appalling quality, unsafe homes being delivered under permitted development rights, will he pause this policy so that a proper evaluation can be undertaken?
Kit Malthouse
There is obviously a concerted attack taking place against permitted development rights, which I find distressing, given the sheer number of homes that they have produced for people who are desperate for those homes. As I have said, all homes, whether under permitted development rights or normal planning permission, have to comply with building regulations, and it is down to local authorities to ensure that that is the case.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should deliver more affordable homes to purchase in the form of discount market sale, which remain affordable in perpetuity?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is indefatigable and has raised that issue at every opportunity when I have been at the Dispatch Box. He is right that, as part of our affordable homes programme, we would like to see more discount market sales, particularly to younger people across the country. I urge local authorities, which we hope are bringing forward authoritative and forward-looking plans, to embrace that type of tenure.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The number of homeless families in Coventry has more than tripled over the last three years, while the number of homeless children has increased eightfold in the last five years, with more than 600 children spending Christmas in temporary accommodation. Why does the Secretary of State think that the number of homeless families and children has increased so significantly under this Government?
James Brokenshire
The factors that lie behind this are complex, but I can assure the hon. Lady of our absolute commitment to deal with the challenges of rough sleeping and homelessness through the £1.2 billion that we have committed, as well as the initiatives announced at the end of last week on opening up the private rental sector to deal with temporary accommodation pressures. I can assure her of our resolution to increase supply, prevent homelessness and deal with some of the challenges we see today.
Petition
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom demanding faster treatment for pancreatic cancer. I pay tribute to all those who have signed the petition, and particularly those who presented it to Downing Street earlier today, including the family of Erika Vincent, who sadly passed away while building the petition to its current size.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Declares that the Government’s 62-day target for cancer treatment is not suitable for pancreatic cancer, where 1 in 4 pancreatic cancer patients will have passed away within one month of diagnosis and 3 in 4 within one year of diagnosis, making it the deadliest common cancer; further notes the efforts of Erika Vincent who championed a campaign for faster pancreatic cancer treatment, and who sadly passed away last month shortly before her petition reached a milestone 100,000 signatories and further that like Erika, we demand faster treatment and know that this is readily possible.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to set an ambition to treat people with pancreatic cancer within 20 days of diagnosis, by 2024.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002431]
Point of Order
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Ordinarily points of order come after urgent questions and statements, but I have a sense that the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order relates to today’s business, and therefore I will take it and any related matters now.
Mr Mitchell
Thank you, Mr Speaker. You may recall that on 1 May 2018, in new clause 6 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, this House resolved that the overseas territories must establish registers of beneficial ownership by the end of 2020. It has recently come to our notice from statements made by a Foreign Office Minister in the other place that it is the Government’s intention arbitrarily to extend that date by no less than three years to the end of 2023, in a flagrant breach of what was agreed by this House.
That is made yet worse by the fact that, at the urging of the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), with whom I tabled new clause 6, only agreed to extend the date to the end of 2020 in view of the terrible damage done to many of the overseas territories in recent hurricanes and storms. The Hansard report of our proceedings makes that absolutely clear. Mr Speaker, how can this House seek your protection from the egregious sleight of hand being proposed by the Foreign Office?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Thank you. I will respond, but let me hear the other points of order on this matter.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I concur entirely with everything that has been said by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I see this as a blatant, deliberate and arrogant snub of this Parliament, and I ask you, with your excellent experience, to support us in taking this forward.
I simply add that today’s business has been delayed: it has been deliberately taken off the Order Paper by the Government. Today’s business included an amendment, in my name and that of the right hon. Gentleman, which would have not just extended public registers to Crown dependencies, but reiterated the point in relation to overseas territories. We were so angered by the action of the Foreign Office that we wanted to reiterate the decision of Parliament, which was passed unanimously by Parliament last summer, in the amendment we were proposing today, but that opportunity to reiterate our determination has been removed from us as well. I again urge you, Mr Speaker, to advise us what we can do and what you can do to ensure that the Government do what Parliament tells them to do in legislation.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First, this matter, even were it dealt with in 2020, would have been long overdue. It was an issue that was critical for the Public Accounts Committee when I was the Chairman of it many years ago, so it is a long overdue issue. Secondly, it is not a question of the will of the House, but of the laws passed by this House. The intention of the House was that the instruction to bring an Order in Council in 2020 ought to be carried out in 2020, and that is clear from the Hansard of the time.
As the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) says, the business that has been pulled today was about protecting the reputation of the City of London. That reputation will not be protected if it is felt by our competitors around the world that our family, as it were, are allowed to have standards that are lower than those of the City of London. Mr Speaker, will you will seek advice from Speaker’s Counsel about how we can ensure that laws passed by this House are carried out by this Government?
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is tackling financial crime and money laundering essential for the reputation of this country, but if the Government feel that they can get away with changing a date contained in an amendment to legislation passed by this House in relation to this Bill, what is to stop them doing it on lots of other bits of legislation?
Further to the Government’s decision today to pull the Bill at the last minute—I think that is a discourtesy to the House, since it was on the Order Paper—have you, Mr Speaker, been given any indication by Government Ministers about when and whether they intend to return the Bill to the House not only so that we can fix what they have tried to do, but to add further protection in this matter covering the Crown dependencies as well as the overseas territories?
Mr Speaker
I assume the hon. Lady wishes to raise a point of order appertaining to the same matter.
Alison Thewliss
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. To follow on from where the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) left off, this Bill—the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, left the Public Bill Committee on Tuesday and, at business questions on Thursday, it was notified for today, which meant that amendments had to be laid by Wednesday—the day before. Then we arrive this morning to find that the Bill has been pulled from the House with absolutely no notice or explanation. Will you tell the House, Mr Speaker, whether you have been given any indication about how long the Government will be running scared for?
Mr Speaker
First, may I say to the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), before I turn to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), that it is a most unusual state of affairs, although extremely welcome in parliamentary terms, that two former Secretaries of State for International Development from either side of the political divide and two former Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee from either side of the political divide should be present in the Chamber at the same time and, apparently, acting in concert to highlight their grave consternation about this important matter? Their efforts, which may or may not have been co-ordinated, have been underlined and buttressed by the hon. Lady.
Those points of order warrant a response, and this is mine. First, to a degree—although, I accept, only to a limited degree—the right hon. and hon. Members have found their own salvation in the sense that they have taken the opportunity to air their disquiet, not to say extreme dissatisfaction, at what is by no means an unprecedented but a most unusual turn of events, and those points of order are on the record. No business has been pulled as yet, although I gather that it has been heavily trailed that this afternoon’s main business—the first and primary piece of business—is intended, I say for the benefit of observers, not to be moved by the Government; that is to say, it cannot proceed today. Beyond that, I have no power to act on the matter, but it is a most unusual state of affairs.
Members ask whether I received any advance notice of this from Government. The answer is no, and there has been no indication of when Ministers intend to bring forth that business, but I want to say this. The business was announced only on Thursday, so it was clearly the Government’s intention on Thursday last that the business should be treated of by Parliament today. It is, if I may say so, a rum business, to put it no more strongly—all of a sudden, the business that was scheduled for today has been evacuated from Parliament; it has been air-lifted from the premises; it has suffered a mysterious and hitherto unexplained disappearance.
It is a very odd state of affairs altogether. One can speculate as to why that may be so, but it is a most unusual state of affairs, and it is at the very least very discourteous to the House of Commons. It probably reflects a degree of anxiety and, if I may politely say so, perhaps just a little inexperience. It is not the sort of thing that would happen when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was in a senior position with responsibility for Government business, but things change and people who are perhaps less well-versed in these matters than him have been left to handle things as best they can.
That is the first thing. The second thing that I say to right hon. and hon. Members is that the legislation may have been delayed, but presumably it will have to come back. Here is the substantive point. Members have asked what I as Speaker can do. The answer is that Members have been complaining about the perversion of the purpose of a new clause that was accepted in earlier legislation. That purpose, and any current new clause or amendment, can feature again in the business. Insofar as it is for the Chair to select a new clause or amendment, people would expect that the Speaker would give an indication of his thinking. I had certainly intended to select either a new clause or an amendment on this matter today. For the avoidance of doubt, because I know that there has been some private lobbying on this matter, the proposal emanating from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, was entirely orderly. Whatever others thought of it outside this place, or even beyond this country, it would have been perfectly proper for it to have been debated and voted on in this House. If Members wanted to know whether I would have selected that proposition for debate and a vote, the answer is absolutely yes, because it was proper for Parliament to treat of it. It will have to come back, and doubtless it will be considered. I just hope that Parliament will be treated with rather greater courtesy in future on this matter than it has been until now. People really do need to raise their game. I hope that that is clear. [Interruption.] Very well.
Knife Crime
(5 years, 8 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
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if he will make a statement on knife crime.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
This weekend two teenagers, Jodie Chesney and Yousef Ghaleb Makki, were stabbed to death. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express my deepest condolences to their families and their loved ones; two young lives, tragically lost. They are the latest victims in a cycle of senseless violence that is robbing young people of their lives right across this country. There is no hiding from this issue. Serious violence is on the rise. Communities are being torn apart and families are losing their children. Last year, 726 people were murdered in the UK, 285 with a knife or bladed weapon, the highest level since records began.
After the horror of this weekend, I welcome the chance to come to the House and address this issue. We all wish that there was just one thing that we could do to stop the violence, but there are no shortcuts and there is no one single solution. Tackling serious violence requires co-ordinated action on multiple fronts. First, we need a strong law enforcement response. This includes the Offensive Weapons Bill, currently before Parliament, which will introduce new offences to help to tackle knife crime. We also need to give police the confidence to use existing laws, such as stop and search.
Secondly, we must intervene early to stop young people becoming involved in crime. We have amended the Bill to introduce knife crime prevention orders, which will help to prevent young people from carrying knives. Alongside our £200 million youth endowment fund, the £22 million early intervention youth fund has already funded 29 projects endorsed by police and crime commissioners.
Thirdly, we must ensure that the police have the resources to combat serious violence. I am raising police funding to record levels next year—up to £970 million more, including council tax. On Wednesday, I will meet chief constables to listen to their experiences and requirements.
Fourthly, we must be clear on how changing patterns of drug misuse are fuelling the rise in violent crime. I launched the independent drugs misuse review, under Dame Carol Black, in response to that.
Fifthly, we need all parts of the public sector to prioritise tackling serious violence. That is why I will very shortly be launching a consultation on a new statutory public health duty to combat violent crime and to help protect young people.
We must all acknowledge that this is an issue that transcends party lines. Politics can be divisive, but if there was ever an issue to unite our efforts and inspire us to stand together, then surely this is it.
Louise Haigh
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting today’s urgent question. I thank the Home Secretary for making time to respond to it.
Today, the House is united in grief and shock at the tragic toll of the past couple of weeks, adding to the hundreds of children murdered in our communities over the past year. In Birmingham, over the space of just 12 days, three teenage boys have lost their lives: Sidali Mohamed and Abdullah Mohammad, both 16 years old; and student Hazrat Umar, 18 years old. On Friday, Jodie Chesney was killed in a knife attack in an east London park as she played music with her friends. She was 17. Yousef Makki was stabbed to death in a village near Altrincham. He was 17. It adds to a 93% rise in the number of young people being stabbed since 2012.
These senseless murders are a national tragedy that must cause us to reflect on how the promise that these young boys and girls represent could so senselessly be extinguished. But it must also be a cause for action. One life lost in an act of violence is one too many; one mother who will never see her son or daughter again is one too many. This is a national crisis, and it requires national leadership from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to provide whatever support is necessary to help the police investigate and fight this outbreak, and to provide communities and services with whatever resources are necessary to protect our increasingly vulnerable young people.
May I put the following questions to the Home Secretary? Back in 2000, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, took the decision to activate the emergency Cobra committee and set a target for bringing violent street crime, which was then at a peak, under control. We need to see similar leadership today from our Prime Minister. Will she step up and convene a crisis summit backed with emergency funding? Will the Home Secretary confirm that that will take place this week? If not, why not?
Underpinning the cross-Government effort the Home Secretary mentioned has to be a public health approach to tackle the root causes of violence. This was something we thought the Government favoured too, encompassing youth services, school exclusions, housing, social services, mental health and health as a whole. It was therefore shocking to hear the comments from the Health Secretary on LBC this morning, when he did not appear to know that this was the approach adopted by his Government and criticised the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for using public health terminology. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the public health approach to tackling knife crime has been discussed at Cabinet, what action has been agreed as a result of this cross-governmental approach, and how the Department of Health and Social Care is supporting it? He has further committed to legislation to underpin the public health approach; when exactly will that be brought forward?
Finally, we cannot pretend that the cuts to policing have not made our country less safe. Sadly, the Prime Minister and other members of her Cabinet continue to deny this crucial link. In the coming weeks, police will have the heavy responsibility of running investigations into young lives lost and bringing perpetrators to justice. The funding settlement that we voted on last month is completely inadequate to allow them to do that, especially for the forces hardest hit by violent crime. Will he urgently review the funding settlement to ensure that the forces that have seen the biggest increases in violent crime are given whatever they need to fight this outbreak?
This country is facing a crisis. It is time for leadership from our Prime Minister and our Home Secretary, for clear action and a united vision from all arms of Government, and for emergency funding for the police and prevention programmes to keep our children safe. Warm words are no longer enough.
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She started, quite correctly, by talking about how the House is united in its grief with regard to all the deaths that we have seen, particularly of young people, not just in recent days but over the last number of years, when we have seen an increase in these tragic crimes that are dividing communities and causing so much pain for so many people.
The hon. Lady asked me three questions. First, this is a huge priority across Government. That is why, almost a year ago, the Government set out a serious violence strategy with over 60 actions taking place that involve not just Government but other public agencies and bodies. To help implement those actions, we also set up a serious violence taskforce, which is cross-party and includes people such as the Mayor of London, so that we can make sure that we are working well not just within central Government, but across public bodies.
That brings me to the hon. Lady’s second point: the public health approach, which I announced towards the end of last year. Again, that came through listening to experience both from other parts of the UK and other countries that have seen a similar rise in serious violence. We should learn from wherever we can. It is important to have such an approach, which requires all Departments and agencies of Government to treat serious violence in the way we would treat, for example, a disease—to prioritise it and make that a statutory duty. That is why I welcome the support for that approach from hon. Members across the House. As I said, because it is a statutory duty, it will require legislation. That begins with a consultation, which is to take place shortly.
Thirdly, the hon. Lady asked about funding and resources. As I mentioned, I have long recognised that in tackling serious violence, there is no one single course, but having the right amount of resources is vital. That is why we set out in the House earlier this year an increase of up to £970 million for policing—almost double the increase in the year before and the largest increase since 2010—which will lead to a significant rise in capabilities, including in the number of officers. Finally, alongside that, we have announced a record allocation to early intervention, especially helping young people through the £200 million youth endowment fund, which is the biggest such investment that any Government have ever made.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
The other day I went out on patrol with the police in my area. In two and a half hours in the borough of Waltham Forest, we attended two knife attacks, one threatened knife attack and a shooting, and that was not even prime time. None of those made it into the media, by the way, so what is being reported is only the tip of the iceberg.
I want my right hon. Friend to ensure that we do this. There is enough evidence now of what works and what does not work. The Glasgow concept—of this being a public health issue—is not just about public health; it is about the co-ordination between the police and all the local authorities. Will he direct someone to co-ordinate the actions of all 32 London boroughs, focus on the safer streets process, which allows action to take place, and agree to immediate expenditure for voluntary sector organisations that can get children out of the gangs?
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work, particularly through the serious violence taskforce, which he regularly attends. He made an important point about being led by evidence, and he pointed to the public health approach and rightly mentioned Glasgow. He also rightly highlighted the importance in a capital city of greater co-ordination. It is to ensure just that that we are working closely with the Mayor of London, local authorities and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The recent spate of murders by stabbing of children and young people across Greater London and England has shocked and horrified everyone. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I extend our deepest condolences to all those bereaved by these senseless acts of violence.
We are acutely aware of the problem of knife crime in Scotland, because until recent years it was a terrible scourge, but, as others have alluded to, as a result of a radical change of approach to the problem, the incidence of knife crime in Scotland has greatly reduced, and crimes of handling an offensive weapon decreased by 64% between 2007-08 and 2016-17. I think we all know now that this occurred because of a holistic approach that involved the creation of a violence reduction unit, initially in Glasgow and now for the whole of Scotland and funded by the Scottish Government, that treats violent crime as a public health problem and a social problem.
Scotland has also employed a whole-systems approach to young people at risk of offending that, rather than criminalising, labelling and stigmatising young people, provides early and effective interventions that keep young people out of formalised justice settings, and this includes the No Knives, Better Lives youth engagement programme.
All of this has been a huge success, which is why the Mayor of London, senior representatives of the Metropolitan police and senior representatives of the UK Government, including the Solicitor General, have all been up to Scotland in the last year to explore what lessons can be learned. The public health approach to knife crime is also advocated by the World Health Organisation. What specifically have the Home Secretary’s Government colleagues learned on their visits to Scotland? Can he tell us the precise extent of his plans to follow the Scottish model? If he is planning to do it, when is he going to do it?
Sajid Javid
The hon. and learned Lady rightly points to Scotland and its own experience. It is important in tackling serious violence that we learn lessons from across the UK, and indeed the world—the public health approach she talked about has been tried in other countries and cities as well. I said we needed action across multiple fronts, but it is hugely important that we pursue that. It will require a consultation, because it is statutory, which is important to make sure that hon. Members and others have the opportunity to have an input, mould it and make sure it is as effective as it can be. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation, but there is a strong sense of support. The cross-party serious violence taskforce, which I referred to earlier, had a presentation on this last year where we heard from experienced people about how it can help, and it is something that we plan to pursue. I look forward to working with friends and colleagues in Scotland to see how they can help.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary ask the Mayor of London to consider as a matter of urgency adopting the plan put forward by Shaun Bailey for funding an extra 2,000 police officers through reducing waste at City Hall and public affairs spending?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to ensure that everything is being done throughout the United Kingdom, including our capital city, to deploy as many resources as possible to law enforcement and efforts to prevent young people from turning to serious violence in the first place. The work being done by Shaun Bailey and others is important in that regard, and I hope that the recent increase in central funding will help as well.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Fatal stabbings are now at their highest level since the second world war, and the number of youth stabbings has doubled in five years. Teenagers are dying on our streets, and families are being devastated as a result. I agree with what the Home Secretary said about a public health approach, but that is why it was so concerning to hear the Health Secretary dismiss such an approach—the Home Secretary did not respond when his comments were raised earlier. That creates a feeling that there simply is not the right sense of urgency and grip across the Government on this crucial issue: this morning a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned of a lack of national leadership.
Does the Home Secretary believe that all the measures that he talked about earlier will lead to a fall in knife crime and in the number of serious stabbings in the next 12 months? If he does not, this is not a good enough plan.
Sajid Javid
I welcome the right hon. Lady’s comments. I do believe that the action that we are taking is the right action, but I am also very open-minded about considering what further action can be taken. I think it important to listen to police chiefs, police and crime commissioners and others, and to consider whether other measures can be introduced. The idea of knife crime prevention orders came directly from the police, the Mayor of London and others, and we acted very quickly to pursue that.
As for the public health approach that the right hon. Lady and others have mentioned, it is important for all public Departments to buy into it. I want it to be statutory because I want Departments including the Department for Health and Social Care, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education to make it a priority: I think that they all have an important role to play.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What action are the Government taking to ensure that enough resources are available and preferably targeted on this priority, and what further action can they take to spread best practice from places that have had more success?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend has raised an important issue involving co-ordination and the need to make the most of the resources that are there. Last September I launched the national county lines co-ordination centre, which was intended to ensure that police forces and the National Crime Agency worked together. It is early days, but, having visited three police forces across the country over the last few weeks to see how the system was working, I know that it is bringing real results through co-ordination.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The public health approach in Scotland also involved a cross-party approach, with much of the work beginning under Labour and continuing under the Scottish National party. The whole House wants the Home Secretary to succeed, but we have been on alert since Tanesha Melbourne-Blake was killed in my constituency on bank holiday Monday almost a year ago.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for allowing me to be part of the taskforce in that cross-party spirit, but the questions today are really about the Government’s grip, because of what we heard from the Health Secretary this morning. What more can the Government do? I ask that question particularly because county lines is being driven by a demand for drugs, and we have cut our Border Force as a result of austerity.
Sajid Javid
First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work that he does, in the taskforce and elsewhere, in combating and helping to combat serious violence. He is right about the importance of a cross-governmental approach, and of ensuring that all parts of Government are joined up.
The right hon. Gentleman understandably raised the issue of drugs and drug seizures, and he mentioned the Border Force. Last year, the amount of class A drugs seized by Border Force was threefold higher than in the previous year, so it is up. That said, the volume of these types of drugs across the world has increased dramatically, and that is leading to some of the gang warfare we are seeing, especially the spread of county lines. So more needs to be done: more needs to be done both through the public health approach but also the other interventions I have just set out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
May I first give my deep condolences to the family of Yousef Makki, the young man whose life was tragically taken in my constituency on Saturday evening, and may I also thank Greater Manchester police for their rapid response to give some reassurance to the community?
The Home Secretary has spoken of increased resources going to the police. When he meets senior officers in the coming days, will he urge them and seek to persuade them to make sure as much as possible of that new resource goes to increasing the numbers of frontline officers, to give greater reassurance to communities the length and breadth of our country?
Sajid Javid
I join my hon. Friend in the condolences he just expressed; it is a truly senseless loss of life. He is also right to commend the response of Greater Manchester police to the tragedy.
My hon. Friend asked about resources. In terms of the increase in funding I referred to earlier—£970 million this year—it is good to see that almost all police forces across the country, including GMP, have responded by saying they will be hiring a significant number of officers to add to the frontline. The figure is almost 3,000 in total so far, but it is good to see that police forces across the country are looking to see what they can do to make a real difference.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
No one doubts the Home Secretary’s desire to do something about knife crime across the country, but does he not recognise that for months this House has been crying out for the Government to get a grip: it has been crying out for the Government to do more about this? Belatedly, we all seem to be recognising that it is a national crisis—a national emergency. In the face of national emergencies—whether terrorism, flooding, or foot and mouth—the Government convene Cobra, because Cobra drives the Government forward with an urgency and passion that is lacking at present. Will the Home Secretary go back to the Prime Minister and say that we need to convene Cobra—we need to bring the right people together to drive forward with the enthusiasm and desire that this needs to be tackled as the national emergency that it is?
Sajid Javid
This is a hugely important priority issue across the Government: it was discussed very recently, just in the past few weeks, in the Cabinet, and just a couple of weeks ago we had a debate in this House on serious violence, both to set out the Government’s plans but also to listen to hon. Members across the House on new initiatives that can be taken forward. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about this being an urgent priority, and it is important that we all work together to see what more we can do.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Are sentences served long enough?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend will know that, as recently as 2015, changes were made to sentencing for serious violence crimes, including with bladed weapons. While it is right that the courts make decisions on sentencing based on the evidence and the facts in each case, we have seen a rise in custodial sentences. That is important, too, to make sure the right message and right deterrent are set out for these horrible crimes.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
A primary school in my constituency recently told me that the three and four-year-olds who are likely to be vulnerable to gangs can be identified in the nursery, often because they have grown up in households afflicted by domestic violence or drug and alcohol abuse, or where other family members are in gangs. Yet our school budgets and Sure Start centres have been cut, making early intervention far more difficult. Has the Home Secretary had any conversations with the Treasury about proper funding for very early intervention, and if not, why not?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady raises the important issue of early intervention, including very early intervention. A ministerial taskforce is looking at this issue and trying to do more in this space, and work is being done. Through my Department, work is already being done on the early intervention youth fund, which has made allocations to more than 20 social enterprises, including those that are helping people to exit from gangs. Also, the draft Domestic Abuse Bill sets out to help young people who are more likely to be vulnerable to committing crimes themselves, perhaps because of their own life experiences.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I, too, extend my sympathy to the families affected by those two ghastly crimes. Has my right hon. Friend asked the chief constables how many more officers they all need to put on to our streets? Has he ever asked that question, and as he had an answer? How many officers are needed to physically patrol the streets of our country?
Sajid Javid
I regularly speak to chief constables across the country about their needs, in regard not just to serious violence—although that is of course a priority for almost all of them—but to the whole host of crimes they are trying to deal with. The information that we get from chief officers will then feed back into the annual police settlement. This year, as I have mentioned, the police settlement has the largest cash increase since 2010.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I should also like to add my condolences to the families of the recent victims. I am a mother of four, and I cannot even begin to understand what those families are going through. Extensive research now shows that adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse, neglect or a parent in prison, can severely harm a child’s development. Too many children with multiple adverse childhood experiences are excluded from school, which in turn can lead them to become involved in gangs and violence. If we are to tackle this epidemic of youth violence, we need an approach—perhaps we can call it a public health approach—that is trauma-informed to care for children with ACEs. We also need much lower numbers of school exclusions. Will the Secretary of State liaise with the Department for Education on school exclusions, please?
Sajid Javid
I agree with the hon. Lady’s points about young people suffering from trauma and who may have witnessed abuse, including in their own household. She is absolutely right to raise this. We talked earlier about experiences in Scotland, and there have also been some valuable experiences in Wales, especially on trauma-based therapy. She is also right to mention school exclusions. I welcome the independent work that is being done on this by Edward Timpson, and we will be working with the Department for Education to take that forward.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Home Office has told me in a written answer that it does not collect statistics on the association between knife crime where people are killed or maimed. However, the serious violence strategy that was published last year tells us that in 57% of all homicides, either the victim or the offender is either a drug dealer or a drug user. The Secretary of State has asked Dame Carol Black to carry out an honest assessment of our capability and capacity to address this threat, but she is not allowed to consider whether we can take this threat out the hands of criminals altogether. The Americans learned a very hard lesson in the 1920s and 1930s when they prohibited the drug alcohol, and the entire world has learned a very hard lesson in the global war on drugs over the past 50 years. Why cannot we carry out an honest assessment of the costs and benefits of prohibition?
Sajid Javid
This Government do not support the legalisation of these types of harmful drugs. I respect my hon. Friend’s firmly held views, but the class of drugs that we are talking about is hugely harmful to anyone who takes them, especially young people. The answer is to look at how the misuse of drugs is driving violent crime and other crimes, and that is exactly why we have asked Dame Carol Black to look into the misuse of drugs. There is no question of legalising any of those harmful drugs.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
While I appreciate the Home Secretary’s tone, I am unsure whether the reality totally matches up with what he is talking about. On school exclusions, he talks about an evidence base and following the evidence, but the overwhelming evidence is that those who are excluded from school end up getting involved in drugs, youth violence and gang activity. The Timpson review is long overdue, and we are not expecting it to be all that powerful. Given that we have been raising such issues for a long time, will the Government now look at the powers that local authorities need to ensure that children in their communities are getting an education? This atomised, fragmented school system means that too many are falling through the net.
Sajid Javid
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is vital that the whole issue of exclusions, alternative provision and pupil referral units is looked at properly, and it is vital that we follow the evidence. She seems to prejudge Edward Timpson’s report, but I have a great deal of confidence in him. He is an experienced individual who will take the issue incredibly seriously, and we need independent evidence. However, if the hon. Lady is suggesting that we do not need to wait for that to do more work, she is right about that, too. Work is already ongoing between my Department, the Department for Education and others, but the report will certainly help.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Following on from the previous question from the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), although I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, the fact is that 40 children are excluded from our schools every day, either on fixed or temporary exclusions—4,000 such children have special educational needs—and a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said that that is a major cause of knife crime. We know that excluded children are twice as likely to carry knives and that children are being off-rolled. We must ensure, as the Education Committee report suggested, that schools are accountable for the pupils they exclude, that there is transparency and that this approach is the No. 1 priority for dealing with knife crime.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this issue, and I welcome the work that he and his Select Committee have done. Like the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) before him, he is right to raise the issue, which is critical if we are to deal with serious violence and drug misuse properly. The number of exclusions seems to be heading in the wrong direction, and it is important that we look at the links between that and crime. I welcome what my right hon. Friend says and the work that he is doing through the Education Committee.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Following another tragic wave of violence over the weekend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care dismissed treating it as a public health issue, contradicting the Government’s apparent plans to tackle violence with a public health approach. Has the Home Secretary spoken to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care at all about the Government’s plans to adopt a public health approach?
Sajid Javid
I mentioned earlier that serious violence and the priority of tackling it was discussed in Cabinet in the past few weeks, and the matter is being taken seriously in every Department. The Department of Health and Social Care is key if the public health approach that I have talked about is to be success.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
The impact of knife crime across London has been horrific in recent months, but has the Home Secretary seen the recent extraordinary comments from the Mayor of London? He said that it would take him 10 years to deal with the London knife crime epidemic—longer than anybody has served as Mayor—yet his website says that he has responsibility for the “totality of policing” in London. My constituents and other Londoners will not wait 10 years, so what discussions has the Home Secretary had with the Mayor of London?
Sajid Javid
The Mayor of London is an important partner in this, and he is a member of the serious violence taskforce. We do not have 10 years to deal with this, of course not. There are certain things that will take time, but there are also things that could be done that would have a much more immediate impact, such as some of the legal changes that will be brought in by the Offensive Weapons Bill. My right hon. Friend highlights the need to work together in partnership.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)
The public health and public education approach, together with more police officers, is obviously right, but was not the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner correct this morning when he said that, ultimately, our young people need to know they are better off not being in possession of a knife than having that knife? Therefore, is it not time for us to have clearer mandatory sentencing for those caught in possession of a knife without just cause?
Sajid Javid
When the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Hogan-Howe, speaks, it is important that we listen. I have great respect for him and for others who have served in our police. The issue of sentencing is very important—I mentioned earlier that there have been some changes in sentencing—and it is also about making sure that we have the right laws in place, which is why I welcome the support across the House, including I believe from the hon. Gentleman, on the new Offensive Weapons Bill.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary has outlined some important measures, including this year’s police settlement, which means 100 extra officers in Leicestershire, but what role does he see for longer sentences and stiffer penalties for knife possession as part of his strong plan?
Sajid Javid
Changes were made to the sentencing regime in 2015, but it is right that, when we consider the responses to the rise in serious violence and, especially, the tragic deaths that have occurred, we make sure our sentencing is right. That is why, through the work being done across the Government, it is time for us to look again at sentencing.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I grew up under the cloud of gang violence in Birmingham. When I was a teenager, it was really quite bad. It was dangerous for us when we lived there, and in the years since, I have found myself working tirelessly to try to improve the situation, which we had managed to do. Now I receive letters from my children’s inner-city comprehensive school about how to spot whether my children are in a gang. We have gone straight back to day one. Nothing the Home Secretary has said allays my fears as a parent of a teenage boy in Birmingham. There used to be a police officer based at almost every inner-city school in Birmingham. None of them is there now. Why is that the case?
Sajid Javid
I hear what the hon. Lady says very clearly, and I am listening carefully. I also grew up in a place that, sadly, had lots of gangs and crime, and no one wants to see that in any community. I understand what she says. She specifically asks me about policing, and just last week I went to see some of the work that West Midlands police are doing with other police forces. Much more resource is going into fighting both gangs and drugs. As I mentioned earlier, the increased resourcing will directly lead to many more officers on the frontline.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talked in the past of suspending social media accounts as one tool to help tackle this dreadful scourge and the needless loss of life we are seeing. How are his discussions going with the social media companies, which are integral to achieving that aim? Does he think we need to look again at sentencing policy?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises another important issue on the role that social media might be playing in spreading serious violence. Late last year, I provided £1.4 million of funding for a new social media serious violence hub so that the Metropolitan police can work with social media companies and specifically focus on this very issue. He knows that the Government will shortly be publishing an online harms White Paper, which will also look at this important issue.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am sure the Home Secretary will agree that behind every fatal stabbing and shooting is a young person’s future cancelled, and a family left grieving and wondering for the rest of their life, “How could this have been prevented?” He has demonstrated that he knows what needs to be done—it is about interrupting the drugs industry, early intervention and having more police on the street—so why on earth we need yet another consultation is beyond me. What we do need is for him to come back to this House, within the next week, with a definite plan about how to deal with this and proper resources behind the plan. I ask him to do that, because he already knows what needs to be done.
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he talks of the tragic deaths, lives being cut short, all those opportunities that are forever gone and the impact on those families. I think he was referring to the public health approach and asking why it would require a consultation. That is because it is supposed to be a statutory approach. We could have taken the non-statutory route. That would have been quicker, frankly, but I think it would have been less effective because I need every Department—colleagues have mentioned the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education—to make this a priority. We have talked about the experience in the other parts of the UK and in other countries. It has been a statutory approach. With very few exceptions, there is a requirement with such an approach to have a consultation to make sure it is legally watertight.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Warwickshire police are currently recruiting an additional 150 officers and extra officers are part of the solution here. My right hon. Friend has talked about a wider cross-Government approach and using resources of the whole of the Government. Can he say more about how we can get those resources and that approach down to the local level, where it is really going to make a difference?
Sajid Javid
I welcome the announcement by Warwickshire police. On other resources, a vital one that I mentioned earlier is support for organisations, mainly community organisations, to tackle the issue early on, through early intervention, especially to try to turn young people away from what might become a life of crime. The early intervention youth fund has already allocated funds to more than 20 projects, but the new youth endowment fund, which I said I would be publishing information on very shortly, will be allocating some £200 million very shortly to do just that work—early intervention.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Jodie Chesney, Charlotte Huggins, Tudor Simionov, Nedim Bilgin, Lejean Richards, Dennis Anderson, Aliny Mendes, Simbiso Aretha Moula, Sarah Ashraf, Asma Begum, Kamil Malysz, Bright Akinleye, Glendon Spence, Che Morrison, David Lopez-Fernandez, Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck, Brian Wieland and Jaden Moodie—I am not sure that that is a complete list of everyone who has been killed by a knife in London this year alone, but I can tell the Home Secretary that the taskforce, the consultations and the more reports are not working. What on earth will it take for him to recognise that this is an emergency that requires an emergency response?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady reminds this House that this is such a tragic loss of life. She talked of those lives cut short in London. There are colleagues here representing seats across the country where we have, sadly, lost lives. She is absolutely right to highlight this but, as I said, I really wish standing here that there was just one simple answer—just one single thing that could be done. We require action across multiple fronts and the best way to achieve that is for all of us to recognise that and to work together to deliver it.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
As I regrettably advised the House earlier today, on Friday night, 17-year-old Jodie Chesney was murdered in my constituency. She was a bright, beautiful and kind young woman and she did not deserve to die in this way. The public are losing faith in our ability to control our streets and they need to see and feel a step change in our response to public safety concerns. Can the Home Secretary tell me what he is doing at all levels of governance—at Home Secretary level, Prime Ministerial level, Mayoral level and local council level—to draw together our response to these tragic incidents? Will he join me in paying tribute to the members of the community and the police officers who came to Jodie’s aid when she was lying there in her final moments?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for what she has said and remind the House of the tragic loss of life when Jodie was murdered this weekend. As I said earlier, the whole House will want to send their condolences to her family and loved ones. My hon. Friend is right to point to the work of the police and emergency services and how they responded to that tragedy, and of course I join her in commending their work.
My hon. Friend asked specifically about the work being done across Government. This issue is a priority for all of Government, across all Departments, some of which are more important to this issue than others. Obviously, I am starting with my own, but we have also heard in the House about the work in the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care. We have also heard about the work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—for example, the extra funding that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced for the troubled families programme, to try to help to reduce violence. That kind of approach is what is going to be required to make a huge change and to reduce this senseless violence. It is going to be necessary for all Government Departments and public agencies to work together, and that means in respect of not only resources and co-ordination, but this new statutory approach, which will make a big difference.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Lord Hogan-Howe said today that the Government do not have a grip on this national crisis. Given the fact that there have been more than 100 knife offences every day over the past year, he is of course right. The Home Secretary said that he needs every Government Department to take part, but there is a silence from the very heart of Government: the Prime Minister has made no speeches, she has held no crisis meetings, she has not called Cobra meetings and she has not led any kind of serious cross-party campaign. In the past, Prime Ministers have activated Cobra because of crime levels and led cross-Government programmes that have successfully changed big societal issues of the kind we face today, and we know the evidence for what works, so does the Home Secretary not think it is now time for the Prime Minister herself to step up and lead?
Sajid Javid
I mentioned earlier that the issue of serious violence and what more can be done to tackle it was discussed in Cabinet this year, so very recently. The Prime Minister herself is making sure that all Government Departments are playing their role and is very supportive of the measures that have been set out, and also the measures I am taking to make sure that we are listening to the chief officers, police and crime commissioners and others to see what more can be done.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Just over five years ago, Hollie Gazzard was murdered in the hairdressing salon where she worked in Gloucester city centre. In an extraordinary act of courage and determination, her family created the Hollie Gazzard Trust, which worked with the police, the Gloucestershire constabulary, to learn lessons from their handling of the incident and then to fund and deliver an education programme to schools, to advise young people on the early warning signs of abusive relationships. So positive things can be and have been done at a local level to share best practice.
I am particularly interested in what my right hon. Friend had to say about Dame Carol Black’s forthcoming report, because it seems to me that, in Gloucester, as elsewhere in the country, there is this huge link between drugs and drug dealing and serious knife crime that leads to deaths. The more we can learn about what best practice is in the handling of such incidents, the better we can try to tackle it in our own constituencies.
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned the work of the Hollie Gazzard Trust and reminded us of how, through that tragedy, the family and friends came together to try to turn it into something that could help others. Indeed, I think the victims Minister met Mr Gazzard as well.
My hon. Friend asked me about the work that is being done to look into the drugs markets and drugs misuse. That is vital work because one thing that is clear is that sadly the changes in drugs markets seem to be driving much of this violence. If we can understand those changes better, we can come up with even more policy responses.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary tasked any individual to drive through the co-ordination, the prioritisation and the expenditure and to report back to Ministers? I simply say this because, when we faced this challenge in Government 10 years ago, we appointed the chief constable of Warwickshire to drive forward, across Government, a knife crime reduction plan, which reduced knife crime incidents through co-ordination and reporting to Ministers. He should look at what was done then and replicate it.
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman mentions an important issue about leadership. This is such an important issue that it requires, as we are seeing, leadership across different levels—not just at national level, but in local government. We have talked today about some of the mayors and their responsibilities, the police and crime commissioners and the chief constables. It is important that all that work is co-ordinated as well. The work of the serious violence taskforce, for example, is important in this, as is the work that the National Police Chiefs Council co-ordinates and the work of the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre. So leadership at many levels is required.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The gangs operating on our streets are
“complex and ruthless organisations, using sophisticated techniques”—
to recruit children—
“and chilling levels of violence to keep them compliant.”
So says the Children’s Commissioner in an important report published only last week. That report identifies 27,000 gang members in England and a further 34,000 children who know gang members and have experienced violent crime. That is 61,000 young people, yet only 10% of that number are known to the authorities. The Children’s Commissioner identifies serious failings among local safeguarding boards, which, in too many cases, have not made any serious attempt to understand the level of risk in their area. I understand and recognise the Home Secretary’s commitment to tackle this issue, but it seems that we are starting from a very long way back if we only know now 10% of the children who are most at risk from knife crime. How are we going to improve that intelligence picture?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. He has referred to the report just last week of the Children’s Commissioner, who is on the serious violence taskforce. I very much welcomed her report. She is absolutely right to look at this whole issue of vulnerable children who have been drawn into these gangs. Hon. Members have talked about the pupil referral units in that regard as well. There are some very sensible recommendations in the report and we will be working with her and others to see what more can be done.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The past two years have seen six tragic knife murders in my constituency, including, in the past month, the murders of Dennis Anderson in East Dulwich and Glendon Spence, who died after being chased into a youth centre in Brixton. For every tragic victim, there are countless families who are living in daily fear. One mother told me recently of her teenage son. She said:
“I pray when he leaves the house and I don’t breathe until he is home again.”
The public health approach cannot be implemented by public services—whether health, education, police, social services, youth services or housing—which have been decimated by nine years of austerity. When will the Secretary of State commit to not just piecemeal pockets of limited funding, but a reversal of the devastation of our public services, which is resulting in our communities living in fear?
Sajid Javid
What I have outlined today, or summarised again for the House, are what I think are some very significant increases in resourcing: the increase in police resourcing, the largest since 2010, and the record amount invested in youth intervention, including the £200 million endowment fund. Those are very significant investments. I am not suggesting for a second that the hon. Lady cannot be right that more resources might be needed. If that is absolutely necessary, of course, that is what will happen, but it would be wrong to say that they are piecemeal resources and in some way insignificant.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
When I asked the chief constable of Bedfordshire what was driving the increase in knife crime in my county, he mentioned the fact that there were too many homes where there was not a father telling young boys that carrying a knife was wrong. I hugely welcome the 160 extra officers in Bedfordshire this year, but what more can we do to support parents and families to tell all young people that real men do not carry knives and that this an unacceptably evil thing to do?
Sajid Javid
I will give my hon. Friend two responses. First, last year, we started our #knifefree campaign, which is about sending messages to young people, on the social media they use and in more traditional advertising, about the dangers of carrying a knife. Secondly, we are working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, through its troubled families programme, to see what more we can do with those families, who are perhaps going through family breakdown or facing other issues, to get across the message that there is never an excuse to carry a knife.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The call from my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and others for Cobra to be convened is not just about recognising this as a national emergency, which it is; it is also about ensuring that the cross-Government approach, which the Home Secretary says he recognises, is actually delivered on the ground, right across the country, with the resources needed to back it up, whether through early intervention work to identify the young people most at risk of getting involved in gangs and knife crime, or by reducing the level of school exclusions, which in all too many cases is a route into knife crime. I put it to him that what he said about resources rings pretty hollow in the west midlands, given that we have lost 2,000 police officers over the past nine years and are facing nearly 300 incidents of knife crime this year already. Will he now respond to the call from the West Midlands police and crime commissioner for an emergency funding package so that we can address this problem in a consistent and effective way?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of a cross-Government approach. It is something that is needed not just today; it has to be a long-term, sustained approach, with Departments and public agencies working together. That is why our cross-party serious violence taskforce involves Government Departments as well as other agencies and public authorities. It is also important that we listen to all levels of Government. He rightly mentioned West Midlands police, a force I have visited on many occasions—I visited it only recently to look at some of the work it is doing to combat serious violence. I will always listen carefully to all local police forces, including West Midlands police, to see what more can be done.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the overall tone of the Home Secretary’s responses to the questions asked by Members today. Does he agree that the approach needed to tackle this will vary dramatically across the country, from large urban areas such as London to places with towns and smaller urban areas, such as Devon and Cornwall? Will he commit to working with the police and crime commissioners for those areas, not only to co-ordinate national action, but to ensure that the local response reflects local needs?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right that we must ensure that we have the right approach for each area, and he has talked about the differences between some urban areas and more rural areas. Last month I was near Exeter, meeting officers from Devon and Cornwall police, including the police and crime commissioner, and I was pleased to see just how seriously they take this issue, and they talked about how the new national county lines co-ordination centre is already making a real difference.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My constituent Sam Cook was stabbed to death a year ago in Liverpool city centre, on the night he was celebrating his 21st birthday. His mum, Gill Radcliffe, asked me to tell the Home Secretary to remember that this is not just a London issue, but a national problem. When he meets the police chief constables in a couple of days’ time, the chief constable of Merseyside police will remind him that the consequence of the scale of cuts in Government funding for Merseyside is that there are now 1,200 fewer police officers keeping our streets safe. He will also know of a 30% cut in probation services. Sam Cook’s killer was on licence, having committed another knife offence, when he killed Sam. The probation service had not given the monitoring of Sam’s killer sufficient attention, which allowed him to kill Sam. Will the Home Secretary please take this seriously across Government and address the concerns that have been caused by the scale of the cuts in multiple Departments since 2010?
Sajid Javid
First, the hon. Gentleman raises the tragic death of Sam Cook. It may have been a year ago, but it is still as tragic today as it was then, and he is right to remind the House of it. He talked about the importance of recognising that this is not just a London issue. Absolutely, it is not—it is across the country, as we have just seen this weekend, again tragically, with the terrible death in Manchester. He raised the issue of probation and making sure that it is the best it can be. Again, he is absolutely right to do so. I know that lessons have already been learned from the case of Sam Cook, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the issue, and also to stress the importance of cross-Government work and making sure that that includes the Ministry of Justice.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
For those of us who, at the turn of the century, worked in inner-city youth organisations to try to turn young people away from the dangers of crime, this latest epidemic of knife crime is not only deeply depressing but amounts to a reversal of the good work that has been done. The Home Secretary has said that he is open-minded to all solutions and that there is no one solution to this. Will he look again at the proposal that knives for sale in retail outlets are prohibited from being anywhere outside a locked cabinet?
Sajid Javid
It is good to remind the House of the importance of early intervention. That is why we are making this record allocation of over £220 million, altogether, in early intervention projects. The retailing of knives is partly being addressed through the Offensive Weapons Bill. My hon. Friend has raised another aspect of that. As I have said, nothing should be off the table, and I would be happy to discuss it with him.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Last week, a knife attack led to the death of one of my constituents, and before Christmas three people were attacked outside a GP surgery. People are living in absolute terror. Although this is affecting young people in particular, it is affecting all communities up and down the country. Since 2010, 21,000 police officers have been taken out of our system. If the Home Secretary wants our support, he absolutely has it in lobbying the Prime Minister and the Chancellor so that we can have those police officers reinstated. The one thing he can do is to shore up our police services, because they are at breaking point and desperately need support to bring an end to knife crime. I cannot, and I know other colleagues cannot, bear the thought of having to return to this House in weeks and months to come having witnessed stories of further fatalities and deaths. That is why the Home Secretary needs to take action. Labour Members will support him to lobby for more funding, but he needs to put pressure on his Prime Minister and his Chancellor to fund our police service urgently and reinstate 21,000 officers in our system.
Sajid Javid
First, the hon. Lady rightly reminds us that these tragic crimes are of course affecting all communities—not just young people but communities of all ages. She talks about the importance of police resources. I hope that she will welcome the increase in police funding, which is the largest increase since 2010 and will help to make a big difference on the ground, including to policing in London. But I hope that she also recognises that this cannot just be all about resources. There is a need to look at police powers as well, and that is why the Offensive Weapons Bill is very important. It is also about resources in other areas such as early intervention.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State spoke of other countries using the public health approach. The Scottish violence reduction unit’s methods have been shared with South Africa, Jamaica and Lithuania, for instance. That unit was set up in Scotland in 2005. While we will never be complacent, as recent terrible events in Edinburgh showed, the unit’s approach has broadly been extremely successful. I want to ask him, because it genuinely puzzles me, why has it taken so long for the UK Government to take a serious interest in this proven national strategy for reducing serious violence and knife crime?
Sajid Javid
I would like to answer the hon. Lady’s question directly. The reason is probably that serious violence in England had been falling quite significantly for some time, but as I said at the start of this urgent question, we have sadly seen a significant rise in the last two or three years especially. That has rightly led my predecessors and me to work with others and look at what more can be done. It is right to look at evidence across the nation. She talked about the very important example in Scotland, which is being looked at.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I want to express my thanks to the emergency services for their rapid response to a stabbing in my constituency last week. There is a huge amount of fear and concern in the community, and people understand that this is not a problem with one solution. Does the Home Secretary understand, as my constituents do, that whether it is the legs taken out of community policing by police cuts, slower referrals because of cuts to children’s services, the conditions that children are living in in temporary and overcrowded accommodation or the fact that youth services have been gutted, there are many facets to tackling knife crime, and they all have one thing in common: the policies of this Government for the last nine years have made it harder, not easier, to tackle this crisis?
Sajid Javid
First, I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the emergency services for the work they have done in his constituency and elsewhere. He highlights the importance of recognising the need for a cross-Government response; it is not just about the Home Office, although we have the most important role to play. For other Departments to play that role, they need to make it a priority, which is why a statutory public health approach is very important. We also need to ensure that Departments have enough resources and that those are prioritised.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I agree in principle with multi-agency working. I know that it works, because when I got elected in 2001, it worked. When the police were properly funded, when Sure Start centres were properly funded, when youth services were properly funded and when schools were properly funded, it worked, because we eliminated gang crime, knife crime and gun crime by the middle of that decade. We worked together with the community and the police, who attended community meetings, to do that. We do not have the staff at the moment to come to those meetings, let alone attend some of the crimes. If the Home Secretary wants to do something about this, let us not talk about piecemeal funding. Let us look at the real figures about the police and community support officers we have lost and talk about how he is going to get them back, to save our future generations.
Sajid Javid
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the multi-agency public health approach. I hope we will have his full support for that when it comes forward in Parliament. He talked about the importance of resources. He said that there is a piecemeal increase in resources, but the increase in police resources is hugely significant—it is up to £970 million, which is almost double what was there the year before and the biggest increase since 2010—and the £220 million on early intervention is a significant increase.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) rightly said that we need a step change in response to this national emergency. There are two starting points for the Home Secretary: first, he needs to brief the Health Secretary on what a public health response to this epidemic is, and secondly, he needs to advise the Prime Minister to convene Cobra, so that we can focus properly on this issue.
Sajid Javid
If we take all the responses, especially in the last two years and since the adoption of the serious violence strategy, it is a step change. As I said earlier, I really wish that just one single thing could be done, but this requires action on multiple fronts. That is why the public health approach is so important. The Department of Health and Social Care is an important partner in that, and the Health Secretary understands that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
If this nationwide knife crime crisis is not a good reason to call Cobra, what exactly is?
Sajid Javid
Responding to the increase in serious violence requires a sustained effort, with action that needs to happen now, building on the initiatives I have already set out, and long-term, sustained action, which is exactly why we have the serious violence taskforce. It is important that it remains a cross-party taskforce to make sure that we are looking at all the things that can be done and that we sustain that effort.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Young men and women are dying on the streets—three in recent days in Birmingham alone, mourned by their families—and I meet teenagers in Erdington who are now afraid to go out at night. Of course a public health approach is vital, and we urge the Home Secretary to back the bid for a violence reduction unit to bring together all agencies to combat growing knife crime effectively.
However, that is not enough; we need more police officers. Forgive me if I say this, Mr Speaker, but the Home Secretary spoke about record resources. The previous Government put 17,000 extra police officers and 16,000 police community support officers on the beat. This Government have cut 21,000 police officers, including 2,100 in Birmingham alone. Does the Home Secretary not accept that there is an inevitable link between falling police numbers and rising crime, and in particular rising knife crime?
Sajid Javid
As I have mentioned, the increase in police resources this year is a record increase. It will take total police resourcing to approximately £14 billion, and the increase is the largest since 2010. It will lead to a significant increase in officers: almost 3,000 officers—I think, at least 2,700—across the country. When it comes to the local response—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the west midlands; he is right to do so, and I welcome the focus on serious violence by the local force—I am more than ready, as I have already been doing, including with his force, to sit down with the police and see what more can be done.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Sadly, Southwark is one of the communities worst affected by knife crime, with the two most recent stabbings in my constituency on 24 February. The Prime Minister has apparently said today that more must be done to tackle this problem, after nine long years in the Home Office and Downing Street. Will this Home Secretary please meet me, representatives and organisations from across Southwark that are working to tackle this problem, especially those representing the families directly affected?
Sajid Javid
First, I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. He is right to highlight what he has seen in his area. Recently, I visited one of the leading hospitals in south London that deals with patients who may be hurt through knife crime, and I saw the work of Redthread, a social organisation that helps to turn young people away from a life in crime. It is an organisation we are supporting with more funding for early intervention, and I hope he welcomes that. As I say, I would be happy to meet him.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Since the tragic murder of 17-year-old Tavis Spencer-Aitkens in my constituency, I have been meeting local community groups to see what we can do to try to prevent young people from getting involved in gangs, gang violence and drug dealing. There is a move to glamorise this lifestyle through social media, so I hope the Secretary of State can imagine my horror at discovering, just over a week ago, that films are still available on social media—showing violence, drug taking, making money out of selling drugs and, indeed, abusing young women—starring members of the gangs who are themselves currently on trial for murder. What can the Secretary of State do? Does he agree with me that he needs to work with other members of the Cabinet right across Government, and that convening Cobra will enable that to happen? We cannot afford to have this sort of glamorisation of a gang lifestyle still available on social media.
Sajid Javid
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this issue and the need to work across Government. He asked about social media and the way in which some parts of it glamorised violence. I, too, have seen some of the material to which he referred, and far too much is available on social media. Some of it is generated in the UK and some abroad, but it all glamorises this type of violence.
What are we doing about it? Last year, I funded a £1.4 million project on social media capability, run from London, to look at what can be done to try to tackle some of this material online, but we need to do much more. We need new powers to do that, which is why I am working with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on a new online harms White Paper. The intention is to give the state more powers to tackle exactly what the hon. Gentleman was discussing.
Mr Cunningham
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You have been very tolerant. May I tell the Home Secretary that it was useful to meet the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service about a fortnight ago? I want to reinforce the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made. We need more community police on the streets—there is no doubt about that—and they could do something about youth services, but 20,000-odd police officers have been cut over the past seven years, which is a very low base on which to build.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, is right to raise the issue of resources. I have mentioned the increase in resources in this year’s policing settlement. When it comes to his local force in the west midlands, as I have said to his colleague, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), I am more than happy to meet the West Midlands force again. I visited them only last week—it is a force that I regularly visit—and I am always looking to see what more we can do.
Privatised Probation System
(5 years, 8 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
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the future of the privatised probation system.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
I am pleased to be called to address this urgent question, and fully understand why the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has raised it. As the House will be aware, we have been looking very carefully at the future of probation services, and this gives me the opportunity briefly to set out the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, some of the challenges, and our response.
As the House will be aware, Transforming Rehabilitation was strongly influenced by a Labour pilot—the Peterborough pilot—which demonstrated that by bringing in non-state providers, concentrating on a cohort of short-sentence prisoners who had not previously been supervised and paying providers for reducing reoffending, it was possible to achieve significant improvements. Transforming Rehabilitation was a coalition Government commitment and built on those principles by contracting the private sector and others—in Durham Tees Valley, for example, that included the local authority—and undertaking to pay the providers if they were able to reduce reoffending. The contracts were left flexible to encourage innovation. This private model was applied only to low-risk offenders—high-risk offenders continued to be supervised in the usual way by the state. The new model has delivered in some ways, but as the National Audit Office has pointed out, it has not delivered in others.
There has been a reduction in the binary rate of reoffending, although there has been an increase in the separate frequency measure. Some 40,000 additional offenders are currently being supervised who were not supervised under the old system. Some innovation has come into the system, and it has saved the taxpayer money. Even though the hon. Gentleman would point out that through changes to the contracts, more money has gone in, we are forecast to spend significantly less than we originally anticipated—perhaps as much as £700 million less.
The programme was challenged by external factors, some of which were difficult to model and predict. For example, societal changes and different sentencing decisions by judges meant that the case load given to community rehabilitation companies shifted, and the accredited programmes that were allocated were fewer than expected. That meant that the income streams of those companies was less than anticipated. Broader issues such as drugs, housing and treatment programmes also made it difficult for providers to control all the factors in reoffending, which led to the companies losing significant sums of money. We have therefore taken a new approach that seeks to address all those problems.
We have just conducted a consultation and are carefully studying the responses. Our intention, first, is to remove the dependence in the new probation system on unpredictable case loads and to improve co-ordination with the national probation service. We are emphasising overall quality of service in future, not just the reoffending rate. We will be ending the existing contracts two years early. We will be setting minimum conditions for offender supervision, and we have invested over £20 million in through-the-gate services. Our objective, while retaining the benefits of flexibility and innovation, is to create a much higher-quality probation service that focuses on good-quality delivery and protects the public.
Richard Burgon
The National Audit Office report on probation privatisation is another damning indictment of the current Transport Secretary. Once again the Conservatives’ part-privatisation of probation has been exposed as a dangerous experiment that left the public less safe and out of pocket. The NAO highlights a 22% increase in reoffending. Will the Minister now admit that this privatisation has put public safety at risk in a reckless pursuit of running justice for private profit?
The NAO says the Ministry of Justice will pay at least £467 million more to failing private probation companies than was originally required. Does the Minister believe that rewarding failure in that way is the best use of much-reduced Ministry of Justice resources? Despite such failings, the Conservatives are recklessly planning to sign new private probation contracts. Will the Minister halt the current tendering plans to allow an independent review into whether probation should be returned to the public sector, or are they just ideologically driven?
Last month, Working Links, one of the largest probation providers, collapsed. Will the Minister explain the tendering process by which it was quietly handed to another private company? Will he guarantee that there will be no further staff losses under this new arrangement? Another private provider, Interserve, is in deep financial difficulties. Does the Minister have an emergency probation plan ready for if or when Interserve goes under?
Finally, private shareholders should be left in no doubt: Labour will return probation to the public sector. Will the Minister guarantee today that new probation contracts will include break clauses, so that a future Labour Government can put an end to this disastrous privatisation if his Government will not?
Rory Stewart
As you would anticipate, Mr Speaker, we do not feel that this is simply an ideological choice between the private and the public sector. There are things that we can learn from the private sector. There have been some significant improvements in the way that services are delivered and in IT. We must also remember that this is not just a question of the private sector. In certain areas, we are working with local authorities and the voluntary sector.
To address the specific challenges that the hon. Gentleman raised, he pointed out that the frequency rate of reoffending has gone up, but the binary rate of reoffending has in fact gone down through the course of these programmes. On the question of cost, it is true that more money has gone in, but it is still much less money than anticipated. Broadly speaking, we were anticipating that we would spend about £3 billion over the course of the contract. The companies committed to spend about £1.8 billion and the Government put in an additional £400 million. That still leaves us spending perhaps £700 million—something of that sort—less than we anticipated. So the public have spent less money than they expected to over the course of this programme.
The Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company is a good provider and we are confident it can step in successfully, but we also have the national probation service working with it to ensure that it operates well in the Working Links areas.
On the broader issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about whether we have looked carefully at the lessons, we absolutely have. As I explained, we will make absolutely sure that we look very carefully at the consultation requirements and that anything we do in the future carefully learns those lessons, de-risks, focuses on quality, improves performance and protects the public.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
In the field of justice policy, as in the field of health policy, arguments are being reduced to a notion that if the public sector provides a service it is automatically better than if the private sector does so. That is completely irrelevant and just a lazy substitute for producing any real ideas on what can be done to improve rehabilitation. I am very attracted by the Department’s idea that we might replace prison sentences of six months and less, because prison tends to toughen up the inadequate and unpleasant people who get those short sentences and need to be punished. It is essential that we strengthen the effectiveness of our probation-based rehabilitation services alongside that. I welcome what the Minister has announced, but does he accept that we need more trials of what can be done in various parts of the country so that we can carry public confidence, if we change the sentencing system, that people can be punished, but punished in a way that might more effectively stop them committing more crimes against the public when they are released?
Rory Stewart
Absolutely. As my right hon. and learned Friend points out, if we are to reduce the number of people serving ineffective short prison sentences, we must improve the quality of community sentences. That means that we need better supervision of offenders, better sentence planning and more use of technology, including electronic monitoring. One of the key objectives of the reforms that we will be bringing into probation is to reassure not just the public but the sentencers that good community protection exists.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
In Scotland, the probation service role is carried out by criminal justice social workers, who are part of local authorities’ social work departments—in other words, it is a public service, and I believe that that is as it should be. Effective reintegration and rehabilitation of offenders is at the heart of the Scottish system—rather than profit and hitting targets—and lately in Scotland, of course, we have had great success with getting rid of short-term sentences, which has led to a fall in the rate of reoffending. Does the Minister accept that probation should never be run for private profit and that reunifying the probation service under public control is the only way to properly protect the public across England and Wales?
Finally, this fiasco is part of a long list of scandalous wastes of public money for which the Minister’s colleague the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has been responsible in his roles as Secretary of State for Justice and Secretary of State for Transport. This is one of two such scandals that have come to light over the weekend. We are hearing rumours that he is not coming to the House later today to answer the urgent question about the ferry tendering disaster, so I ask the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect—I realise that none of this is his fault—to tell us when the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is going to be held to account for his shocking irresponsibility with taxpayers’ money.
Rory Stewart
As hon. Members would expect me to say, these things have more nuances and complexities. The basic idea that it is impossible for anybody except the Government to deliver good probation services was disproved, in fact, by the Labour pilot—the Peterborough pilot—which by bringing in the voluntary sector and social investors was able to reduce reoffending by a staggering 9%, particularly by providing something that we are developing at the moment and that does not fully exist yet in Scotland: a fully integrated through-the-gate service linking the prison officer in the prison with probation in the community. We need to take into account that this is not a binary choice.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am very slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend referred only to the Peterborough pilot, which we inherited when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and I arrived in the Ministry of Justice in 2010. By the time that we were moved from the Ministry of Justice—for me, that was to spend more time with the Kaleidoscope Trust and with you, Mr Speaker—we had at least 20 different pilots, putting responsibility for the rehabilitation of offenders on the probation service in Wales and Staffordshire, three police services, three local authorities and eight health authorities dealing with issues such as drug addiction. We were waiting to see what was going to work best when all these pilots were swept away and the probation service was broken up. Will the Minister look at trying to make the system more coherent by establishing a link between the probation service and police and crime commissioners in the community to make the justice system rather better joined up across the community?
Rory Stewart
First, I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for the work he did on piloting many of these ideas. We can learn a great deal from those pilots. Central to our reforms will have to be co-ordination—having the right relationship between the national probation service and the community rehabilitation companies, and thinking about the geography—and part of that will be thinking about how the CRCs work with the police and crime commissioners.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I know that the Minister has done a lot of work on brain injury in prisons. Is it not vital, where prisoners with a brain injury have started some form of rehabilitation in prison and have been receiving advice and support, that that is carried through into their experience in the outside world? Otherwise, there is a strong likelihood that they will simply go back inside.
Rory Stewart
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done on acquired brain injury. As the House will be aware, he has argued very strongly that brain injury frequently suffered as early as childhood can have a long-lasting effect, particularly on behaviour, and contribute to reoffending. The major question is about getting the right relationship with the NHS. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), is leading some interesting work, drawing on some of the extra funding now available to the NHS, to make sure we have the right programmes in the community, not just on acquired brain injury but on everything stretching from mental health issues to addiction services provided by the local authority.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, although CRCs need to improve and perform better, we need to focus on reducing the rate of reoffending, which is what we are seeing, and not on ideological concerns about how a service is provided?
Rory Stewart
That is absolutely right. The key thing is learning what works and how to do it in a way that works for the Government budget. We are increasingly learning that although it is about treatment programmes, it is also about housing, getting people into employment and dealing with addiction issues. Getting all of this properly integrated from within the prison out into the community will be the key. That is how we will protect the public.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The problems with Transforming Rehabilitation were entirely predicted in 2014, so the NAO report should come as no surprise to Ministers.
I want to ask the Minister about women. There is a great deal of evidence that many CRCs are not offering good-quality tailored provision to women. As he and his ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), know, women’s centres do a much better job. Will he now consider removing women wholly from the remit of the CRCs and making full use of the provision in women’s centres to address the causes of their offending behaviour?
Rory Stewart
That is a very interesting proposal. The London CRC attempted to do it by setting up a programme designed for women entirely separate from the male programme. There were challenges, however, that were then criticised by the independent inspector of probation. I am happy to sit down with the hon. Lady and talk through some of the complexities of doing that.
Mr Speaker
No less celebrated a denizen of the House than the Chair of the Justice Select Committee is among our number. We are deeply appreciative of that fact. Let us hear him.
Robert Neill
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the Minister’s frank and honest response to the findings of this report, which, as he knows, mirror almost entirely the conclusions of the Select Committee’s report last June. As well as confirming, as I am sure he will, that the Government accept the three principal recommendations in paragraph 21 of the NAO report, will he reflect particularly on the division between CRCs and the national probation service in two respects? First, the division by categorisation of risk has been much criticised, because risk levels vary and change during the process of supervision and the current categorisation does not reflect that. Secondly, the separation and distancing of the CRCs, which deliver the programmes, from the sentencers in court has undoubtedly undermined sentencer confidence in community sentences and alternatives to custody.
Rory Stewart
Of the two arguments, I think that the second is the stronger. The fact that CRCs are not involved in the pre-sentence reports, in particular, is a real issue. Shifting case loads is also an issue. We have seen a 48% variation in case loads, with more focus on serious crime, and we need a way of responding to that, such as better integration between the NPS and CRCs.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The reckless fragmentation of the probation service back in 2014 has predictably led to this sorry end. I appreciate what the Minister is saying—it did not happen on his watch, and he has been put there to put it right—but I want to reinforce what was said by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill): what we need is a coherent system with no gaps through which people can fall. Will he achieve that?
Rory Stewart
I absolutely agree. I could not have put it better. That is exactly what we are trying to achieve; that is exactly what the consultation is about; and its delivery is exactly what I expect people to judge me on over the next few months.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Minister has engaged fully with the Justice Committee’s report, which our Chair mentioned a moment ago, but I should be grateful for further clarification of what he intends to do about the increasing number of people who are recalled to prison. Specifically, I should like to know whether a way can be found to monitor that number. Transforming Rehabilitation increased the number of people who were included in work on reoffending, so it is difficult to establish whether or not the number of those recalled is in fact increasing.
Rory Stewart
One of the key measures in Transforming Rehabilitation was the supervision of 40,000 people who had not previously been supervised and whose sentences were shorter than 12 months. Previously, we had no idea what they were doing, because they were not being supervised by any probation officer. By supervising those 40,000 people—they tend to be a cohort of prolific reoffenders—we end up with many more recalls than happened previously. The answer must be to consider on a case-by-case basis whether the recalls are justified, but we must also acknowledge that it is a good thing to supervise 40,000 more people. When they were not supervised, the public were more endangered.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Speaking to school students in Twickenham on Friday, and subsequently giving a talk at Royal Holloway College, London University, in Egham, I referenced the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), not least for his tendency to yell “Shocking!” “It’s a disgrace,” or, alternatively, “Be’ave!” at the Treasury Bench. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s profile is now substantially higher at both those institutions, and I am sure that, if they are listening, they will listen to him with great interest.
Karl Turner
This situation is indeed shocking. [Laughter.] I do wonder: either very senior civil servants follow the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) around giving him really bad advice, or he is in fact just incredibly incompetent. Which is it?
Rory Stewart
Yes, it is. Big lessons need to be drawn from it, not just for the purpose of probation reforms but for the purpose of any other reforms that we make in government. One of the big issues concerned is our ability to predict the consequences of large-scale system change, and in particular to predict the shifts in caseload. As the National Audit Office points out, there was a modelling of a 2% shift, and the reality was a 48% shift. Drilling down into how that advice was given and responded to is one of the ways in which we can draw those lessons.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In Chelmsford, we have a very busy prison and people want to know that when people leave prison they do not reoffend. Can the Minister confirm that although some people have gone on to reoffend more, the number of people reoffending has reduced?
Rory Stewart
First, may I pay tribute as always to my hon. Friend, who has been a real supporter of the prison officers in her prison and the turning around of Chelmsford prison? It is true that the frequency rate of reoffending has gone up, which means that very prolific offenders continue to offend more, but the absolute number and proportion of people reoffending has decreased—the binary rate has come down—and that is a good thing and worth celebrating.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The National Audit Office says there is limited time to procure the new contracts, that persisting with the split between the National Probation Service and the community rehabilitation companies still poses risks and that the transition to new contracts threatens service quality. Having wasted millions of pounds and failed miserably to reduce reoffending, why is the Minister intent on pursuing this two-tier system?
Rory Stewart
First, wherever we go with this new system, we will have a much more integrated system: it will continue to be a mixed market, but it will be a much more integrated system. Secondly, whatever we do now will involve some transition costs and risks, and we do not want to minimise what they will be, but we have learned the lessons and the most important one is that, instead of focusing on just paying people in terms of reducing reoffending, we will pay people for the overall quality of the services they deliver.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The Minister will probably be aware that the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke very much wanted tendering for probation to be, as he described it, the norm. Why does the Minister think there has been a sudden change among some Members in the Chamber today?
Rory Stewart
That is a good reminder. The former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) are articulating the same point, which is that there is an enormous amount that non-Government actors—not just the private sector, but the voluntary sector—can bring in terms of innovation, efficiency and delivering very good services.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Volumes for offences were 48% lower than expected; community rehabilitation companies had losses of £294 million when they were expected to have profits of £269 million; and the figures relating to the reoffending of individuals were 22% up: who signed off these projections and who is accountable for this delivery failure?
Rory Stewart
These questions of accountability are quite difficult for me to answer. Normally, I answer by offering to resign; I am not about to do that again, but I would say that these things are related. On the question the right hon. Gentleman raised about the caseload shift, as the NAO pointed out, a 2% case load shift was predicted, but a 48% case load shift happened, directly impacting the second issue of the income coming to the companies. That prediction is a question we are really trying to look into and understand. This is to do with the fact that more violent and sexual offences were committed than previously, and the Crown courts managed to make different decisions in terms of sentence length and not giving accredited programmes. The question is, how do we predict that type of social change? Could we have predicted it; was it predicted; and how do we act on it?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the task of rehabilitation can be helped enormously by looking at the experience in Denmark and Germany, where prisoners are encouraged at an early stage to cook for themselves and undertake work that provides valuable training?
Rory Stewart
Yes, we can learn a great deal from Germany and Denmark, and indeed in some of our most successful prisons, as prisoners develop in their sentence—as they develop more skills—they are given opportunities to cook for themselves and look after themselves, and of course through the use of release on temporary licence, we can get prisoners into work while they are still in prison. This means, when they leave, they are more likely to have a job. One of the key things about reducing reoffending is making sure there is not a cliff edge at the prison door, but that for at least 10 weeks before people leave a lot of preparation goes into setting up the life they will have outside prison.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I genuinely have sympathy for the Minister: he is the man with the shovel and brush following a horse that has been ridden by his colleague the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). We have seen an award-winning public probation service turned into an unmitigated privatised disaster. The Minister did not answer the earlier question about new contracts having break clauses, which was the same question we asked in 2014, so will he confirm that any new contracts issued will have break clauses?
Rory Stewart
We will look very carefully at the contracts. Along with the issues that we will be examining, there is the issue of break clauses, but there are other issues, too. One issue that we have learned from is what happens in procurement legislation to allow us to put more money into a service if something unpredictable such as the caseload shift happens and what it takes to bring it back into the public sector. Contracts are the key to this.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friend does not resign, because he is doing a very good job in his post and I hope that he continues to do so. Dickson House is a probation service bail hostel in Fareham, which I have visited. The team there delivers a vital service in supporting former serious offenders and integrating them back into the community. Does my hon. Friend agree that work such as that being done at Dickson House is helping to improve reoffending rates and keep our citizens safe?
Rory Stewart
It is great to have an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of our probation hostels. Some of the people who work in them are incredibly dedicated public servants, and they often have to work with very challenged individuals. They often have enormous success in changing lives and protecting the public.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I have three prisons in my constituency, and it is really tragic to see what has happened to the probation service in recent years. It is now fragmented and under-resourced, and, critically, it is not reducing reoffending. Given the indictment of the service by the National Audit Office report, is it not now time to call a halt to this privatisation experiment, return the service to the public sector and resource it properly so that it can really bring about the genuine rehabilitation of prisoners and others?
Rory Stewart
I absolutely agree that we need to resource the service properly, and I absolutely agree that we need to focus this mixed market on getting the quality of delivery, but respectfully, I disagree with the idea that the answer is simply to bring it back into the public sector. I think it needs to be a mixed market, but it needs to be a mixed market that is unified and that really focuses on reducing reoffending.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The longer a prisoner serves in jail, the less likely he or she is to reoffend. That is simply a fact. If, under the this new system, repeat prolific offenders are more likely to reoffend—which is what the Minister has just said—why are those repeat prolific offenders being released early from their sentences in the first place?
Rory Stewart
There is an issue here of correlation and causation. It is true that people who serve 40 or 50-year sentences are less likely to reoffend, for two reasons. The first relates to the offence type. For example, murderers are generally less likely to reoffend than shoplifters. Secondly, the mere fact that they are locked away for 40 or 50 years makes it difficult for them to reoffend. Generally, short-sentence prisoners who are in for under 12 months are overwhelmingly dominated by chaotic individuals who often have drug or alcohol problems and who often commit offences such as shoplifting. They are a much more difficult target group to deal with than the people who are locked away for 40 or 50 years.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
After the failure of Working Links and in the light of the National Audit Office’s damning report into the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation the first time round by the former Secretary of State—who was then promoted to the Department for Transport, proving that Conservative rehabilitation does not work—as well as continual criticism by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons proving that the mixed system is not beneficial to the taxpayer, why is the Minister continuing with the TR2 programme?
Rory Stewart
The first thing is to absolutely reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking very carefully at the responses to the consultation and listening carefully to what is being said around the House. Our response will address many of his fundamental concerns. We should see a better resourced, more unified and higherquality probation system at the end of this.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Minister’s reply seemed to mention a £700 million underspend in the system. Will he redirect just a small part of that to Care after Combat, whose work in prisons is working and is reducing reoffending?
Rory Stewart
I pay tribute to Care after Combat’s work, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), and I have met the organisation on several occasions. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) will know, when we have a £700 million underspend in the Department, that does not necessarily mean that we have £700 million available to spend on anything we like.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), is not the real lesson from all this that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) should not be allowed anywhere near any large-scale, transformative Government projects or, indeed, near any projects, as the House will hear during the next urgent question?
Rory Stewart
No. Respectfully, that is not the fundamental lesson here. The lesson is that reducing reoffending is very complicated. The reoffending rate has been static across the developed world for nearly 50 years, and addressing that involves changing the lives of some of the most challenged individuals in society, dealing with their housing, their education and their early childhoods. Fundamentally, we need to be serious about the scale of the task.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Friday’s NAO report identifies an inherent risk that offender managers may avoid breaching offenders when that would affect CRC performance against contract targets, and that is the unacceptable face of the profit motive undermining justice for victims and communities. Given that the Justice Secretary has admitted as much and with probation in Wales set to come back into public management by the end of this year, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the future Wales probation model is properly resourced to succeed?
Rory Stewart
I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the decision in Wales, where it was right to bring things under a single, state-run probation system. I know that she has had the opportunity to meet Amy Rees, who is now the executive director of both prisons and probation in Wales. We will be putting in extra resources; but above all, we are relying on the fact that bringing the two things together will deliver significant efficiencies, and if we can get the through-the-gate investment right, I think the hon. Lady will be pleasantly surprised.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My constituent Sam Cook was stabbed to death last year. His killer was on licence having been released after being convicted of a similar knife offence, but the probation officer did not know how to use the IT system, so the monitoring of the killer was not appropriate to the concerns of the probation service. I have no idea how that could possibly happen, and I am sure that the Minister is the same. Will he therefore tell us what processes are in place to ensure that processes are properly carried out, that every member of staff is trained to use the system and that we never again see another young man like Sam Cook killed due to inadequate supervision?
Rory Stewart
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising that tragic case, and I am happy to sit down with him and, indeed, the family to talk through the details. The way that we learn the lessons of every serious further offence—this happens in about 0.1% of the cases that we supervise under probation—is to conduct a comprehensive SFO review, and those lessons may be about IT, training, support or how a probation manager raises a matter with a senior probation officer. We are happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and the family to learn the lessons from that case and ensure that it does not happen again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his responses. Some 69% of females in the judicial system have mental health problems, so how will the current probationary regulations take that disturbing figure into consideration and address it in the privatised probation system?
Rory Stewart
I am pleased to have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care alongside me on the Treasury Bench at this point, because the question of addressing mental health needs goes to the core of the kind of collaboration that we have with the national health service. In the end, our offenders are among the biggest public health risks in the country. Their average life expectancy is 50; their suicide rate is seven times the national average; and as the hon. Gentleman says, their addiction and mental health condition rates are far higher than those of anyone else. We are working closely with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, because getting things right will be good for society and for individuals and, ultimately, will protect the public.
Eurotunnel: Payment
(5 years, 8 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 to make a statement on the payment of £33 million to Eurotunnel over no-deal ferry contracts.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I would like to update the House on the settlement that the Government have reached with Eurotunnel, which will help to deliver the unhindered supply of vital medicines and medical devices in the case of a no-deal Brexit.
The best way to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU, both for the NHS and for the wider economy, is to support the deal that the Attorney General is currently finalising. Anyone in this House who cares about the unhindered supply of medicines should vote for that deal, but leaving the EU without a deal remains the default position under the law, and it is incumbent on us to keep people safe. It is therefore vital that adequate contingency measures are in place for any Brexit scenario.
Preparing for a no-deal exit has required significant effort from the NHS, the pharmaceutical industry and the whole medical supply chain, and I pay tribute to their work and thank them for their efforts on these contingency measures. The settlement struck between the Government and Eurotunnel last week is an important part of these measures. Because of the legal action taken by Eurotunnel and the legal risks of the court case, it became clear that, without this settlement, we could no longer be confident of the unhindered supply of medicines. Without this settlement, the ferry capacity needed to be confident of supply was at risk. As a Government, we could not take that risk, and I doubt anyone in this House would have accepted that risk, either. With this settlement we can be confident, as long as everyone does what they need to do, that supply will continue unhindered. Under the settlement, Eurotunnel has to spend the money on improving resilience, security and traffic flow at the border, benefiting both passengers and business.
The Department for Transport, on behalf of the whole Government, entered into these contracts in good faith. Our duty is to keep people safe, whatever complications are thrown up. Although we continue to plan for all eventualities, it is clear that the best way to reduce all these risks is to vote for the deal in the days to come.
Andy McDonald
Once again, the Transport Secretary is not in his place to answer a question directed to him. His disregard for taxpayers and this House is clear. On Friday he reached a £33 million out-of-court settlement with Eurotunnel to provide services in the event of a no-deal Brexit because the Government were going to lose the case.
The Transport Secretary’s decision to bypass procurement processes in awarding a contract to Seaborne Freight, a ferry company without any ships, breached public procurement rules, and Eurotunnel had the Government over a barrel. Will the Minister now detail the total cost to taxpayers of this decision, including legal costs? How much money will be paid up front?
Eurotunnel will seemingly make Brexit-related improvements at Folkestone. Can the Minister say exactly what sort of agreement the Government have with Eurotunnel? What makes him think that this contract with Eurotunnel will not be challenged on anti-competition grounds? A former Department for Transport adviser said:
“there is a risk it could be construed as another piece of public procurement without open and transparent competition.”
That would risk further legal action and yet more public money being squandered.
Even in this golden age of ministerial incompetence, the Transport Secretary stands out from the crowd. He leaves a trail of destruction in his wake, causing chaos and wasting billions of pounds, yet he shows no contrition, no acknowledgment of his mistakes and no resolve to learn and improve. He is now ridiculed in The New York Times. The mayor of Calais has banned him from his town. The Transport Secretary has become an international embarrassment. The Prime Minister is the only person in the country who retains confidence in this failing Transport Secretary, and she does so only because of her own political weakness. The public deserve to know: how many more calamities is the Prime Minister prepared to tolerate? How many more billions of pounds will she allow him to waste before saying, “Enough is enough”? This country cannot afford this Transport Secretary. He should be sacked without delay.
Matt Hancock
In listening to that, I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not disagree with the decision we made on Friday. That decision was to ensure that we have the ferry capacity in place so that whatever happens in the Brexit scenario we can have the unhindered supply of medicines. That is the duty of this Government and that is why the whole Government came to this decision. He asked some specific questions, which I answered in my statement. However, let me reiterate: this is a legal settlement with Eurotunnel; the maximum cost is £33 million, as was set out clearly on Friday; and the purpose of the decision is to ensure that unhindered flow of medicines. So, as I said in my statement, the purpose of this is to make sure that whatever happens in Brexit people can be safe. I was happy to support that decision, which everybody in this House would have made in the same circumstances.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Many of my constituents are concerned about the supply of medicines after Brexit. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me that the supply of medicines to harder-to-reach places such as Scotland will continue after we leave the European Union?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask about the unhindered supply of medicines. The first thing he can do to ensure that that supply continues, with no risks to it, is to support the deal in the meaningful vote, as he has done before. Secondly, we are working with all parts of the country and with the devolved authorities on this. Although ensuring that we have these supply chains in place in any Brexit scenario is a UK Government matter, we are working with the devolved Administrations, especially to ensure that the flow reaches all parts of the country.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I wish to echo the question: where is the £2.7 billion man? I have asked him to step aside several times, I have challenged the Prime Minister to sack him and now he has his own social media hashtag—FailingGrayling. Surely now is the time he has to go.
Apparently, we hear that this is not compensation for Eurotunnel but a contract for vital services. If they were so vital, why did it take Eurotunnel going to court to get a contract? Why was Eurotunnel overlooked in the first place? The secrecy on this is a real concern. How much documentation is still hidden away from public view? If the no-deal contract is not invoked, how much money will still be paid to Eurotunnel? Why on earth would the Health Secretary entrust the transportation of life-saving medicines to the Transport Secretary?
Bechtel is set to sue the Government over the HS2 tender process. What other departmental procurement risks still exist? After his efforts at the Ministry of Justice cost us £600 million, the Transport Secretary has allowed Virgin Trains East Coast to walk away owing £2 billion; he has blamed Network Rail for mishaps when he is in charge of the organisation; and he has culpability for Southern rail, for the £38 million Northern rail timetable fiasco and for the £800,000 ferry due diligence contract, where due diligence was not carried out on the company with no ships. He has tried to argue that the Seaborne fiasco has not cost the taxpayer any money. Only for this Transport Secretary can this £33 million be just the tip of a financial iceberg. What does it take for him to be sacked—or to do the decent thing and walk away?
Matt Hancock
Unlike in the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), what I did not hear in the hon. Gentleman’s long question was a statement about whether he supports the decision or not. I think that is because he does support the decision to ensure we have what we need to get the unhindered supply of medicines. More than that, he and his Scottish National party friends complain endlessly about a no-deal Brexit, yet they do not do what is needed to avoid a no-deal Brexit, which is to vote for the deal.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, although rather a surprising one on this occasion. The usual reason for settling an action is to minimise your losses when you are obviously on a loser in defending it, but I am relieved to hear that this was done in order to ensure the safety of medicines. As we are on that subject, can he give me some reassurance about the long-term future for the regulation and approval of medicines in this country? If and when we leave the EU—we look as though we are bound to do so—we of course leave the European Medicines Agency, which is leaving this country, and I am not clear what our long-term arrangements will be. Are we going to seek some association with the EMA system, or will we be setting up a totally new British system to replace it? Can he guarantee continuity of the proper regulation of medicines while that process is under way?
Matt Hancock
The short answer to that is yes. The medium length answer is that we will ensure that medicines can be licensed in this country with no further burdens than under the EMA system by matching some of the EMA processes, but in a no-deal scenario we would also be looking to introduce our own processes so that some medicines could be brought and licensed here before they could be licensed in Europe. Indeed, changes to this area is one of the examples of advantages from Brexit, which I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will be delighted to hear about, because they mean that we can grasp some of the opportunities that the future of medicines presents. The long answer is so long that I will be happy to write to him with full details and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
There is something quite wrong here. I have been in the House for quite a few years—usually people say, “Too long,” but I have been here a long time. This almost seems to be an abuse of the House. The fact is that the Opposition asked for an urgent question on the Eurotunnel payment of £33 million. I do not know what £33 million means in Suffolk, but in Huddersfield it would make a hell of a difference in regenerating our local economy. I am not calling for the Transport Secretary’s resignation because he is a symptom of something deeply wrong with this Government. They are totally incapable of arranging their policies ready for Brexit. That is the truth of the matter. There is total chaos on the Government Benches because they had not predicted what was going to happen with Brexit, and they are showing no ability to cope with post-Brexit conditions, what is happening in the Eurotunnel and so on.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is normally a sensible man, but I could not disagree with him more on this one. The point of this settlement is to ensure that we have the unhindered supply of medicines, so that, whatever the Brexit scenario, people can get their medicines. This was a cross-Government decision and I am here, as the Health Secretary, because it is medicines that will be carried on these ferries. If the court case had gone against the Government and the court had struck down these contracts, we would not have been able to be confident about the supply of those medicines. I think it is incumbent on any Government to ensure that they can deliver that. There is something else we can do to deliver the unhindered supply of medicines and he can do it too; it is within his gift—he can vote for the deal.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s sensible contingency planning for any eventuality, but may I highlight that it is important to focus on all the routes across the channel and everything related to that? Although it is good that Eurotunnel is being focused on, it is worth looking at the transit system as a way to smooth the procedures on the main ferry routes across the channel also.
Matt Hancock
Yes, and that is exactly what these contracts, with which we can now proceed because of the settlement, do. Essentially, they provide for more capacity away from Dover-Calais so that medicines can be routed into the UK and, indeed, onwards to Ireland through other routes. They allow for that. I am glad of my hon. Friend’s interest in this matter and hope he will vote for the deal.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport may have ducked today’s questions, but I am pretty sure that my Committee will still require his answers. If there is a Brexit deal or, indeed, if there is no Brexit, how much of our taxpayers’ £33 million do the Government expect to recover from Eurotunnel?
Matt Hancock
Of course, the medicines are going on these boats that we are procuring and that makes this a serious health matter. The hon. Lady is perfectly within her rights to ask these sorts of questions. The truth is that the £33 million is the maximum figure. It may not be as high as that, but we have been clear about the full exposure.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
If we can essay a transport-related question, could my right hon. Friend give me some assurance that the extremely important cross-channel rail link will continue as it is now, under any circumstances, after 29 March? On the medical front, can he say what steps his Department has taken on radioactive isotopes and particularly important medicines? I have constituents who are very concerned about that.
Matt Hancock
Of course, we very much hope that the train will also continue to operate as now and we have received such assurances. When it comes to radioisotopes, we have also procured flights and aircraft capacity to ensure that those goods and those parts of the medical supply chain that need to be brought in faster and cannot be stockpiled can also be brought through.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Secretary of State tell us precisely how much of the £33 million being paid to Eurotunnel is being contributed by the Department of Health and Social Care?
Matt Hancock
This was a cross-Government decision. It is all taxpayers’ money, at the end of the day.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
It is important that people with long-term health conditions are reassured that they will have access to the right medicines, so my right hon. Friend is right to make sure that there is proper access across the channel. What are the pharmaceutical companies doing to keep a greater stock of reserves over and above those that they usually hold?
Matt Hancock
We have a multifaceted approach to making sure that we have an unhindered supply of medicines, and stockpiling is of course another important part of that. The vast majority of the 12,300 medicines that are commonly used in England can be stockpiled. For those that can be stockpiled, we asked for a six-week stockpile to be put in place, and we have plans in place for almost all of those. For the very small number remaining, we are putting plans in place right now. We are doing all that with the confidence that by the time we get to 29 March, so long as everybody does what they need to do between now and then, we will be able to have confidence in that unhindered supply.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is making the mistake of insulting the intelligence of those of us who have been pursuing this issue for the past two months. What happened on Friday was nothing to do with the unhindered supply of medicines: it was an out-of-court settlement to avoid the British Government’s being found in breach of the law of competitive tendering. Will the Secretary of State confirm that even in the event of a deal, not a penny of that £33 million will be recoverable, because it is not for a contract but for an out-of-court settlement to avoid a finding that his Government were in breach of the law?
Matt Hancock
On the contrary: this is all about the unhindered supply of medicines, because that is what we will be doing with the boats.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I do not know when you last travelled through the channel tunnel, Mr Speaker, but when I came back on Saturday 5 January there was complete chaos at Calais, with miles of queues and hours of delays, so I am glad that Eurotunnel is going to improve its investment in our borders and security. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if the money is not spent on improving our borders and security, it will be paid back to the taxpayer?
Matt Hancock
I can go even further than that: it will not be paid over unless it is being spent on security, resilience and other measures, so we will get some of the improvements that my hon. Friend seeks.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
With all due respect to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, surely the House and the taxpayer are entitled to hear today what the main mistake made by the Secretary of State for Transport was that has resulted in this unnecessary pay-out of £33 million. Where does this latest shambles rate in the Secretary of State for Transport’s top 10 catalogue of ministerial mishaps?
Matt Hancock
Frankly, I do not think we should really pay much heed to such a statement, rather than a question, unless the hon. Gentleman is going to vote for the deal as well.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is always a bonus to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care at the Dispatch Box answering questions, particularly today. On the deal and making sure that we have a secure supply of medicine, will he reassure me that he will continue to ignore some of the noise and party political point scoring and focus on making sure that the NHS can function in whatever circumstances it faces after 29 March?
Matt Hancock
There is a notable difference in tone, is there not, between those who care about ensuring that people get the supply of medicines in future, and those who want to make political points out of it but do not oppose the decision we are discussing.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I find this utterly extraordinary, because in the Public Accounts Committee hearing on this matter, the permanent secretary said:
“I am confident that our process was lawful, and obviously the Department and I acted on legal advice in determining how to take that process forward”.
If we were so confident in that legal advice, why was this settlement reached at all? Actually, is this not an admission of a catastrophic failure in stakeholder management?
Matt Hancock
No. It is clear that we needed to ensure that there were no risks around the two contracts for the capacity that we need to bring in an unhindered supply of medicines, whatever the Brexit scenario. I do not know whether the hon. Lady thinks it would have been worth bearing the risk of a court case, which may well have struck down the capacity to make sure that people who have serious and life-threatening conditions can get the medicines that they want. She implied that she was against such assurances, and I think that would have been a mistake.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I support the withdrawal agreement—it is a good deal—but I also support our being ready for no-deal eventualities. I was reassured by the Secretary of State’s answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) about stockpiling medicines that can be stockpiled, but for those that cannot be stockpiled, what action is the Secretary of State taking to be sure that they can be air-freighted rather than have to come through the tunnel?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is quite right to support a deal and the action that we have taken in case there is no deal. That is the position that anybody who cares about the unhindered supply of medicines should take. When it comes to those medicines that cannot be stockpiled, we have contracts for flights to ensure that those medicines can be flown in. We have in place a flight from Birmingham to Maastricht, and the return journey, obviously, to ensure that we can get those short-term medicines in.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
This must be making parliamentary history this afternoon. We have two urgent questions about the same incompetent Minister causing mayhem and chaos in two different Departments and he does not even have the face to come here and front it out—and we are left with Hancock’s half hour! Let me ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: is any of the £33 million going to be reimbursed from his budget to the Department for Transport?
Matt Hancock
This was, of course, a cross-Government decision, which is why I am here. It is the medicines that will be using that capacity. In the Hancock family, we are very proud of “Hancock’s Half Hour”, and we thought that Tony was a very funny man.
Mr Speaker
It is worth pointing out that that Hancock was deliberately funny.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Secretary of State has talked about medicines, but there are also prescribed foods—for example, the gluten-free food on which some people depend. What will the situation be for those foods?
Matt Hancock
Of course that matters enormously, too. Although medicines are the category 1 prioritised goods that will be using the extra procured capacity safeguarded by this settlement, there are other measures being undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to protect the supply of foods.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
That £33 million would pay the annual salary of 118,000 nurses, and God knows we need them. The NHS has 40,000 nursing vacancies in the NHS in England. Does the Secretary of State for Health think that the cost of the latest blunder of the elusive Secretary of State for Transport is money well spent?
Matt Hancock
Well, I do think that it is very important that we spend what is necessary in order to have the unhindered supply of medicines. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head, but would she, in these shoes, put at risk the unhindered supply of medicines? Of course she would not, so she must agree with me that this was the right decision to take.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has dealt with the channel aspect, but one of my constituents, Jeff Screeton, has a small business that specialises in small-scale freight on domestic passenger rail services. That includes medical items, particularly items that need to move quickly. Might he be interested in this work, particularly from the domestic transportation side of this contingency planning?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that business.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
This expenditure is only necessary because of the sheer incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport. I have sat and listened to him in this Chamber and listened to him in the Transport Committee, and after every fiasco his defence is that it has not cost the Exchequer any money. The fact is that this has cost the Exchequer £33 million. Has he not run out of runway and should he not resign?
Matt Hancock
No, the decision to settle this case in order to provide for the unhindered supply of medicines, which I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman, agrees is important, was the correct judgment and the correct decision, because we need to make sure that we keep people safe.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Although it can never be comfortable to give a settlement to any organisation, I have to agree with the Father of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that it is better to draw a line under this and move on. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) is chuntering. I shall have to defer to her knowledge of losing cases in the legal courts. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether it is correct that Eurotunnel has said it will use this money to provide increased resilience at the Dover port?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. He makes a broader point: people watching these proceedings, people who have serious illnesses, and people who rely on medicines every day to keep them alive will be amazed by those Members who will not vote for the deal and therefore make a no-deal exit more likely, and by those Members who just cause political noise rather than admitting that, in the circumstances, they too would have settled this case. We are hearing a lot of that from those on the Opposition Benches. On the Government Benches, however, we are hearing from Members who care deeply about making sure that people get the medicines that they need.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Does the £33 million include all the possible expenditure under this agreement, or are there any additional costs, such as legal fees, that need to be added on top? If there are, how much are they?
Matt Hancock
The settlement is £33 million. Of course, there are lawyers, and legal time was also needed inside the Department. That happens all the time in order to try to make sure that we can keep people safe, which is the whole purpose of this exercise.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The reality is that the Secretary of State is engaged in deflection. We are now in a situation where this country risks running out of vital medicines for each and every one of our constituents because of this Government’s relentless pursuit of a no-deal hard Brexit that will ruin this country. Is it not the case that this money that we are having to pay out is emblematic of the chaos in this Government and the incompetence of this Government and that our constituents will go without medicine because they cannot get their act together?
Matt Hancock
If the hon. Lady really, really believes what she just said, it is incumbent on her to vote for the deal.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Health Secretary really is taking one for the team in this urgent transport question. Incidentally, where is the Transport Secretary?
Matt Hancock
The Transport Secretary is working hard on making sure that we can improve the transport system.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
And the Secretary of State almost said that with a straight face. What went wrong and who is taking responsibility for it?
Matt Hancock
This is a cross-Government decision. The purpose of this settlement was to ensure the unhindered supply of medicines. I am the Health Secretary and it is my job to do everything that I can, in all circumstances, to ensure that there is that availability of medicines. I am sure that, whatever the Brexit scenario, the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who need medicines would rather that we made this settlement to ensure that we have the confidence that we can deliver that.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I have recently been to see the Secretary of State for Education to lobby him for desperately needed resources to rebuild schools in my constituency and I was told that there is no money. Can the Secretary of State tell me how incompetent I need to be to walk away with £33 million for my constituents?
Matt Hancock
I am sure that the hon. Lady’s constituents will need to be confident that there is medicine for them, whatever the scenario is under Brexit, and that is what this settlement is all about.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Is the Minister aware of the number of healthcare companies that are reluctantly extending their bank credit so that they can stockpile goods and components because of the lack of forward planning by this Government? What can he do to help those companies and also to help the banks that have to lend on longer terms than they normally would have an appetite for?
Matt Hancock
I mentioned in my statement that the pharmaceutical industry has stepped up to the plate and acted extremely responsibly in order to put in place the stockpiling that is necessary for a contingency in the event of a no-deal Brexit. All of us in this House can do something about the potential of a no-deal Brexit: we can vote for the deal.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Health Secretary dreams of being Prime Minister, but to his great surprise, and to ours, he woke up as the Transport Secretary’s fall guy this morning. Trying to explain to constituents what is happening in this place is really hard. Trying to explain why a Transport Secretary has not been fired or has not resigned for effectively taking a decision that has lost the taxpayer £33 million is really difficult. Why is it that the Health Secretary cannot get up and simply apologise for the Transport Secretary’s error here? It would go such a long way to restoring confidence in politics. At the moment, this shows Parliament and the Government at their very, very worst.
Matt Hancock
I think I have mentioned that the point of this settlement was to ensure the unhindered supply of medicines, which is very much a matter for me as Health Secretary. People watching these proceedings will also be astonished that the Labour party can argue against a settlement such as this when it is refusing to vote for the deal that could ensure that we have a smooth and orderly exit and that the plans and the contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit are not necessary. Mr Speaker, the hon. Gentleman should vote for the deal, too.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I do not know what is more embarrassing: that the Secretary of State has the brass neck to sit there this afternoon, or that his entire Front-Bench team are nodding along with his “Jackanory” stories.
Since the Secretary of State insists that this is about the supply of medicines, I am going to ask him, for the second time in a fortnight, about radioisotopes. Last time he said that there was no problem because we could fly them in. Can he now tell us how we can get radioisotopes supplied to us if we are not a member of Euratom?
Matt Hancock
Access to radioisotopes is precisely through the aviation route—that is exactly what I said to the hon. Lady last time, and I say it to her again today.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Was the Secretary of State for Transport advised by any officials that his decision to award a contract to Seaborne Freight would result in a challenge in the courts by Eurotunnel?
Matt Hancock
This is not linked to the Seaborne Freight contract; this is about ensuring that the contracts that are in place are able to deliver the unhindered supply of medicines in whatever Brexit scenario.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I think this is the worst “Hancock’s Half Hour” I have ever seen—and it is in colour for the first time. The Secretary of State, in response to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—I am grateful to him for securing the urgent question—advised the House that he has been speaking to the devolved Administrations. When did it come to pass that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have to discuss out-of-court settlements to get medicines with the devolved Administrations?
Matt Hancock
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman had a question in there, but all I will say is that of course discussing the supply of medicines with the devolved Administrations is important, to ensure that those supplies reach all parts of the UK. The devolved Administrations support the wish to ensure that we have in place the capacity to deliver that unhindered supply, and I think that he should support that too.
Drew Hendry
The streak continues, Mr Speaker.
I am going to be more charitable to the Government, because I think they blatantly realise that having no Secretary of State for Transport is infinitely better than having the one they have got. We have listened to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care’s fairy tale about medicines today, but will he at least have the decency to admit that £33 million is a lot of money, especially to people facing hardship on universal credit, the disabled and the low-waged?
Matt Hancock
It is very important that we always remember that this is taxpayers’ money. One of the duties of Government is to use taxpayers’ money to keep people safe, and that means having an unhindered supply of medicines, which is what we on the Government Benches are working so hard to deliver.
Douglas Chapman
This is not about the deal; this is all about incompetence at Government level, with £50 million for the original no-ships contract and a further £33 million in legal compensation to clear up the Eurotunnel mess. Now that the Government have found the magic money tree, how much is coming to Scotland, since we actually have ferries that we want to run?
Matt Hancock
I find it astonishing that Members on the Opposition Benches continue to make the case that this is not about medicines; it is all about medicines, because that is what we are going to be putting on this capacity in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It is about ensuring that, whatever happens on Brexit, people can still be safe. That is why this cross-Government decision was the right one to take. I think it is the same decision that anybody in the House would have taken were they in this place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Points of order are flowing from this urgent question and, exceptionally, I will take them, if they are relatively brief.
Andy McDonald
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. This is now the second time that I have tabled an urgent question asking the Transport Secretary to come to the House and respond. We are told that he is busy—presumably pouring more money down the drain. Should he not be here, and what can you do to secure his attendance?
While we are at it, will the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care come to the Dispatch Box and explain that he has inadvertently misled the House by saying that this has nothing to do with Seaborne Freight? It has everything to do with that contract. That was the reason Eurotunnel took the Government to court in the first place. He must put the record straight.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his point of order. As he will know, the choice of Minister to respond to an urgent question is exclusively a matter for the Government. For example, it is commonplace for somebody other than the Secretary of State to appear. It is not altogether uncommon for a Department other than that at which the question was tabled to field a representative to respond. I recognise that it is relatively unusual for the Secretary of State in the Department questioned not to appear, and for someone who rejoices in the seniority of Secretary of State in another Department to appear instead, but we should never underestimate the enthusiasm, stoicism and commitment to regular performance in the Chamber of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and he has demonstrated that again this afternoon. Colleagues will form their own assessment of how he has batted at the wicket of the governmental team.
As to what the Secretary of State said about the question not being about Seaborne Freight, I think I will say that he has placed his own interpretation on the matter, and colleagues will form their own assessment. I thought that most of the inquiries were about legal action flowing from the cancellation of the contract, but the Secretary of State does have a legitimate public policy interest in the matter, both as a member of the Government and because of his regard for the safe delivery of medicines. Some people will think that he was absolutely right, and others will think that his interpretation of matters was a tad quirky, but nevertheless he has offered us his own assessment and colleagues can now assess it at leisure, possibly over their tea.
Layla Moran
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In reply to my question, the Secretary of State said:
“I do not know whether she thinks it would have been worth bearing the risk of a court case, which may well have struck down the capacity to make sure that people who have serious and life-threatening conditions can get the medicines that they want. She implied that she was against such assurances”.
I did no such thing, and you were here to hear it, Mr Speaker. I asked very specifically why we no longer have confidence in the legal advice that the permanent secretary herself told the Public Accounts Committee she did have confidence in. I do not take particularly kindly to men putting words in my mouth, so I wonder what recourse I have to get a retraction.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has made her point with considerable force and alacrity, and I have no doubt whatever that she is totally sincere, because she came up to the Chair to register her displeasure. I think that the Secretary of State was mildly carried away with the theatricality of the occasion, and he is very accustomed to jousting from the Dispatch Box. Ordinarily I have found him a most good-natured individual, so I think it unlikely—very unlikely indeed—that he would willingly impugn the integrity of a very committed and conscientious Member of Parliament in the hon. Lady, because at heart he is a very gracious chap. He may well wish to proffer an apology to her—[Interruption.]
Matt Hancock
Come on then. Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The first thing to note following these points of order is that—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not inviting the Secretary of State to give a sort of general response, in the style of a Second Reading debate, to everything that has been said. If he wants to respond in relation to personal offence being taken, he can. That would be appreciated.
Matt Hancock
The point I was making, Mr Speaker, which I think I made a few times, is that those who care about having unhindered supply of medicines should vote for the deal, because that is the best way to ensure that people can be kept safe. That is all that I was implying by my comments.
Mr Speaker
Well, the Secretary of State has said what he has said, and colleagues will make their own assessment of it. I thank him for coming to the Dispatch Box.
David Hanson
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State said in response to me a moment ago that the Seaborne Freight issue was nothing to do with this contract and the payment of £33 million to Eurotunnel, but it self-evidently and centrally is. Could you give me some advice as to how we can ensure that Ministers at the Dispatch Box who do not have departmental responsibility are better briefed and/or that the real Secretary of State comes to this House to answer legitimate questions on factual matters about which this Secretary of State does not know?
Mr Speaker
I think that the right hon. Gentleman’s question was more rhetorical than not, and there was not really a question mark at the end of it. I can only say, for my own part, that when discharging my duties to the best of my ability this morning, I was rather under the impression that the urgent question was about the cancellation of the contract on account of legal action and that it was to do with Seaborne Freight. It may be that my interpretation was notably eccentric, but I do not think so. I think I was pretty clear what it was about, and that my assessment was shared by the team that accompanies me at the 12 o’clock meeting on a Monday morning.
Matt Hancock
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are an esteemed and eloquent Member of this House, as you often say to us, and you have just made a comment about what this case was about. Can I be very clear? The reason we settled this case, as I said to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), was to ensure that the freight capacity purchased from DFDS and Brittany Ferries continues, in order to have the unhindered supply of medicines. That is what the settlement was a about.
Mr Speaker
No, no—I am not arguing the toss with the Secretary of State. I said earlier that he placed his own interpretation on what he judged to be the gravamen of the matter. That the question was about the cancellation of the contract and that it was about Seaborne Freight is, I think, so manifestly clear as to brook no contradiction by any sensible person. That it also related to the delivery of medicines is a perfectly arguable point. The Secretary of State has made his own point in his own way, and if he is satisfied with his own efforts and goes about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step, then I am very happy for him.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. You take pride in being a Speaker who is very generous in allowing urgent questions to be asked. The whole reason for urgent questions is so that parliamentarians, particularly Back Benchers, can hold the Government to account. It is quite clearly frustrating today that, yet again, the Transport Secretary, who is culpable for this mess, has not come to answer the questions. We have a stand-in Health Minister who has parroted two lines in response to every question that has been asked: first, “This is about medicines”; and secondly, “If you don’t like it, back the deal.” That is palpable nonsense, and it makes a mockery of urgent questions that are to hold the Government to account. I also know that, as a parliamentarian, if I submit written parliamentary questions on this scenario, the answers will come back saying “commercial confidentiality”, and I will not get any clear information. I am asking for guidance, Mr Speaker, on how we get real information out of this Government when they are trying to shroud everything in secrecy.
Mr Speaker
On the matter of secrecy, the Government will make their own judgment about what constitutes commercial confidentiality, and every Government are entitled to do that. More widely, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he has a number of recourses. He has, potentially, access to freedom of information legislation like any citizen. As for as the business of the House, it is open to him and to others to table written questions—not necessarily an isolated question but potentially a series or, if necessary, several series of questions. It is open to Members to put oral questions to Ministers. It is open to them to apply, as happened today, for an urgent question. It is open to them also to seek debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee or, in certain circumstances that commend themselves to the Chair, under the terms of Standing Order No. 24.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman—I mean this very sincerely and, not least, for the benefit of those who are listening to our proceedings—is disquieted, not to say irritated. However, I suppose I am making the point that I have often made to Members on both sides of the House, including, some months ago, to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who very sagely took my advice last week: persist, persist, persist. That is the essence of success in parliamentary endeavour—not to make a point once but to pursue one’s goal on a continued, indefatigable, and, if necessary, remorseless basis. I think that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) has become accustomed to such an approach over the past four years in which he has served as a Member of the House.
I thank the Members who have raised points of order and the Secretary of State for proffering his replies. We will have to leave it there for today.
Stronger Towns Fund
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the work the Government are doing to support our towns.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed this House that the Government would launch a new fund to help our towns to grow and prosper. Today, I am delighted to confirm further details of our new stronger towns fund—a £1.6 billion fund in England, between now and 2026, to help our towns to grasp the opportunities available to them in the years to come. The British people, supported by the balanced, long-term approach taken by this Government, have worked hard to rebuild the economy after the debts we inherited in 2010. As a result, we have seen strong and consistent growth, but we want to make sure that the benefits of that growth help to support towns across the country. The country voted for Brexit—communities expressing their desire to see change in their local areas. That must be a change for the better, with more opportunity and greater control.
It is important to remind all Members that as we move to support our nations and regions to take control of their own economic destiny, we do not start with a blank slate. Since 2010, seven city regions in England have elected metro mayors, with an eighth to follow in May. We created the local growth fund and devolved it to local enterprise partnerships across England to invest in their priorities for growth. We have agreed, jointly with devolved Governments and their local authorities, city and growth deals, including in Cardiff capital region and in Glasgow and the Clyde valley, with billions of pounds of additional funding. Our modern industrial strategy sets out a clear plan for the future that puts places at the heart of our ambition to create an economy that works for everyone.
But we know there is more to do. That is why we are in negotiations with other parts of the UK on more deals, including in Belfast and in Derry/Londonderry. It is why we are agreeing local industrial strategies with all places in England to get, for the first time, a real, long-term sense of what their local economies could look like in 30 years’ time. Our new stronger towns fund will build on that approach and extend our principles of devolution further, out to the towns that our success was built on. Through this, we will ensure that we spread opportunity more widely so that every community can benefit from our economic prosperity. It will be used to create new jobs, help to train local people and boost growth, with communities having a say on how the money is spent.
Today, I have published notional allocations of £1 billion of the fund. I have allocated that amount based on need. I have looked at the relative productivity, income and skills levels, and targeted more funding to those places with levels that are lower than the average, ensuring that local towns can access the funding needed to support productivity growth. Given that we all know that pockets of deprivation exist even in our most successful local economies, I have made sure that we take into account such very localised economic conditions. We will work with local areas to explore town deals that unlock local potential, investing in places and investing in people.
Today, I can therefore confirm initial allocations of £583 million to towns across the northern powerhouse, £322 million to those in the midlands engine, and £95 million across the south. The remaining £600 million will be invested following a competitive process that I invite all towns to take part in. I will publish a prospectus, which will include further details of the process, and I am keen to encourage high-quality, ambitious bids.
The message today to all Members who serve our towns is that we want those who know these places best—community leaders, local businessmen and women, civic leaders and others—to begin to think about the investments that could build on their heritage, improve productivity and boost the life chances of all their people and to bring those into a coherent plan that sets out a positive vision that people living there can rally behind and play a role in making happen.
As a Government, we have set out the value of investing in infrastructure, people, business and ideas in our industrial strategy, and we want each place to tell us the balance between those priorities for their town. We also want our local institutions to be involved. No one knows towns better than the local councils that serve them, and we want to ensure that local enterprise partnerships and mayoral combined authorities take a leading role. The Business Secretary and I are working with them on the development of local industrial strategies across England. LEPs and MCAs should play a guiding role to ensure that the plans of individual towns across a functional economic area are joined up, so that the overall strategy is greater than the sum of its parts. After all, we know that the success of many of our towns is intrinsically linked to the success of those around them.
Today’s announcement is also about our commitment to the whole Union. The Government will seek to ensure that towns in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can benefit from the stronger towns fund. This will build on the success of our city and growth deal initiatives. Today, we extend our approach to devolution and make a new offer to towns and the millions of hard-working people who live in them to set their own futures.
Finally, I want to impress on the House what the prize at stake is: people coming together, the public and private sectors working with their communities to set out what their towns can be if everyone pulls together and works together, and the steps it will take in the short term to make that vision happen. The stronger towns fund is this Government’s offer to help make that become a reality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) is spearheading plans in his constituency, and other towns, such as Blackpool, are bursting with ideas. So many people who care so much about the towns in which they live are passionate to see that their potential is fulfilled, harnessing the strength of place and identity and unlocking the potential of all parts of our proud United Kingdom. I share that ambition and am intent to see that, as we look to the future, all parts of our country play their part and no one is left behind. This fund is part of helping to achieve that, and I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but we should call this out for what it is. This supposed funding boost is a pittance that will do little compared with the billions that his Government have already cut from our local communities. It will do little to reverse the damage that they have inflicted in each and every region. The reason that many of our towns are struggling is a near decade of politically imposed cuts, including to council funding and public services, by this Conservative Government. No one should be hoodwinked by such a shameful and pitiful attempt to gain support for the Prime Minister’s botched withdrawal agreement.
The fact is that between 2010 and 2020, councils will have lost 60p out of every £1 that the Government provide for services. Why has the Secretary of State cut 60p in every £1 from local government? Why did he not announce a reversal of that cut today, considering that it has left local services facing a funding gap of £3.2 billion? By 2025, the gap facing our local councils will rise to £7.8 billion.
If that was not bad enough, at a time when the Government should be reinvesting in our most deprived areas, they are instead cutting them even harder. Nine of the 10 most deprived councils in England have seen cuts of almost three times the national average. With such policies, does the Secretary of State believe that his party is truly showing itself to be the party for the few and not the many, or is this, as many of us suspect, a thinly veiled effort to mask its near decade of failure?
The Secretary of State says that he has taken deprivation into account when considering the allocation of this fund. That is baffling, because earlier in oral questions he again refused to say that deprivation would be included when considering the local government settlement. Why is deprivation rightly included in this fund but not the fair funding formula review? He mentioned Blackpool, yet Blackpool—the most deprived area in England—has seen a cut in spending power of more than £45 million this decade. That is more than the £40 million a year that the entire north-west of England will get from this fund.
Compared with the cuts that the Conservative Government have inflicted on our local communities across the country, this funding announcement is a drop in the ocean. We have seen cuts in spending of £7.3 billion over the past decade as a result of nine years of austerity. Even if we are being favourable to Ministers, the Government’s enticement is £5.7 billion short of the cuts that they have already inflicted. It is £434 million short of the damage they have caused to the east of England; £405 million short of the damage they have caused to the east midlands; £505 million short of the damage they have caused to the north-east; £1.18 billion short of the damage they have caused to the north-west; £353 million short of the damage they have caused to the south-east; £273 million short of the damage they have caused to the south-west; £709 million short of the damage they have caused to the west midlands; and £735 million short of the damage they have caused to Yorkshire and the Humber. What does the Secretary of State have to say to local people in regions for which this money still leaves a massive shortfall of hundreds of millions of pounds?
The funding promised by the Secretary of State over the next seven years does not even get close to matching the amount that regions have received from the European Union over the last seven years through European regional development and social funding. This package is £642 million a year short of the money that English regions would have received, and that is despicable.
This announcement is inadequate and confused. Why is £600 million unallocated? Why is there no clarity at all about where the money will go and on what? The Secretary of State talked about other parts of the United Kingdom. Will this money be distributed through Barnett consequentials, or will the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government be given a new role? What will the allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be? Why did No. 10 not know what period the fund was for this morning, only for it then to be clarified that it is a long period of seven years?
There is still time for Ministers to reconsider the cuts to councils. I ask the Secretary of State to do so, and to do so immediately, because the danger for us all is that our communities will continue to decline if they do not get the proper support they need. It is time for a Government that will give our towns and communities the funding, resources and support they need to recover—one that will act genuinely in the interests of the many, not the few.
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He sets out a narrative in relation to the savings that councils have had to make, but he ignores the fact that the last Labour Government had already set in train cuts to local government. The idea that cuts would not have had to be made by any incumbent Government is simply not a reflection of the reality.
The hon. Gentleman sets out various points in relation to the benefits attached to different communities and investment into regions, but he ignores the £9.1 billion of local growth funds to local enterprise partnerships through three rounds of competitive growth deals, the investment of £3.4 billion for the northern powerhouse, £1.9 billion for the midlands, £700 million for the east of England, £2.1 billion for London and the south-east and £970 million for the south-west. He does not mention the coastal communities fund, the home building fund and the housing infrastructure fund, and he does not mention the national productivity investment fund, which is all about investing in our regions and our communities, and ensuring that we grow productivity and all communities are able to benefit further.
However, this is about towns, as I have indicated. It is about the towns that need a sense of identity and sense of growth, as I set out in my statement. Yes, on the allocation of £1 billion, which the hon. Gentleman asks me to set out, there are notional allocations to the particular regions, and we want to see bids from towns, working with the local enterprise partnerships, coming through in a very positive way. Equally, as I indicated in my statement as well, we want to ensure that we reflect on the fact that towns in other areas may not necessarily fall within those neat parameters. We therefore want to see bids come in from towns across the country for deals based on their ability to set out their bright, positive future.
The hon. Gentleman listed a number of figures in relation to, as he set it out, cuts. I would say to him, equally, that he well knows that the local government financial settlement this year has a real-terms increase in the money going to the core spending power of local councils across the country. He asks what we can point to in other areas. Let us look at the changes in employment that this Government have seen: there has been a 5% increase in the north-east, 7.1% in the north-west, 7.7% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 6.8% in the east midlands, 10.1% in the west midlands, 9.1% in the east, 22.4% in London, 7.5% in the south-east and 8% in the south-west. This Government are growing the economy and seeing the benefit in jobs and prosperity, and we want to take this to the next level.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the devolved Administrations. We will seek to ensure that towns in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can benefit, building on the success of the UK Government’s city and growth deals. We will confirm in due course the additional funding we will provide to reflect this new funding for England. This is about the determination we have for our towns—those places at the heart of our growth, our identity and our sense of who we are as a United Kingdom. I am sorry if he cannot see that, but it is actually about investing in the future, investing in our communities and seeing the bright, positive future ahead for our United Kingdom.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
This is an excellent announcement, and I particularly welcome what the Secretary of State has said about money for the midlands engine. He said that any town may apply, and given the very serious structural change going on in the town centre of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, resulting from the decline in retail and the need for a reconfiguration in what we do, will he confirm that the royal town of Sutton Coldfield will be able to apply? He mentioned that there will be challenge funding and competition for the funds, which is very welcome, and he also said that the most local element is the one closest to those it represents, so will he confirm that, with the largest town council in the country, the Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council will be able to apply for this challenge funding?
James Brokenshire
I welcome the pitch my right hon. Friend has made for Sutton Coldfield. I do want to see ambitious applications coming in from towns across our country. That is why, as he will no doubt note, we have made a provisional allocation to the west midlands of £212 million from the main £1 billion fund, but, equally, there is the ability, on the competitive element, to bid for the £600 million, too. I want to see really ambitious proposals coming forward, because this has the potential to transform the future of a number of our towns. By having such an ambition, I know that we can achieve that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Another day, another tawdry bribe by this Government to distract and to grab headlines from their failing Brexit plans.
First, I want to ask the Secretary of State whether this money will be Barnettised for Scotland, and when can we expect to receive that money? Every single—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I want to know whether this will be Barnettised because every single city deal so far has seen Scotland short-changed, with more money going in from the Scottish Government than from the UK Government time and again.
I do not grudge any town any investment, but this is simply a bauble on the bare Christmas tree of austerity. The £1.6 billion announced today pales into insignificance compared with what the EU funds would have put in. The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions estimates that, over the same period, the UK would be due €13 billion. The £33 million for the south-west alone is only one Grayling.
The Secretary of State still cannot tell us anything useful about the UK shared prosperity fund—how it will work, whether it will be fully devolved to the Scottish Government to administer and whether its needs-based formula will apply to the money that he seeks to dole out. Is this another power grab? Will the funding levels for this shared prosperity fund be at the very least the same level that they are at now, because the Scottish National party will not accept one penny less?
We are getting into this Brexit situation, but Scotland did not choose Brexit, we did not choose this Tory Government and we do not choose to have this Tory Government rip us off time and again. We have seen Northern Ireland getting £1 billion un-Barnettised, and these are further funds going un-Barnettised, as far as we know. The CPMR says that Scotland would be due to receive €840 million in structural funding between now and 2027. Will the Government tell us exactly how much Scotland is getting and when we will get it?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated already, in response to earlier questions, we will confirm the additional funding we will provide to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to reflect this new funding for England.
The hon. Lady asks about the UK shared prosperity fund, which is separate from this; I want to stress that. We are committed to creating the new fund to reduce inequalities between communities across our four nations by raising productivity once we have left the EU. We will operate that across the United Kingdom. We have made a commitment that we will respect the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and we will engage with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the fund works for all places across our United Kingdom.
We will consult widely on the design of the UK shared prosperity fund. I recognise the importance of reassuring local areas on the future of local growth and we will also be consulting firmly with the devolved Administrations. We have repeated our commitment to respect the devolution settlement and we intend to commence discussions between Ministers of the UK Government and the Governments of the nations in advance of the consultation. The hon. Lady can have my assurance of that in relation to the UK shared prosperity fund. We are committed to do that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome this post-Brexit dividend, which I am sure is the beginning of more dividend to come. My right hon. Friend kindly mentioned my constituency of Harlow, which, despite being a wonderful place to live, has significant deprivation and disadvantage. Will he confirm the timing and the mechanisms for applying for this grant, so that we can apply for regeneration and for our new hospital? Although the east of England gets £25 million, will he confirm the mechanism for applying for money from the extra £600 million fund that he has announced?
James Brokenshire
My right hon. Friend rightly makes the distinction between the two elements of the fund and the town deals that we want to see emerging from both of them. On the first element, we have allocated this on the basis of a number of different factors, but I will be publishing a prospectus—that is the next stage—to set out the application process and the basis for the applications we want to see coming through from the towns that can apply under the £600 million fund. We will be setting that out in detail so that towns such as Harlow, which I know he is so passionate about, are able to apply.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that, if the UK were still a member of the EU after 2020, South Yorkshire would again be eligible for less-developed region status because its economy has fallen back against EU averages since 2014. If it were entitled to EU funding, South Yorkshire would receive £1 billion over seven years. So either his announcement today is totally inadequate, or he is going to promise that, under the shared prosperity fund, South Yorkshire will get exactly what it would have got under EU funding if we were still in the EU.
James Brokenshire
One of the things that would encourage investment in the right hon. Gentleman’s area is getting the devolution deal done in relation to South Yorkshire, Sheffield and the Sheffield city region, as he well knows. He makes an important point about the distinction between this fund and the UK shared prosperity fund, which will follow. Those are separate, and there will be a consultation on the prosperity fund and, indeed, the settlement of amounts in the spending review. There is more to come, so this fund should not be seen in isolation. It links into more funding and more structures that will support growth in all areas.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I commend to my right hon. Friend the “Transforming Nuneaton” project, which is very much designed to regenerate Nuneaton town centre and make it fit for the 21st century. A bid is going to be made for the future high streets fund. Is that compatible with the stronger towns fund so that further bids can be made?
James Brokenshire
There will certainly be some overlap with the high streets fund, so there is an opportunity for town centres and town deals to come together in this way, and there are different purposes that the high streets fund is intended to advance. There is potential to be transformative through the fund that we have announced and, indeed, the new stronger towns fund that I am announcing today.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s understanding that, for decades, our towns have suffered from chronic under-investment and disrespect from national politicians. It is therefore frustrating to hear him talk about handing decision-making powers over this funding to local enterprise partnerships, which have enabled this city-centric model of decision making to persist for far too long. They do not understand our towns and they are not accountable to them. I urge him to make a commitment today to move those decision-making powers to communities and their local councils, which understand best what we need. If he is serious in his acknowledgement that our towns are proud, important places, he must trust us to make these decisions for ourselves.
James Brokenshire
I absolutely recognise the impassioned statement that the hon. Lady has set out on the significance of our towns. We see this as a partnership. Ultimately, those bids, those ideas, and those things that will make a difference in our towns, have to come from the community—from councils, businesses and civic leaders who can shape those ideas, make sure that those bids are competitive and ambitious, and deliver the transformation that she wants for her area and that I would want for her area too. We will work with this, and we will make it work so that towns are seen to have that strength, we get the deals in place and see the sort of thing that she is talking about.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Almost £1 billion has been allocated to the new stronger towns fund. When will we know when those allocations have been confirmed to individual communities?
James Brokenshire
There are two elements, as my hon. Friend will appreciate. The first element is the notional allocations that I have set out, and we will work to provide further detail in relation to the LEP allocations and the next steps on that. Then there is the prospectus that sits alongside the £600 million, which will allow people to bid. I anticipate that there will be different phases, because different towns and communities will need to build their plans and get their ideas together, but I will set out further details in due course.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Towns such as ours in Yorkshire are sick of losing vital services such as libraries, buses, community centres, jobcentres, courts and maternity units, and we need that investment. Our job growth has been half the level of job growth in cities since 2010, but the problem is that the Government are still cutting investment in councils that serve our towns. Analysis by the House of Commons Library this afternoon shows that the cuts in funding for councils covering Yorkshire towns over the next two years alone far outweigh any investment that our towns are likely to get from the funds that the Secretary of State has announced. Does he not accept that, unless councils have the investment and unless we get a fair deal on transport, rather than the rubbish one we get at the moment, we will still not get a fair deal for our towns?
James Brokenshire
For a number of reasons that the right hon. Lady has set out, I would expect her to welcome the allocation for Yorkshire and the Humber of £197 million, set out in today’s announcement, to allow towns to bid for that and to see some of those transformations, whether in transport or other aspects. I would gently underline to her that core funding growth for councils in the forthcoming year has increased, recognising a number of pressures that exist. I have spoken about other funds and, together with those, I see this as transformative. I hope that she and others can work with us to ensure that it has an impact in her community as much as anywhere else.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I welcome the fund, especially the funding for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, as we prefer to call it. When I was Minister for local growth, I trotted up to No. 10 and pitched something very similar, but I was not as effective as the current ministerial team, so I congratulate them. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). When I was responsible for the local growth fund—there were good reasons for it—I was frustrated by the fact that much of it was predicated on a city-centric model, so can we have an assurance this time that, important as investment in cities is on a sub-regional basis, this will absolutely be focused on our towns, and we will seek to work in partnership with things such as the coastal communities fund and the new future high streets fund so that we have a proper, joined-up policy in this regard?
James Brokenshire
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said on that join-up and on the potential that it offers between the different funds, and his emphasis on towns. Yes, the focus thus far has been on cities, which is why this is about setting out a different course, recognising that towns in many ways have been left behind. It is why we need to focus more on seeing the solutions at that level, where we can make a significant difference, and I look forward to working with him as we take that forward.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) have made important points, which I am sure the Secretary of State will contemplate. Is he delighted by the cross-party support for this welcome initiative? In accepting the enthusiasm, including from the Labour Front Bench, will he feed back to the Chancellor that such is the enthusiasm of Members across the House for this idea, that if more moneys are put into the fund, that will be even more welcome?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation. He makes an important point, because in some ways this transcends party. It is about how we reshape our towns, recognising that some have been left behind because of lack of investment from many, many Governments. This fund begins to reset that relationship, and there is almost a new sense of Unionism, with a strong sense of all communities playing their part. We should look positively at what the fund can deliver alongside other initiatives so that our towns are absolutely at the forefront.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Lowestoft is a town with a proud history that faces significant challenges, including deep pockets of deprivation. However, there is an exciting future in which Government can play a pivotal role in unlocking potential. My concern is that the money from the coastal communities fund is spread thinly around the coast, and the east of England is at the bottom of the table of regional beneficiaries of this fund, so resources will not be available to unlock that potential. Can the Secretary of State allay my concerns?
James Brokenshire
What I would say to my hon. Friend in relation to Lowestoft and the work of the coastal communities fund is that today’s announcement has two elements: the £1 billion—he references the £25 million notional allocation to the east of England—and the £600 million for competitive bids. Lowestoft should be positive, put in its submission and get the concept of its own town deal together, so we can pool resources, through the coastal communities fund, the future high streets fund and this fund, and it can have a bright, positive future.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We were promised that Wales would not lose a penny if we left the EU, but the grubby money offered to the UK’s most deprived areas is petty in comparison to the £2 billion Wales currently receives from the EU over the 2014-20 cycle. If this is the pork-barrel future of UK politics, Wales is better off out of it. Will this fund be Barnettised, or will the Secretary of State admit that this money is indeed all about need—not economic need or social inequality need, but the Prime Minister’s need to tout for votes for her deal?
James Brokenshire
We are looking to the UK shared prosperity fund to replace the European structural investment funds that the hon. Lady references. The Government have already guaranteed the full 2014-20 allocations, providing assurance to all parts of the UK in all scenarios. The UK shared prosperity fund will follow. As I indicated, we will confirm in due course the additional funding to be provided to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to reflect the new funding for England.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome the establishment of the stronger towns fund. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that towns across the midlands and the north, from Cleethorpes to Coalville and from Accrington to Ashby-de-la-Zouch, will have an opportunity to benefit from this fund?
James Brokenshire
Yes. My hon. Friend will have heard about the allocations already set out as part of today’s announcement. It is that sense of ambition, that positive sense of what can be achieved for our towns, that lies at the heart of it and why I believe it has the potential to be so transformative.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that towns such as Blackpool are bursting with ideas. Unfortunately, his funding for such towns is wholly inadequate. His seven-year itch, if I can describe it as such, will deliver £280 million to the north-west. By my reckoning, that is £40 million a year for the whole of the north-west. Blackpool, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, has lost half a billion pounds in council funding cuts from this Government and their predecessor since 2010. So how can he possibly sit there with a straight face and say that this is a transformative process? I think the old saying, “The louder he protested his honour, the faster we counted the spoons” is probably more appropriate.
James Brokenshire
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not reflect the work that has been going in through the coastal communities fund, of which Blackpool has been a real beneficiary, and the work we are looking to take forward to give a sense of a new deal for Blackpool. Indeed, he highlights local government finance, while ignoring other sources of income for councils—business rate growth, council tax and so on. When we look at the fund I am talking about today, together with those other funds, we can see the bright positive future I want to see for Blackpool, as I want to see for towns up and down the country.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I note that at the beginning he described the fund as a £1.6 billion fund in England, but of course my ears pricked up at every mention of Scotland. When he came to the sentence,
“The Government will seek to ensure that towns in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can benefit from the stronger towns fund”,
my ears truly did prick up. May I ask my right hon. Friend how?
James Brokenshire
I recognise the need for towns across our United Kingdom to benefit and to see that positive sense of what can be achieved, in many ways applying the lessons learned from our city and growth deals initiative. It is that type of approach that we intend to pursue further. As I indicated in response to other questions, recognising that this involves new funding for England, we will set out details on additional funding for Scotland, and how that will benefit towns in Scotland and across the whole of our United Kingdom. That is the positive future we want to see for my hon. Friend’s constituents and all constituents across the UK.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It should not have taken a referendum and Brexit to get the focus on towns we are hearing about today. I was proud to take part, with Labour colleagues, in two Westminster Hall debates on culture in our towns and transport in our towns, both of which are vitally important. From my end, it is really important that this fund does not just morph into every other fund that currently exists and that the local enterprise partnerships end up as the sole arbiters of whether bids can go forward. It is also important to recognise that within every big town there are many smaller towns and communities. I want to know and want to be reassured that there will be a voice not just for elected representatives, businesses and so on, but for the ordinary, everyday people who do not feel that the projects at the end of their street are being listened to and attended to. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that in those circumstances match funding will not be necessary for them to secure a bid?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Lady makes very powerful and important points about the role and voice of communities, the recognition that there are different towns of different sizes and how they need to be connected into this, and the role of Members of Parliament. I want grassroots communities to be properly engaged and involved in helping to shape the deals. That is the challenge and the approach I adopt, so that we do not slip into the sort of approach she rightly challenges those of us on the Government Benches on about how we can make a difference. I am willing to work with her, and Members across the House, to ensure that we reflect the vision and passion she sets out and that we get this right.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s announcement today has caused a great deal of concern in Cornwall. We were told that the allocation would be based on need and deprivation, yet Cornwall, an area that has some of the lowest wages and productivity and some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country, has been put in with the south-west and received one of the lowest allocations. Will the Secretary of State please explain why Cornwall has had such a low allocation, and will he reassure the people of Cornwall that the criteria used for this allocation will bear no relation to the criteria used for the shared prosperity fund when it replaces European structural funding once we leave the EU?
James Brokenshire
I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The UK shared prosperity fund is a completely different process and we look forward to consulting in detail on that. I recognise the challenges Cornwall faces. I have a really positive sense of what Cornwall can be from the exciting projects my hon. Friend showed me on my visit to parts of his constituency last year. The notional allocations have been set out based on productivity, income, skills, deprivation and the proportion of the population living in towns, with all those criteria weighted together. I want him to remain ambitious. I am ambitious for Cornwall: what it can do, the opportunities that are there, and how the £600 million, as part of the overall fund, provides huge potential, alongside all the other great initiatives that I know are happening in Cornwall.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The north-east will get £105 million, which means £15 million a year over seven years. That is £5 per person each year. Under the European system, we would have received €500 per person each year. At the same time, Durham County Council has had cuts of £212 million. This is totally inadequate. Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s practice of having a packet for this and a packet for that, and a fund for this and a fund for that, means long-term planning is impossible. The only productivity he is increasing is the productivity of his officials in increasing the number of press releases they deliver.
James Brokenshire
I am sorry that the hon. Lady has not recognised that the north-east has had the highest allocation per capita of any part of the country and therefore the recognition that has been given in that way. I do not accept the challenge she sets out in terms of long-term funding arrangements. We still have the UK shared prosperity fund to come, which talks to some of the replacement for the European funding she mentions. The assembly of the different funds together does allow that opportunity to be transformative. I want her to realise that, recognise that, and work with us to make that happen for her towns as well.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, which builds on the Prime Minister’s commitment from her first day in Downing Street. Will he clarify whether the projects that are currently being carried out in Cleethorpes through the coastal communities fund and the Government’s commitments made through the Greater Grimsby town deal can be enhanced by this additional funding?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend highlights the contribution of the Greater Grimsby town fund and the work that the coastal communities fund is delivering for his constituents, as well as the potential for this new fund to add to that. Precisely that sense of what the existing funding—through the coastal communities fund and the future high streets fund—is able to do to be transformative is the reason I hope colleagues will get behind it.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
To put this rehashed, re-mashed £1.6 billion into perspective, Wales alone has received £4.5 billion in funding from Europe since 2000. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly how much Wales will benefit from this funding announcement? Does he agree, to draw upon some porcine sayings, that this is pork—barrel politics at its lowest and that the good people of Wales will see this pig in a poke a mile off?
James Brokenshire
No. Again, I underline the contribution that the UK shared prosperity fund will have, and we will set out the details of the contribution for Wales, recognising that we want all parts of the UK to benefit.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
While I welcome the aims and ambitions of the fund, will the Secretary of State outline why he is unable to come to the Dispatch Box tonight to explain how much money will be available for Scotland and to towns in Moray? When will he do that and how much will be available, because that is extremely important for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland?
James Brokenshire
I commit to my hon. Friend to see that we set out that detail as soon as possible. I want to ensure that the fund benefits all parts of the United Kingdom and that we learn the lessons about the benefits from the Government’s city and growth deal initiatives. We will set out that additional funding, recognising that England is getting new funds from this and that Scotland will, too.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
My town of Barnsley has seen its budget cut by 40% over the last nine years—nearly £700 per person. Does the Minister honestly think that today’s announcement makes up for the huge cuts that the Government have made to my town?
James Brokenshire
Again, I highlight the South Yorkshire devolution deal, which can bring additional investment into the hon. Lady’s community. I have highlighted a range of other funds that are available and that can be benefited from, such as the future high streets fund to transform high streets. I encourage her to get behind those funds and deals and to see that her area is investing and putting applications in to help to make the difference for her constituents.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the £212 million that has been allocated to the west midlands, but will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that Birmingham and the urban conurbations will not gobble up most of that money and that market towns such as Shifnal, Newport and Wellington in my constituency, working with the Marches local enterprise partnership, will see a lot of this funding, not just the rump of it?
James Brokenshire
That is why this is a town-based approach, not a city deal of the kind that we have seen before. I recognise how that has benefited our cities, but we need to ensure that our towns benefit, too. It is why that lies at the heart of the fund’s structure and my hon. Friend should be confident about the towns in his area being able to make those bids. I hope and want to see them succeed.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It would be disingenuous of me not to welcome the Minister’s statement, but it would also be disingenuous of me not to say that I am a wee bit concerned that there are no figures at all on what will be given to Scotland and Wales. Will the Minister therefore tell us two things? First, in terms of coming back to the House and informing us about the moneys for Scotland and Wales, will he make sure that the Governments of Scotland and Wales are told first? Secondly, and this is important for Members for English constituencies, last week the Government gave Northern Ireland £140 million outside of the block grant. Will that be replicated in England, Wales and Scotland, and if not, why not?
James Brokenshire
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to ask others about the situation in Northern Ireland. We will ensure, in coming back to the House, that Members of the House are informed about additional funding for Scotland and Wales, and equally, we will communicate that to the devolved Governments.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I welcome the fact that over half of the first £1 billion of stronger towns funding will come to the north, but will the Secretary of State please consider how small towns such as Middlewich, Sandbach and Alsager in my constituency could bid directly for funding, not just through the filter of a large principal authority or a LEP, because only then will local townspeople really have confidence that their grassroots needs will be considered by the funding decision makers?
James Brokenshire
We are reflecting on precisely that point in terms of the separate elements of the fund—the £600 million—and the prospectus that we will produce to ensure that areas are able to make those sorts of bids. Recognising the challenges of different towns and areas and being able to feel the sense of opportunity is why we have sought to break the fund down in the way that we have.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I like the Minister, but I simply cannot recall a ministerial statement that has angered me more. My constituency, the Rhondda, is one of the poorest in the land. My council, because of the Government’s cuts to the Welsh Assembly grant of several billion pounds over the last few years, has had to close schools and libraries. The Government have closed the courts in the constituency and we have some of the lowest wages of anywhere in the country. When he suddenly turns up having discovered the magic money tree, having lectured us for years about its non-existence, I frankly feel furious that we are now meant to feel awfully grateful that we might have a few crumbs from the table. The worst of it is that today, he cannot even bring himself to say how much money is going to go to Wales—probably not a penny, or is he going to say now, “Yes, you are going to have £5, maybe £20, maybe £100”? Come on, tell us how much we are going to get in Wales.
James Brokenshire
I am sorry to anger and disappoint the hon. Gentleman—I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for him and the way that he conducts himself in the House. I recognise that desire to see towns in Wales—in his constituency—being able to benefit from the stronger towns fund. I promise to come back to this House to provide the details in relation to Wales, and hope to see him in slightly better humour on that occasion.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent is a city that is made up of six towns, quite uniquely in our country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the six towns that make up Stoke-on-Trent, but especially Longton and Fenton in my constituency, are exactly the sorts of places that must benefit from this funding?
James Brokenshire
I recognise the picture that my hon. Friend paints, and therefore the opportunity that this fund provides. We want to see people being ambitious and really positive about how funding can be transformative and can make that difference, and I look forward to continuing to work with him as we take the fund forward.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s conversion to regional funding, but the amounts are derisory by comparison with what has been lost through austerity and economic neglect and what will be lost if the Tory Government’s no-deal/bad-deal Brexit goes through. They refuse to give any details of the shared prosperity fund that the Secretary of State has mentioned a few times, which shows that by comparison with the European Union the Government are less transparent and open—we know that under European Union funding, we would have got up to £1 billion in the north-east. Will he at least say that the north-east would be better off with European Union funding?
James Brokenshire
I have already highlighted the per capita funding the north-east will receive through this fund. We will consult soon on the UK shared prosperity fund—the funding for that will need to be settled through the spending review—and set out the details. We recognise the need for areas such as the north-east to be able to flourish and prosper. I hope the hon. Lady will recognise what this fund delivers and that there is more to come beyond the European structural investment fund guarantee through to 2020. We should look beyond that to the UK shared prosperity fund.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Somerset has some of the most deprived towns in the south-west, and they really need strengthening, so residents will be a little confused by the numbers in today’s announcement. I welcome the idea that the shared prosperity fund will be calculated differently, but given that productivity is similar in the south-west and the north-west, that income levels are not so different and that about two thirds of my constituents live in towns, it is slightly odd that the north-west gets nearly 10 times as much money. Why is that?
James Brokenshire
We have sought to assess the notional allocations based on the various factors I have spoken about. I recognise that for some people this will be positive and for others it will not be so welcome, but I underline to my hon. Friend the reason we split the fund into two parts and the benefit that his towns should enjoy through the £600 million of separate funding. I encourage him to ensure his towns make a bid through that process.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Batley and Spen, like many towns in the north, is sick to death of being bypassed and left behind—banks closing, theatres closing, cinemas closing, Sure Starts closing, and its council, Kirklees, having a 60% cut since 2010—so I was really excited this morning to look at this fund, until I saw the detail. We have nearly £700 million in European regional development and social funding for 2014-20. Over seven years, that is £97 million a year. This allocation—£197 million—equates to £28 million a year, which is a loss of £70 million in spending power and allocation. The Minister also spoke about Yorkshire and mayors. He had the opportunity to give us loads of money by listening and agreeing to the unequivocal desire for a One Yorkshire. He had the chance to give us that money, but he kicked it out and said no. With the greatest respect, we will not doff our cap for crumbs from the table. We want a fair slice of the cake.
James Brokenshire
I do not want the hon. Lady to doff her cap in any way, shape or form. This fund is part of a package of measures that we will be bringing forward. That is why I have highlighted the UK shared prosperity fund. She talks about European money. That fund is part of the replacement for those funds post-2020. I recognise the passion and ambition and the sense of identity of people across Yorkshire, which is why I had that meeting at the end of last week with Yorkshire leaders. I cannot take the Yorkshire deal forward in the way that she and some of her colleagues may wish, but I certainly have that ambition for Yorkshire, which is something we discussed positively last week.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Boston and Skegness are proud and ambitious towns that, frankly, have been frustrated because we have not been spending money like this for many years on our great towns. I welcome enormously what the Secretary of State is doing today. He is extoling the virtues of a plethora of different funds. It should be for towns to come up with their own ambitions and perhaps for the Department to help them in saying how best they can be put together and allocated from different pots of money.
James Brokenshire
That is why we want to see the development of what I might categorise as town deals, whereby we can bring different funding streams together to support that positive sense of how towns can fulfil their potential. This firmly forms part of that, but, as I have indicated, there are other sources of funding, and bringing those strands together will add that further leverage. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend as we seek to establish more of those town deals.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The biggest challenge facing many towns, including Cumbernauld, is the impending loss of a major employer: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Some 130 offices are set to be closed. If the Government want to support towns, surely HMRC must ditch its plans to move tens of thousands of good-quality jobs away from those very towns and into city centres.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman has made his point about HMRC, and I will ensure that it is relayed to the appropriate Treasury Minister.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Cheltenham has areas of relative affluence but also pockets of intense deprivation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any applications must be assessed against the circumstances that prevail in individual neighbourhoods, rather than the town overall, which might lead to an artificial assessment?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As we form the prospectus for the £600 million element of the fund, it is precisely these factors that we will weigh and consider to ensure it has the impact we want it to have.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
My local council, Rochdale, has had its funding cut by nearly £200 million since 2010, so why does the Secretary of State think that £281 million for the entire north-west—a drop in the ocean compared with the cuts my council has had to make—offers a sustainable plan to strengthen the towns of Heywood and Middleton?
James Brokenshire
As I understand it, the hon. Lady’s constituency benefits from the Greater Manchester devolution deal and the investment it brings to her area. She is confusing different aspects. I have already spoken about the increase in core funding for councils across the country in the coming year. The particular aspect of this fund is its ambition for towns. I want to see towns in her area and across the country harnessing their potential and seeking to make that difference.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s stronger towns fund. The north-east of Scotland raises an extra £100 million of local taxes a year, but local communities do not see it. Pitmedden, Insch and Huntly, to name a few, would welcome the opportunity to bid for Her Majesty’s Government’s funds. Can the Secretary of State confirm that Scottish towns will get that opportunity?
James Brokenshire
It is precisely that intent that I have set out. We want towns in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to benefit from the stronger towns fund, building on the success of the city and growth deal initiatives, as I have indicated, and I look forward to continuing that conversation with my hon. Friend.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I join hon. Members from Scotland and Wales across the House in being disappointed at today’s statement. The Secretary of State says that the Government will communicate soon what the deal will be for the devolved nations. Does he realise how insulting today’s statement is? Wales is not an add-on or an extension of England. I hope he realises how upset we all are.
James Brokenshire
I share the hon. Lady’s perspective. Wales is no add-on. I want all parts of our United Kingdom to benefit from the funding arrangements, building on the success of the city and growth deal initiatives, which have benefited all parts of our United Kingdom. We want to get this right and to work carefully with colleagues. I recognise her frustration, but I also underline our ambition and desire to fulfil that for her and Members across the House.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I welcome the focus on towns rather than cities. In that spirit, will my right hon. Friend consider allocating a proportion of the east midlands’ £110 million for the regeneration of the old Stanton ironworks for housing and industrial use, which would bring skills and jobs to my constituency?
James Brokenshire
We have set out the relevant notional allocations for the east midlands. I hear what sounds like an interesting and ambitious plan that my hon. Friend has for her constituency, but it must be taken to the next phase and the bid must come together, and I am sure that that will involve working with the local enterprise partnership.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the commitment that he has shown. He said that Northern Ireland would benefit from the stronger towns fund. My constituency contains four major towns: Newtownards, Cumber, Ballynahinch and Saintfield. Those four strong towns would like to make themselves stronger. When will that happen? When can they apply for these moneys?
James Brokenshire
I know how beautiful the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is, because I have had the privilege of visiting it a number of times, and I recognise his ambition for the towns in his constituency. As I have said, we are seeking to finalise the arrangements for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I will report back to him to give him a sense of how his towns can benefit.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Too often in the past, money transferred from the United Kingdom Government to the Scottish Government has not reached the communities and public services that Conservative Members would like it to. Will the Secretary of State confirm that my local authority, Scottish Borders Council, can apply directly for funds from this pot of money?
James Brokenshire
As I have said in previous answers, we want to build on the success of the city and growth deal initiatives, which have cemented our approach to the idea of people working together and the bigger picture of how benefit can be felt at community level. That is the approach that we are taking to the next stage and this additional funding, and my hon. Friend’s constituents will be able to feel the benefit.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State’s allocation of just £33 million over seven years for the 5.4 million population of the south-west is insulting. The far south-west and Cornwall in particular contain some of the most deprived communities in the country. The Secretary of State has said that this fund, and the shared prosperity fund, will be allocated on the basis of need. What faith can the south-west have in that when we receive one of the highest levels of needs-based EU funding and one of the lowest levels of need-based Government funding?
James Brokenshire
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), the UK shared prosperity fund is different. Let me also point out that this fund includes £600 million for competitive bids. I know that the south-west has benefited from the coastal communities fund. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to make applications and see towns across the south-west benefit.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Another one from the south-west, Mr Speaker. I am proud to represent Paignton and Torquay, which are seeing new investment but clearly have some years of decline to tackle in the town centres. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the new fund will work in conjunction with, for instance, the coastal communities fund, and could potentially lay the ground for town deals for such places as Torquay and Paignton?
James Brokenshire
Absolutely. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Towns such as Paignton and Torquay are great places, but they want more to be done for them. We have the opportunity to consider options such as town deals so that we can advance the agenda and my hon. Friend’s constituents can feel the benefit.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
It is clear that the level of the stronger towns fund—whenever it is announced for Scotland—will not make up for the fact that Scotland is now in danger of losing £840 million in EU structural funds between 2020 and 2027. In response to my question to the Prime Minister on 5 December, she told me that a consultation on the UK shared prosperity fund, which is supposed to replace EU structural funds, would be held by the end of 2018. Given the importance of the EU funds to my constituency, will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of that consultation?
James Brokenshire
I can say that we have already begun to engage with officials and external stakeholders in the devolved Administrations and discuss their experience of current European funding programmes and priorities for the design of the UK shared prosperity fund. We have repeated our commitment to respect the devolution settlement, and we intend discussions between Ministers in the UK Government and the Governments of those nations to begin before the consultation. Obviously we will take a specific approach in the case of Northern Ireland, in the absence of a sitting Executive, but we are advancing the work on the prosperity fund, and I can assure the hon. Lady that we will work with the Scottish Government in that regard.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
It is welcome that extra money is being provided for communities in the east midlands. In Corby, 64% of people voted to leave the European Union, and there is a strong desire to see a new enterprise zone in the town, not least because the last one, under the Conservative Government in the 1980s, was such a success. Will funds be made available to support such projects?
James Brokenshire
I recognise my hon. Friend’s ambition for Corby, and for an enterprise zone like the one that was there previously. I shall be happy to discuss the details with him. We want towns to feel able to come forward with bids, and we are looking into the various transformative services, skills and jobs that will feature in the new economy that we want to create, along with a sense of ambition for growing enterprise and business. I am sure that this fund can offer that potential to Corby, and to other towns throughout the country.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Most Members can welcome a bit of extra cash for their areas, but we cannot avoid the context of huge cuts in local government funding. Nor can we avoid the context of a possibly imminent Brexit, which makes it difficult to believe that today’s announcement has absolutely nothing to do with that. My question, however, is this: if the Secretary of State can produce indicative allocations for England, why on earth can he not do the same for Wales?
James Brokenshire
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, let me underline the Prime Minister’s commitment during her first days in office, when she spoke of her desire to see a country that worked for everyone and where no one was left behind. The fund that we have announced today is very much part of that agenda, because we want all parts of our United Kingdom to benefit. I have already mentioned the funds for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will report back.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
My I press home the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)? If this money is simply Barnettised, the Scottish Government will fritter it away on other things, just as they have done with the £92 million on Brexit preparedness, not a penny of which has made its way to any Scottish council. I am sure that, having received yet another real-terms cut from the Scottish Government in the latest Scottish Budget, East Renfrewshire Council will be delighted to be able to bid for the money directly.
James Brokenshire
I recognise my hon. Friend’s ambition for his constituents. We share that ambition. We want towns in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to benefit. We want to get this right. We can build on the success of what we have seen from the city and growth deal initiatives in the past, and we want to strengthen that so that people throughout our United Kingdom can benefit, and can realise their passion for their towns and the potential of those towns.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has linked this fund to Brexit. My constituency voted leave. As its name suggests, it consists of two towns, both of which contain significant pockets of deprivation. I should have thought that they were exactly the communities for which the fund was designed, but under the rules there is no guarantee that they will see a penny of it. If that comes to pass, will the Secretary of State be saying that he has learned nothing about the reasons why people voted leave, and about the idea that some areas deserve more opportunities than others?
James Brokenshire
This is about towns coming forward with bids and having a sense of ambition, and a sense of how the fund can be transformative and make a difference to people’s life chances. There is still the work in relation to the UK shared prosperity fund, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong to try to link the two. I look forward to working with him, and with other colleagues on both sides of the House, as the further work on the towns fund is advanced through the prospectus involving the £600 million, and I want to see ambitious bids come from towns throughout the country.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Bottesford, Kirton and Scunthorpe are all great towns, but they have all been badly affected by the cuts in Government spending in our area across a whole range of services since 2010. The money that is now being talked about is only a third of what is being cut from local government over the next two years, and there is a bidding culture as well. Sometimes the areas most in need of support have the least capacity to make bids; what is the Secretary of State going to do about that?
James Brokenshire
There is the increase in funding for local government for the forthcoming year, which I have already referred to, and the town approach to this fund is profoundly about communities being able to shape this agenda, with civic leaders, business and the community being able to set out their ideas. I have talked about my ambition for the fund for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and for people across the whole of our country.
Douglas Chapman
Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is like winning the raffle.
No doubt the Minister will be aware that many towns throughout the country need a leg up at this time, especially in the run-up to Brexit, but it appears that this deal is very much a case of “except for viewers in Scotland and Wales.” If the Minister is genuinely supporting Scotland and Wales, where is the detail, what discussions have taken place with the devolved Governments to date, what is the funding formula, will it be Barnettised, and, in short, where’s the beef?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, I do want towns in Scotland to be able to benefit from this. We are continuing our discussions on finalising the additional funding to go to Scotland and Wales to reflect the new funding for England, and, as I have also indicated, I will update the House.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
With Seaborne Freight, with the channel tunnel fiasco, with no idea for Scotland, with no idea for Wales—maybe Northern Ireland has had its cash, we don’t know—this is the UK at peak banana republic; it is make it up as you go along at the Dispatch Box thrown in with the expense of bidding and the patronage of doling out the money.
The Secretary of State has missed a trick: had he announced this over 14 years rather than seven, he could have said it was £3.2 billion rather than £1.6 billion. Either way, it works out at about £20 million a year for Scotland, and to make it worse we in the islands have been waiting a long time for our islands deal, and the UK Government do not know which Department is dealing with it—is it the Treasury, or the Scotland Office? The towns of Castlebay, Daliburgh, Lochboisdale, Balivanich, Lochmaddy, Tarbert and Stornoway could surely do with a good bit of this cash, and the crux here is that England is not bidding for this cash; England is getting this cash. And Scottish Tories, who have got the mushroom treatment, have to decide whether they are Unionists or submissionists who are doing what they are told. So the long and the short of this, is will this money be Barnettised? Will we see our fair share, or is this just peak, zenith banana republic coming from the Dispatch Box?
James Brokenshire
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not, it seems, have that sense of ambition that we have for Scotland through Brexit and beyond. I know that Members on his party’s Benches have a different perspective on Brexit, but I say to him that I do want the towns in his constituency to be able to benefit from that, and therefore while there is new funding coming for England, we are seeing that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland benefit from that in the appropriate way. As I have indicated to him and other hon. Members, we will come back with the detail of that funding. I want Scotland to see the positive vision and sense that I have. Even if the hon. Gentleman is looking to extend this out for 14 years, we want to see the benefit sooner than that.
Tax Avoidance, Evasion and Compliance
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
With permission, I should like to make a statement on tax avoidance, evasion and compliance.
This Government take a balanced approach to the public finances, investing in our vital public services while getting our debt down and keeping taxes as low as possible, and part of that approach is that everybody must pay the tax that is properly due. The vast majority of taxpayers, from individuals and the smallest businesses to the largest companies, already pay their fair share. This Government recognise their duty to that compliant majority to build a fair and sustainable taxation system and, through that system, to make sure that those who try to avoid or evade their tax liabilities are held to account.
Our approach is working. At 5.7%, the tax gap is at a near-record low. The difference between the tax that should be paid to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the actual tax that has been paid is at its joint lowest level in five years, thanks to HMRC’s sustained efforts to tackle non-compliance and to help customers get their tax affairs right first time.
HMRC tailors its approach to different taxpayers, subjecting the largest businesses and the wealthiest individuals to the greatest level of scrutiny, while using data and digital tools to help smaller and mid-sized businesses to get it right, with close attention on those where avoidance or evasion is suspected. We must make sure the tax system is not a barrier to setting up, running or growing a business, but we should never forget that the tax brought in by HMRC directly funds our vital public services.
I am proud of this Government’s success in this respect. Since 2010, we have introduced over 100 measures to tackle tax avoidance, evasion and other forms of non-compliance. Alongside this, HMRC’s compliance work has secured and protected £200 billion in tax revenue that would otherwise have gone unpaid. In addition, at Budget 2018 the Government announced a further 21 measures that together are forecast to raise around £2.1 billion by 2023-24. This success demonstrates the Government’s continued efforts to address tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance in all its forms.
At the same time, the Government recognise that these efforts must be designed and targeted carefully. All HMRC powers, which are given by Parliament, must be accompanied by the necessary safeguards to ensure that they are used correctly. The Government will keep the tax administration framework under review, in consultation with interested external stakeholders, to ensure that it continues to strike the right balance between robustly challenging tax avoidance, evasion and other forms of deliberate non-compliance and treating all taxpayers fairly.
As part of our continuing efforts to reduce the gap between money owed and money paid, the Government have also set about reforming the rules that govern off-payroll working. These rules, known as IR35, were first introduced in 2000 to ensure people working through their own company, who, but for the existence of the company, would be taxed as employees, pay broadly the same tax and national insurance as other employees. The rules do not affect the genuinely self-employed and the Government recognise the contribution that contractors make to business and to public services across the country. Our aim is simply to ensure that contractors who work through their own company pay the right tax.
However, evidence has suggested that these rules have been frequently misapplied, so contractors were incorrectly paying tax as though they were self-employed when they were actually acting as employees. It is right and fair that everyone must pay the tax that is due irrespective of the nature of their employment. We want a tax system that is simple and clear to use, so that businesses and individuals alike can understand what they owe and how and when to pay it.
In April 2017, the Government introduced new rules for public sector organisations that take on contractors through their own company. The reform means that public sector organisations are now responsible for deciding both whether the contractor is acting as an employee, and therefore within the rules, and ensuring the right amount of tax is paid.
I am pleased to report to the House that this has proved to be effective, with HMRC estimating that an additional £550 million has been raised in income tax and national insurance contributions in the first 12 months since the measure was introduced. However, non-compliance in the private sector remains a persistent and growing problem that, if left unchecked, will cost the taxpayer as much as £1.3 billion by 2022-23, according to the Government’s estimates.
In last year’s Budget, the Government announced that we will extend the reform of off-payroll working rules to the private sector from April 2020, and tomorrow we will publish a consultation to seek views on the detailed design of the reform to enable effective implementation. By changing the design of the off-payroll working rules, we are helping individuals working in this way to ensure that they are compliant with the existing legislation. For this reason, the Government’s focus will be on supporting organisations and businesses to apply the rules, rather than enforcing historical cases. Our aim is to provide individuals and businesses with greater certainty around how the off-payroll working rules will operate from April 2020 and the actions that individuals and businesses can take to prepare for the reform.
Our reforms to off-payroll working are just one of the ways in which this Government are ensuring that we have a tax system that is fit for the 21st century, and I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The Opposition came to Parliament today prepared to debate, to amend and to scrutinise the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, and we did so in good faith, even though we were given just three hours to table amendments to the Bill last week, having been told on Wednesday afternoon that the remaining stages would be taken today. I should make it clear that the Bill had only come out of Committee the day before, on Tuesday, and that the business for this week was announced only last Thursday.
Let me be absolutely frank. The Bill has been pulled, and this statement scheduled instead, for one simple reason: the Government thought that they were going to lose. They have shown such contempt for Parliament today, and they are in such a state of chaos, that even the annunciator could not keep up with them this morning. This is not a statement from the Government on tax avoidance; it is a poor attempt to put up something that the Government can hide behind, because they are afraid to let Members of Parliament vote on the provisions of the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill.
There were two main amendments to the Bill. The first would have prevented the Bill from legislating for a race to the bottom in regulatory standards if we were to crash out of the EU without a deal—something that the Government say they are already committed to. The second, standing in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), would have compelled the introduction of public registers of beneficial ownership in the Crown dependencies and reiterated their introduction in the overseas territories—something that the Government are already committed to doing. It is woeful and embarrassing for the Government to pull the business of the House today, to avoid Parliament having a say on those amendments, and to make this statement instead.
In relation to the substantive point on tax evasion that has led to this, I know that the Crown dependencies have a difference of opinion with this Parliament on the merits of public registers of beneficial ownership, but I believe that there is a majority view in Parliament that public registers provide for greater transparency than the existing data-sharing protocols between ourselves and the Crown dependencies provide for. Public scrutiny would provide for analysis of suspicious patterns of behaviour, and it would disclose inconsistencies in supposedly factual information and reveal wrongdoing by people who might not already be the subject of official law enforcement action. Around the world, such information getting into the public domain has been essential to exposing tax evasion and corruption, from the laundromat scandal to the Panama papers, and the public want to see action.
In relation to what the Minister has said today, all I can ask him is whether his reference to not enforcing historic cases is code for the Government not proceeding with the 2019 loan charge? His words suggested that they might not be proceeding, but he did not really say one way or another. If the answer is that they are not proceeding, I am not really sure, with all due respect to the Minister, why he needed to make a statement today at all.
Let me return to the main point. If we had debated the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill today, I had intended to start with a genuine word of solidarity with my opposite number, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is also the MP for Salisbury, because it is exactly a year since the appalling attack in his constituency that featured chemical weapons. I still want to take this opportunity to express our support and solidarity with him and the people of his constituency. I mention this now because the House has united on a cross-party basis to push for new laws in this area precisely because transparency in overseas jurisdictions has become an issue of national security for us in the UK. We cannot, and should not, tolerate those who threaten the safety of our people being able to hold major assets in the UK through complex and opaque financial arrangements.
In the light of that, the Government’s words today are simply not good enough. If there is consensus in this House that action must be taken now, how can the Government deny us the chance not only to vote for further action but to vote to reaffirm the action that we have already passed through the House of Commons? Real action on tax avoidance, transparency and money laundering is well overdue, and if the Government cannot bring themselves to take that action, they should at least stop preventing other Members of Parliament from getting on with the job.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. He spent some time focusing on the legislation that was due to come before the House this evening. Some amendments have been tabled, particularly the second one to which he referred, that could have significant constitutional ramifications for our Crown dependencies and overseas territories. For that reason, and given that the amendments were tabled only last Thursday, it is only right that we should have time to consider these important matters. They are not directly Treasury matters; they are more a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Justice.
The hon. Gentleman refers to wanting to see public registers of beneficial ownership of companies, but he neglected to mention that we have already introduced these in respect of UK companies. That came in in 2016, and that database has been accessed in excess of 2 billion times. He mentioned that we have already made commitments to work with the overseas territories to bring in those measures by 2023. He asked me specifically what the meaning was, in the context of IR35, of focusing particularly on future compliance rather than on the history of the businesses that would be in scope of this measure. This is simply a clear indication that this is not about trawling through previous activities. It is about looking to the future and ensuring that we take a fair, proportionate and reasonable approach to IR35 as it goes into the private sector.
The hon. Gentleman asks me whether there were any implications for the loan charge. I know that people often conflate IR35 and the loan charge in relation to disguised remuneration, but as he will appreciate, they are entirely different things. There is no implication in any element of my statement on any change in respect of the loan charge.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, in relation to our national security, about the importance of general transparency in business and tax affairs internationally. I remind him that this Government and this country have been at the forefront of the base erosion and profit-shifting project with the OECD and that it is this country that has helped to drive our common reporting standards, which provide information across hundreds of overseas tax jurisdictions. With that, I will conclude, because I think that I have addressed the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Minister, whom I respect greatly, has been handed an enormous hospital pass today, although perhaps not as great as the one handed to the Secretary of State for Health earlier, when he had to justify the conduct of one of his Cabinet colleagues. I should like to ask the Minister to build on what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), the shadow Minister, was saying. The Minister said in his statement that
“the Government’s focus will be on supporting organisations and businesses to apply the rules, rather than enforcing historical cases.”
Have the Government learned from the 2019 loan charge cases, where people are very concerned about the importance of historic cases rather than looking forward? Is the Minister saying that these changes will be done differently from what we see happening under the loan charge?
Mel Stride
I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions. To reiterate, there is no connection between the loan charge and IR35; they are two distinctly different aspects of Government taxation policy. The purpose of my statement, in making it clear that we will not be actively or aggressively looking at previous activities in this area, was to show that we recognise that we need to get this right and that we need to support employers and contractors as we go through this process. That is the approach that we will take.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
We should have been debating the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill this evening, but the UK Government are clearly feart. Can the Minister tell us when the Bill will return to the House? We were told that it was vital, urgent and necessary in the event of a no-deal Brexit, yet today we find that that urgency has evaporated. The statement today is nothing but a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment that the UK Government feel over the amendment tabled by the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). The Government should have acted on this after the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, but on public registers of beneficial ownership, they have taken their lead from the Prime Minister and kicked the can down the road to 2023.
On IR35 and the loan charge, what assessment has the Minister made of how many people were forced into the system by their employers and what action has been taken by the employers involved in those cases? How many people were separate from that and perhaps knowingly used the system to avoid tax? It seems to me that they are two separate classes of people who should be recognised and treated differently as we go forward.
On compliance and enforcement, this Government have a poor record because they have already closed HMRC offices in Scotland, the local knowledge of which played a vital and valuable role in enforcement, ensuring no avoidance or evasion and enforcing compliance. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has asked this before, but will the Minister put the plans to close the HMRC office in that constituency on hold because it plays a vital role in the tax avoidance, evasion and compliance regime?
Finally, will the Minister act to make Companies House part of the anti-money laundering regime, which would close a huge loophole in the system that allows people to register companies falsely? Will he take action on Scottish limited partnerships, which are still allowing people to hide money and move it around? The last time I asked about SLPs, thousands of people still had not registered as a person of significant control but had not been fined. Does he not have an interest, as a Treasury Minister, in having that significant amount of money in the Treasury coffers rather than going unpaid?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady asks about when today’s business will return to the House. That will be a matter for the business managers and the usual channels in the usual way. She asks about the loan charge and, specifically, about those who would be impacted by it, and I can tell her that, of the £1 billion that has been received by HMRC via pre-loan charge settlements, some 85% of those settlements by value came from companies, rather than from individuals. HMRC will go for companies in the first instance.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of HMRC offices up and down the country. We are going through a transformation programme, as she will know, reducing the number of offices from 170, some of which had fewer than 10 staff, to produce 13 state-of-the-art hubs that will move our tax authorities into the 21st century, and so much more can be done through analysis, computers and intelligent interventions. I was privileged last week to visit our new office in Bristol, which will be the hub for the south-west of England. It is a truly stunning building that will house a state-of-the-art approach to tax collection.
The hon. Lady mentions Scottish limited partnerships and urges the Government to act. She will know that we have already taken action in that respect. The main point remains that we have been successful in keeping our tax gap as one of the lowest in the world, safeguarding and protecting some £200 billion of tax, which, let us not forget, is there for a purpose. Taxes support our vital public services, our doctors, our nurses, our brave servicemen and women, and our police force. We need that money, and that is why I am proud of our achievements in that area.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the best approach is to get things right for the future, rather than to overemphasise enforcement of the past, particularly when people may well have acted in good faith when they received professional advice. That takes me to the loan charge and I will press the Minister on that. The Government accepted a new clause to the Finance Act 2019 relating to a review of the loan charge. For that to be meaningful, it must have an independent element and must be given time to do its work. Would not common justice indicate that the sensible thing for the Revenue to do would be to use its discretion to suspend the implementation of the loan charge against individuals until the review has been fully completed and its conclusions fully digested and debated?
Mel Stride
During the passage of the Finance Bill, we committed to provide a report by 30 March, which is shortly upon us and, of course, is prior to the moment when the loan charge will come into effect, which is at the beginning of the coming tax year. My hon. Friend referred to whether individuals getting involved in such schemes knew what they were all about, but if something looks too good to be true and one ends up being asked for basically no or little tax, it probably does not work and that, I am afraid, is the case.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I know that this Government find it difficult to listen to anybody and to accept the will of Parliament and legislation if they do not like what it says—they have form—but I want to ask the Minister two questions, one relating to the overseas territories and one relating to the Crown dependencies. On the overseas territories, it is utterly shameful for this Government to ignore legislation that was enacted only last year and to invent their own date for the implementation of public registers of beneficial ownership. If the Government are serious about wanting to tackle tax avoidance, tax evasion, financial crime and money laundering, they ought to be acting with greater speed, not delaying the implementation of legislation and ignoring the will of Parliament. Will the Minister explain to us what on earth the Government are doing?
On the Crown dependencies, I cannot for the life of me understand how the Minister can pray in aid the constitutional implications of this House legislating on a matter that was perfectly in scope in relation to the Bill that the House is considering and perfectly in order on the matters it was attempting to address. Such praying in aid of inadequate and ill-thought-through reasons simply will not do. Indeed, I cannot understand why the Minister does not recognise the consensus across this House on the issue. Transparency is a vital tool in fighting tax avoidance, evasion and financial crime, and all we want is that transparency to exist across the family. Would it not be better for the Minister to concede gracefully to the will of Parliament, rather than battling limply to a defeat in the future?
Mel Stride
I assure the right hon. Lady that I always listen extremely carefully to what she has to say, as I have done in the context of her current two questions. She asked why we are delaying—as she terms it—the implementation of public registers of beneficial interest for overseas territories. The short answer is that it is important that we allow time to ensure that we get these things right, not least because our Parliament is legislating on behalf of another jurisdiction—albeit one that is closely related to ourselves. It is important that we are considered and measured in that way.
The right hon. Lady’s second question relates to the Crown dependencies. She made the quite legitimate point that the amendment to the legislation that was due to go through this afternoon was indeed in scope and in order. However, that is not the same as saying that that contradicts my earlier point that that particular amendment would have considerable and significant constitutional ramifications for our Crown dependencies. For that reason, as I stated earlier, the Government feel that it is important to reflect carefully upon that before we come back with the legislation in due course
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I welcome the statement before us—if not its existence, at least its content. The Minister says that he wants to support individuals. Can he create a mechanism whereby someone can have their standard contract precleared by HMRC so that, if they engage with half a dozen customers a year, they will not get half a dozen different treatments chosen by those companies when they put the contract through their tool, or something similar?
Mel Stride
The issue of ensuring that we make it as simple as possible for employers to be able to assess the employment status of employees or contractors providing services is extremely important. It is central to the consultation that I have announced will open tomorrow and run for several weeks, and I urge my hon. Friend to contribute to it with his specific idea.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Can the Minister explain why, on a day when they pulled business to avoid defeat on an amendment that could have meant the wealthiest businesses paid millions of pounds in tax, the Government feel it is acceptable to clamp down on ordinary families for national insurance and not pursue widespread, large-scale tax avoidance?
Mel Stride
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, I think I have already answered why we decided not to go ahead with the legislation today. On clamping down on national insurance issues, I am not entirely sure to what she is specifically referring. If she would like to have a word with me after this statement, I would be happy to have a look at it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I accuse the Minister directly of encouraging a very large number of people to avoid tax? Is it not the case that, in 2010, when the Conservatives came into government, low-paid people had to earn only £6,500 a year before they paid income tax, but from next month the income tax threshold will be £12,500? May I accuse him of taking millions of people out of income tax altogether? Is not the fundamental truth that, if tax rates are lowered, tax take is increased by encouraging economic growth, giving us all more money to spend on public services?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend, and I take it on the chin. I am bang to rights. I and this Government are guilty of lowering taxes, particularly for the lowest paid in our country. He refers to the increase in the personal allowance, and he is absolutely right that, since 2010, some 4 million people have been taken out of tax altogether—I am extremely proud of that fact.
It is often suggested by the Opposition that the wealthiest get away with it. Well, they certainly do not. Under this Government, the top 1% pay 28% of all income tax; under Labour, it was about 24.5%.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Is not the Government’s decision to pull the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill in the face of the amendment on public registers of beneficial ownership, tabled by my formidable right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), reflective of their entire approach to the wider issue? Can the Minister confirm when the Government will finally take decisive action on extending corporate liability for economic crime? Their call for evidence closed two years ago and we are still waiting for a response.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady will know that this Government have an exemplary record when it comes to clamping down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, including overseas. We have been at the vanguard of the base erosion and profit shifting project, and in 2015 we brought in the diverted profits tax, which has already saved some £700 million. We are very active in this space and I refer her to my earlier answer on why we have delayed the legislation today.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I echo the words of the Chairs of the Treasury Committee and the Select Committee on Justice. The Minister’s words that the Government will not focus on enforcing historical IR35 cases will stick in the gullet of those, like my constituents, who are sick with anxiety at facing huge bills of over £100,000 relating to the loan charge. These are not affluent people; they are businesspeople who have ploughed everything they have into their business and into employing local people. Does the Minister understand just how stressful this is when they have not even received their settlement amount from the Inland Revenue after the date, at the end of February, by which they were promised it?
Mel Stride
It is very important for us to be extremely clear as to what disguised remuneration is all about. It is a situation where I, as an employer, instead of paying an employee in the normal manner, on which basis PAYE would be due—that would be income tax, employee’s national insurance and employer’s national insurance—I say to the employee, “Look, we’ll do it a different way. I’ll send some money out, typically into a trust in a low-tax or no-tax overseas jurisdiction. That money will then come back into the United Kingdom disguised as a loan”—not a real loan, as the hon. Lady and I would recognise, but one where there is no expectation that it will be repaid—“and, as a consequence because it is treated as a loan and not earnings, it attracts no tax at all.” This Government do not believe that is right.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Clause 95 of the Finance Bill 2019, which the Government accepted on Report, agreed a review of the loan charge. I have met constituents. They are ordinary folk who, when they were working for particular people, were told that this was the arrangement they had to make. They are now suffering huge penalties, although they are still not clear exactly what those penalties are because HMRC keeps changing the rules. Following the question of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), will there be a proper independent review that reports by 30 March and allows time before these things come in? I like the Minister a lot and I think he is a good Minister, but what he just said suggests that the Government have already determined the outcome of that review, which is not very helpful.
Mel Stride
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman formed that opinion. We are certainly not going to prejudge any review on any aspect of tax, whatever it may be. I gently say to him, and to those who got involved in these schemes, that by and large when something looks too good to be true, it is too good to be true. Where hon. Members refer to very large demands for tax, we are, of necessity, looking at situations where very large amounts of money went through tax avoidance schemes. We have had debates in this House in which Members have raised tax demands, on behalf of their constituents, of up to £900,000. In those circumstances, about £2 million-worth of income would need to go through one of those schemes in order to result in an unpaid tax bill of that magnitude.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister needs to clarify whether he is just writing a report or whether he will genuinely do a serious review. He says that the bulk of the loan charge tax by volume has already been collected. However, 50,000 ordinary, hard-working people are in despair and living in limbo, waiting to know whether the tax returns they put to bed years ago are to be reopened.
I am the vice-chair of the all-party loan charge group, and last week we heard from the family of a man who committed suicide over a small amount. It was the shame and fear that he would go to prison that sent him over the edge. The Sunday Telegraph has reported on a leaked HMRC letter from 2011 that clearly shows that it knew it was out of time for pursuing these cases back then, so will the Financial Secretary now admit that the real reason for the loan charge is HMRC’s failure to act when it was legally entitled to do so and that that is no good reason to undermine the rule of law by retrospectively rewriting the rules?
Mel Stride
May I correct one thing the hon. Lady said? She said I suggested that the bulk of the money due under the disguised remuneration measures has already been collected, but I am pretty certain I said that, of the £1 billion that has been collected thus far, some 85% has come from companies, as opposed to individuals. HMRC will go for the company before the individual. We have to get back to the reasons for this charge, which I have just set out. As for whether it is retrospective as the hon. Lady says, I can assure her that there has been no time in our history as a taxing nation when this kind of structure—this kind of contrived arrangement, which is set up simply for the avoidance of taxation—has ever fallen appropriately within our tax code. It has never been right. These schemes have been taken through the courts, not just the general courts, but the Supreme Court, over a number of years and they have always been found to be defective and not to work.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Government’s decision to pull tonight’s vote on the remaining stages of the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, which would allow the UK to continue to implement EU rules, because they feared a defeat on the cross-party amendment on the introduction of beneficial ownership registers in Crown dependencies by 2020 is truly shocking. Does the Minister think that pulling that vote will dispel or heighten the concerns of the general public about the general chaos at the heart of this Government, which we are currently enduring, a mere three weeks from Brexit?
Mel Stride
No, it certainly will not heighten any sense that the public may or may not have of chaos. What it will do is give the Government the time to reflect upon what has emerged as an extremely important constitutional matter, in order to take a measured and careful approach to our response, and of course the legislation will come back to the House in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Since the last time this matter was raised in the House, what has he done to close the loophole that has allowed big business to avoid paying the appropriate tax? Big business should not be trying to avoid paying tax; it should be paying its just taxes and doing it cheerfully.
Mel Stride
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman when he says that big businesses should be paying their fair share of tax, which is why half of the largest companies at any one time in the UK are being looked at closely or investigated by HMRC. That is not to say that they are doing anything wrong, but it is to indicate that we and HMRC take looking into the tax affairs of large companies extremely seriously. He will be aware of the measures we have brought forward in various Finance Bills specifically aimed at large companies, be it the legislation that has come out of the OECD BEPS—base erosion and profit shifting—project or the diverted profits tax measures of 2015. We do take this very seriously. We are a world leader at bringing in taxation, not least from large companies.
Points of Order
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight, a programme is going to be broadcast on national television—an advance screening is already taking place for Members in Committee Room 10 upstairs—that looks behind threats received online by Members of Parliament from across this House in relation to Brexit. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and I have co-operated with and appear in this documentary. I know we are grateful to the police and all the authorities for their responses and for the prosecutions that have been launched after those threats, but this is systematic intimidation and influencing of the votes that MPs cast in this House. Next week, we expect to have further key Brexit votes. Will you help us to ensure that this threat to our democracy and our safety is to be taken seriously and is to be challenged at all times?
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady both for this immensely serious point of order and for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. The short answer, though it warrants a fuller response, is that I will do everything in my power, sitting in this Chair, to uphold and champion not merely the right but the duty of every Member of this House to do what he or she thinks is right for the country. I am sorry to say that there has in recent times been a burgeoning phenomenon of people who hold a particular view, often rather an extreme one, simply not seeming to be able to imagine that anyone can legitimately hold a view that diverges from their own. This is very different from straightforward political disagreement. What seems to have happened is that people who violently disapprove of the opinion of a Member of Parliament think it is somehow proper to write in quite the most horrific and obnoxious terms, to post blogs on the matter, to tweet in the most offensive terms and in person either to threaten or, worse still, to inflict violence.
With the help of the House authorities, conscientious reporting to the police and, above all, effective action by the police, two things are obviously necessary. The first is that such people should be brought to book and made to realise that that behaviour is not acceptable. The second is that Members, as a result, should feel that proper safety net around them, to which anybody is entitled. However, the importance of free expression in voice and vote for Members of Parliament can hardly be overstated, just as it is impossible to overstate the sinister character of the threats posed to journalists to boot.
It is true that men as well as women have been threatened, but I think it legitimate and proper to point out—I think this will chime with the right hon. Lady’s experience, and certainly with that of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and others—that women have been disproportionately targeted by chauvinist and misogynistic abusers. This is intolerable.
In dealing with this threat, we have to be clear on three fronts. First, no matter how strongly people may feel, this behaviour is wrong. Period. It is not possibly wrong or partially wrong, but wrong. Period.
Secondly—I hope this reinforces the right hon. Lady’s collective and cross-party spirit on this matter—an attack on one Member has to be viewed as an attack on us all and on our democratic principles. Someone who is not currently in the line of fire has a responsibility to realise that he or she could be at any time. An attack on or threat to the right hon. Lady is frankly an attack on and a threat to every single one of us.
Thirdly, as a result of our conscientiousness and an effective regulatory and police enforcement process, it has to be made clear to the bigots—and they are bigots; there is really no other way to describe it—that not only is their behaviour objectionable, bullying, in many cases misogynistic, and utterly immoral, but it will fail.
If the House of Commons, as one of the two Houses of Parliament and the elected House, cannot do what it thinks is right, that would be the death of democracy. None of us in this House is going to allow the bigoted extremists, who do not just disagree with a person but want to trash that person’s motives, to win. It simply must not, cannot and will not happen. I applaud the right hon. Lady and her colleagues across the House and in several different parties for their courage and persistence in speaking up and out about this matter. I wish to associate myself both with what she said and with the actions she has undertaken.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice as to how Members of this House might be able to debate the allocation of MPs’ pay and their staff budgets. Last Thursday, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority announced an inflation-busting 2.7% pay rise for Members of this House; however, our staff budgets are set to rise by a much more modest and below-inflation 1.5%. Some 200 MPs have already signed a letter expressing disappointment that we may not be able to grant staff the pay rise that they deserve, and I am aware that another letter is being circulated among staff.
I understand that the Leader of the House, as a member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, would be the most appropriate member of the Government to respond to a debate on this matter. However, Members are unable to apply to the Leader of the House for Westminster Hall or Adjournment debates, so those avenues are not open to us. I note that the changes are set to take effect at the end of the month, so any advice that you can offer on this pressing matter, which is clearly a concern to many Members, would be greatly appreciated, Sir.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter, which I know is of concern to many Members; indeed, I think the feeling is widespread across the House. I am sympathetic to the case, which the hon. Lady makes, that Members ought to be able to debate this matter. Although the Leader of the House is not on the usual rota for Westminster Hall debates, there is no reason of principle why Members should not apply for debates on subjects within her ministerial responsibility. In other words: where there’s a will, there’s a way. I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I have not had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Leader of the House, but I have no reason to think that she will not be receptive to these points, and I very much hope that a resolution can be reached.
Decisions on MPs’ pay and expenses are, of course, made by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It is called the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority because its decisions are independently made—independently of both Government and Parliament. For that reason, the matter does not formally fall within the responsibilities of Ministers. However, I would argue that, with a degree of flexibility and sensitivity to colleagues’ concerns, that fact should not preclude applications for a debate either via the Table Office in the usual way, or, alternatively, via the Backbench Business Committee. The Leader of the House of course has some role in deciding on the date of Backbench Business Committee days, and that is quite a germane point in this context. The hon. Lady can also discuss the matter with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, which, I rather imagine if she is keen on this idea, she will speedily do.
Finally, the Table Office can offer the hon. Lady advice on the options, so if she is asking me whether there is a recourse to facilitate debate, the answer is that there is. With her legendary ingenuity and persistence, I feel sure that salvation will be found.
Mr Speaker
I am coming to the hon. Gentleman. It would be a pity to squander him too early.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Monday, I was advised that the Department for Work and Pensions intends to implement the asks in my Food Insecurity Bill, which is an important step towards ending the devastating levels of UK hunger. I was, however, notified of this via an outside organisation. On Wednesday last week, the news was confirmed by an anonymous DWP spokesperson via an article in The Guardian newspaper. Although I am of course delighted that the Government have eventually listened to me and the 159 MPs across this House who supported my Bill, I am a little bit put out that they did not feel it necessary to contact me directly, worse still to make no written or oral statement to this House on such an important matter.
Can you advise me, please, Mr Speaker, if there has been a change in practice whereby Secretaries of State and Ministers are no longer required to give updates to this House on important policy developments?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter. The short answer is no, there has been no change in that requirement. The way in which the requirement is interpreted varies from one Department to another, and sometimes even from one Minister to another. What I mean by that is that it is not always absolutely unarguably the case that an oral statement is required; it can be a matter of discretion, and in some instances a Minister will feel that a written statement suffices.
However, what I am concerned about here is less the question of whether an oral statement rather than a written is required, or a written rather an oral will suffice, and rather with the matter of courtesy. There is some concern that the courtesies are observed in this place inconsistently, and that saddens me. There are many members of the Government Front Bench—I am looking at one in the Financial Secretary—who, in my experience, are unfailingly courteous and do see it as their duty to keep others informed, and that, I think, is good not only for their parliamentary reputations but for the House. In other instances, such courtesies do not seem to be observed. I would have thought that, just on a human level, if the hon. Lady has taken a very key and leading role in this matter, it really would require very little forethought and modest consideration to notify her. I am sorry that that did not happen.
I cannot say I know exactly what process was followed, or what error in thinking caused this lapse, but it is disappointing. What I say to the hon. Lady is this: Ministers are expected to announce important policy changes to this House. It is unsatisfactory that she has not been directly informed of developments that concern her Food Insecurity Bill. I trust that this point has been noted on the Treasury Bench and that it will conveyed to the relevant Ministers. I hope that that is helpful.
David Linden
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Friday, the director of a business in my constituency attended my advice surgery to complain that the company’s visa sponsorship licence had been unilaterally revoked by the Home Office, and that two members of staff had had their permission to work withdrawn. That has caused significant disruption to a company that is already up to its neck in post-Brexit planning.
To add insult to injury, the Home Office then somewhat crudely implied that it suspected that the two individuals in question do not actually work for the firm, which is as offensive as it is baseless, not least because they have worked for the company for several years and are an integral part of the team. The company also provided the Home Office with countless items of evidence as proof of work. Moreover, when I visited the warehouse this morning, alongside local MSP Ivan McKee, I saw with my own eyes where those members of staff worked, and that the work is now literally piling up on their desks.
Immediately after my Friday surgery, I established contact with the Immigration Minister’s office to request the hon. Lady’s personal intervention. I firmly believe that this is a case more of cock-up than of conspiracy, but I would be grateful for your guidance on how I may place details of the case on the record, Mr Speaker. In the event that the Minister does not resolve this timeously, can you advise what further mechanisms might be open to me to resolve this sorry saga, which is adversely impacting an otherwise perfectly functioning business in my constituency?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his wish to raise the matter. He has to some extent achieved his own salvation by putting his concerns very firmly on the record. I say in the gentlest possible spirit to the hon. Gentleman, who is a most conscientious parliamentarian, that he could not be accused of excluding any matter of any potential importance at any time from the summary case that he has just articulated to the House. He has made his point comprehensively—we are grateful to him for doing so—and, as a consequence, put his concerns on the record to be studied by others.
I note that the hon. Gentleman has already been in contact with the office of the relevant Minister, and he did ask about redress or resolution. If that contact does not lead to a satisfactory resolution, there are a number of avenues open to him, including tabling questions, and indeed potentially seeking an Adjournment debate—a matter in which I have some modest, but I hope helpful, role myself to play. I suggest that he seeks the advice of the Table Office on the options. Knowing him as I do, I feel sure that his journey to the Table Office will be made with dispatch.
Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [Lords]
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
Social Security
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
In my view, the provisions in the order are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The order reflects the Government’s continuing commitment to increase the basic and full rate of the new state pension by the triple lock, to increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings, and to increase carer’s benefits, and benefits intended to meet additional disability needs, in line with prices.
The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic state pension will continue to be uprated by the highest of rises in earnings, rises in prices or 2.5%. The triple lock has been an invaluable tool in combating pensioner poverty, and keeping it in place gives pensioners the financial security and certainty that they deserve. This year the increase in earnings was the highest of the triple lock figures. As a result, the basic state pension will increase by 2.6% to £129.20 a week for a single person. Consequently, from April this year the basic state pension will be over £1,600 a year higher than it was in April 2010. We estimate that the basic state pension will be around 18.4% of average earnings, which is one of the highest levels relative to earnings for over two decades.
Three years ago, the Government introduced the new state pension, which provides a transparent and sustainable foundation for private saving and retirement planning for people reaching state pension age on or after 6 April 2016. We have also committed to increase the full rate of the state pension by the triple lock. As such, from April 2019 the full rate of the state pension will increase to £168.60 a week—about 24% of average earnings.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
If the Minister will not say this, may I? That increase does not go to half our overseas pensioners, including those in South Africa, Canada and Australia and other places—50 countries around the world. Does he agree that it is about time we considered that?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend, who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. It has been the case for some 70 years that we do not uprate those pensions, and at this stage there are no plans to make any changes to that.
On the additional state pension, this year the state earnings-related pension scheme and the other state second pensions, as well as protected payments in the new state pension, will rise by 2.4% in line with prices. With pension credit, we are continuing to take steps to protect the poorest pensioners, including through the pension credit standard minimum guarantee—the means-tested threshold below which pensioner incomes should not fall. That will rise by 2.6% in line with average earnings. From April 2019, the single person threshold of this safety-net benefit will rise to £160.25—over £1,800 a year higher than it was in 2010.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the changes to pension credit that will come in in May this year, making it unavailable to people whose partner is under 65? How many more pensioners will be driven into poverty as a result?
Justin Tomlinson
There are two elements to that. First, it depends on individual circumstances and the impact of factors such as different arrangements in whether people are working, their caring responsibilities, and their health conditions. Secondly, it is about the principle of fairness, in that those of working age should not be accessing pension-related benefits. We should not be taking people of working age out of the workplace. Pensioner poverty continues to stand at one of the lowest rates since comparable records began, and we intend to keep it that way.
Justin Tomlinson
I will come back to the hon. Lady.
Turning to universal credit, in the 2018 autumn Budget statement the Chancellor announced additional assistance for those on universal credit. As such, the universal credit work allowance will increase by £1,000 after they have been increased by prices, helping 2.4 million working families. This measure raises the amount someone can earn before their universal credit payment is reduced and directs additional support to some of the most vulnerable low-paid working families.
Finally, let me turn to disability benefits. This year the Government will continue to make sure that carers and people who face additional costs as a result of their disability will get the additional support they need.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I have to ask the Minister: is that it? We are in the middle of a benefits freeze that is seeing family poverty rise—is that all he has got to say about it?
Justin Tomlinson
With this uprating order, I am bringing forward plans to increase support for some of the most vulnerable people in society to the tune of £3.5 billion, with £3 billion alone to help those with disabilities and long-term health conditions, and pensioners—key people who the Government, as we share the proceeds of growth, will continue to target support towards. That is why the incomes of the lowest-paid have risen by over £400 in real terms since 2010 while the wealthiest fifth of society have seen their income fall by £800. We recognise the right places to target support through additional measures, including the introduction of the national living wage, worth £2,000 a year, and the increase to the income tax threshold of £1,200.
Justin Tomlinson
I will make some more progress.
These increases will cover disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit and personal independence payment. They will all rise by 2.4%, in line with prices, from April 2019.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate some of the uprating, but we have to note, as key stakeholders in this sector have, that the biggest driver of child poverty that this Government are enforcing is the benefit freeze. With £4.5 billion due to be saved this coming year, why have the Government not brought forward the necessary legislation to scrap the final year of the freeze?
Justin Tomlinson
As I have set out before, as the economy has continued to grow, we have been able to share the proceeds of growth to support some of the most vulnerable in society. That has seen increases to the income tax threshold, which will reach £12,500 this year, taking 4 million of the lowest earners out of paying any income tax at all. We are also seeing significant additional support for those with children. Whereas spending on childcare was £4 billion in 2010, it will be £6 billion by 2020—a 50% increase as part of our doubling of free childcare support, particularly helping lone parents who seek to take advantage of the record employment in all regions.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He knows as well as I do that none of the figures he has just announced add up to the £12 billion of welfare cuts previously announced in this House by George Osborne. By the end of the benefit freeze and the other measures that the Government have introduced, children in poverty in this country will be worse off—is that not right?
Justin Tomlinson
But we know from announcements in the last two Budgets that spending on working-age benefits will be £2 billion higher than it would have been under the legacy benefits. That is why we now see 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty, as we continue to target support at the most vulnerable in society.
Justin Tomlinson
I am going to make some progress.
In addition, the carer and disability premiums paid with pension credit and working-age benefits, the employment and support allowance support component and the limited capability for work and work-related activity elements of universal credit will increase by 2.4%. Those increases will ensure that our welfare system continues to provide the most support for the people who need it.
In conclusion, in this order the Government propose to spend an extra £3.7 billion in 2019-20 on increasing benefit and pension rates. With this spending, we are upholding our commitment to the country’s pensioners by maintaining the triple lock, helping the poorest pensioners who count on pension credit, ensuring that working people can earn more before their universal credit payment is reduced and providing essential support to disabled people and carers. I commend this order to the House.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
This uprating order increases a range of social security entitlements. However, it does not uprate those included in the Government’s freeze to working-age benefits enacted in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016—a freeze that is causing real hardship to some of the poorest people in our country. The Minister set out the range of benefits to be uprated in line with the consumer prices index. The order also increases the state pension in line with the triple lock—a measure that the Opposition fully support—and increases universal credit work allowances by £1,000, in line with the announcement in the last autumn Budget.
While we welcome measures to increase those payments, we are deeply concerned that most working-age benefits remain frozen. The fact is that austerity continues under this Government, and it is pushing individuals, families and children into poverty. This order fails to uprate a long list of social security benefits: child benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, local housing allowance rates, child tax credit, working tax credit and the equivalent elements in universal credit. None of those are uprated by this order.
Let us think for a moment about who that failure affects. It is the person who has just lost their job after working for 20 years in the same firm. It is the parents struggling to feed their children. It is the sick or disabled person who is looking for work. These are vital social security payments that should lift people out of poverty and ensure that they do not become destitute.
Ruth George
I thank my hon. Friend for being prepared to give way to me, which the Minister was not. Does she agree that the freeze on housing benefit and local housing allowance is driving not only people of working age but more pensioners into poverty? Contrary to what the Government claim, pensioner poverty has risen by 0.3 million, and we are seeing more and more elderly people who have to rent houses suffering because of it.
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely pertinent point, and she does so with her usual alacrity and attention to detail.
These vital social security payments should lift people out of poverty and ensure that they do not become destitute, but under this Government that aim is not being met. Last year, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that more than 1.5 million have experienced destitution in the UK, and the social security freeze is a key reason for that. To put this in perspective, destitution in this context—[Interruption.] Yes, destitution. I do not know why the Whip on the Government Front Bench finds destitution such a matter for mirth.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Craig Whittaker)
You don’t know the meaning of the word.
Margaret Greenwood
Well, let me explain. In this context, destitution means that a person has lacked two or more of the six essentials in the last month—[Interruption.]
Margaret Greenwood
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To put this in perspective, destitution in this context means that a person has lacked two or more of the six essentials in the last month—shelter, food, heating, lighting, clothing and basic toiletries. It is truly shocking that 1.5 million are going without basic essentials in modern Britain.
The Social Metrics Commission, whose members are drawn from the left and the right of the political spectrum, has found that 14.2 million people in the UK are in poverty, including over 4 million children. More than one in 10 of the UK population live in persistent poverty. This is a shocking indictment of a country that has the fifth biggest economy in the world.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
I want to put on the record that I have visited some of the poorest parts of the country in recent weeks with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), and I can confirm that I have seen this destitution with my own eyes. I have spoken to individuals who have literally £5 a week to live on for a variety of reasons, including their inability to access universal credit, but the overriding fact is that people can no longer afford to live on the subsistence level that universal credit and working-age benefits are set at—they cannot.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the hon. Lady for making the point so powerfully.
The benefit freeze increases poverty. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the freeze is set to drive almost 500,000 more people into poverty by 2020. In 2018, a couple with children claiming universal credit were up to £500 worse off, and a lone parent with children was up to £400 worse off, due to the benefit freeze. The JRF says that the freeze is the single biggest policy driver behind rising poverty levels. Before the freeze was introduced in the Welfare Reform and Work Act, working-age benefits were capped at 1%, yet living costs are rising. In the 12 months to September last year, prices grew by 2.4%, according to the CPI inflation measure. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that between the introduction of the benefits freeze in April 2016 and November 2018, the annual cost of living for people on low incomes rose by £900.
Rising living costs and frozen social security mean that the value of benefits is increasingly inadequate to protect people from poverty. A recent report by the National Audit Office shows how the real value of the basic rate of jobseeker’s allowance and income support has fallen nearly every year since 2012-13, and it is now below its value in 2009-10. Overall, the real cut to many benefits from the four-year freeze is over 6%. According to the Resolution Foundation, child benefit is now already worth less than it was in April 1999. Beyond a family’s first child, child benefit in April 2019 will be worth 14% less than it was when it was fully introduced in April 1979. This is compounded by the Conservatives’ broken economy: low wage growth and the rise of insecure and zero-hours contracts mean that incomes are failing to meet the rising cost of living.
Alison McGovern
Simply, child benefit is easy to claim and has wide support in society, so are not the statistics my hon. Friend has laid out absolutely terrible for working families?
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely pertinent point, and I thank her for it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The hon. Lady has concerns about working-age benefits—we all understand that, and she is right to highlight them—but at the beginning of her speech, she spent about five seconds on the £3 billion extra going to pensioners. Does she recognise that never in our country’s history have we ever spent more on the state pension than now, and the average pensioner is getting £1,600 a year more now than they were when Labour left office?
Margaret Greenwood
I will come on to pensions further on in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will wait for that.
Some 8 million people are in poverty and live in families where at least one person is working. According to Shelter, more than half of homeless families in England are in work. Under the Conservatives, having a job is not even a guarantee that someone can avoid homelessness. The benefit freeze cannot be seen in isolation. It is just one part of the Conservative austerity programme that has seen billions cut from public services around the country and taken the core out of our communities. The Conservatives have targeted social security with devastating cuts, taking vital support from poor and disabled people. According to figures produced by the Library, measures announced in the June 2010 Budget onwards are forecast to cut social security by £36 billion in 2020-21. Nearly £5 billion is forecast to be taken from disability benefits, including employment and support allowance and incapacity benefit; £4.6 billion from tax credits; and £3.4 billion from child benefit. These cuts have had a devastating impact on the incomes of millions of people. The freeze should be seen in the context of the chaotic roll-out of the Government’s failing flagship social security programme, universal credit.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the points that she is making, many of which will resonate with my constituents. Does she agree that in-work poverty is a modern-day scourge on British society, and it exposes the lie that if someone is willing to work hard and make their own luck they can get on in life? Absolutely the opposite is true for too many people under this Government.
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is a real sense of betrayal that that myth has been perpetrated by Government Members.
It is clear that universal credit is not working. It is driving many people into poverty, debt and rent arrears. One of its key defects is the inbuilt and unrealistic five-week wait. Originally it was even worse—a six-week wait. It seems that that senseless policy was devised by the Government without any thought for how people are supposed to survive for five or six weeks without any payment at all. The Secretary of State herself has spoken of the link between universal credit and the significant rise in food bank use. Why then have the Government failed to tackle this issue and why do they offer people a loan, rather than solving the problem?
The Secretary of State has said that the benefits freeze will not be extended beyond next year, but families cannot afford another year of the freeze. Next year alone, the benefits freeze is expected to cut £1.5 billion from the value of working-age benefits. We have called on the Government repeatedly to end the benefits freeze. It is not too late for them to stop the freeze. Ending it a year early would lift 200,000 people out of poverty altogether and boost the incomes of 13.7 million people on low incomes by an average of £270. The Government might be reluctant to do that now because the next financial year is only weeks away. However, when there is a desire to get a short Bill through and general agreement that it is non-contentious, Parliament can move primary legislation along quickly. As we saw in the recent work and pensions estimates debate, there is a cross-party desire to remove the damaging benefits freeze.
Part of the Government’s concern might be that the passage of such a Bill would be slowed down by amendments, so we will lay down a challenge to them: if they introduce a short Bill to end the benefit freeze one year early, Labour would support it and do whatever is possible to ensure its smooth passage before the next financial year. Will the Government agree to this measure, which would take hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty?
The increase in universal credit work allowances was introduced after considerable pressure from the House and Labour Members in the autumn statement. We welcome the increase, but we question why the Government cut the work allowances in the first place only to partially reinstate them a few years later. The 2015 cuts to work allowances dealt a major blow to the work incentives of universal credit and took money out of the pockets of working families. According to the Resolution Foundation, the increase to work allowances announced in the autumn restores only half the original cut overall. There are no work allowances for single people and couples who do not have a disability. Will the Government revisit this decision?
Turning to the uprating of the state pension in line with the triple lock, we are pleased that the Government have kept to this, despite the Conservatives’ plan to scrap the triple lock, which they announced in their manifesto. Presumably, the pressure from Labour Members made them think about that again. The latest figures show that pensioner poverty, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said, is rising again, with more than 300,000 additional pensioners living in poverty compared with 2012-13. That could be made worse by the news, slipped out on the eve of an all-important Brexit vote, that mixed-age couples will no longer be able to claim pension credit. They will instead be forced into making a universal credit claim, and some couples may lose as much as £7,000 a year as a result. Cumulatively, the cut amounts to £1 billion over the next five years. What assessment have the Government made of the effect this cut will have on pensioner poverty?
As the Government are still recklessly failing to rule out a no-deal Brexit, the threat of no deal and the effect it would have on the state pensions of UK citizens living abroad looms ever greater. As has been mentioned, the Government already withhold the pension uprating from pensioners living abroad in many countries outside the EU, an injustice Labour has pledged to reverse. In their no-deal planning, the Government have failed to commit to uprating the state pension across the EU beyond 2019-20. I have met pensioners who are very worried about this scenario and the effect it will have on pensioner poverty abroad. People who previously moved to the EU did so on the understanding that their pensions would be uprated. Why will the Government not give assurances to protect UK pensioners living abroad, whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations?
The Government have failed to address the financial hardship faced by millions of women born in the 1950s due to changes in pensions policy. Why, despite constant lobbying raising awareness of the issue, have the Government failed to take action? The Conservatives’ austerity agenda has inflicted real hardship on many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. It has also drastically undermined our social security system.
We on the Labour Benches believe that we need a social security system that is valued as highly as our NHS and is there for any one of us should we need it. The Government are failing to deliver. If the Prime Minister was really serious about austerity being over, the Government should take action to tackle the rising poverty we are seeing throughout our country.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The greatest achievement of the modern capitalist system has been its ability to consistently deliver rising living standards across the globe. With higher living standards come longer lives, and that is absolutely something to be celebrated. Many of us can now look forward to living healthy and fulfilling lives into our 70s, 80s and, God forbid, possibly even beyond.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a point about life expectancy. Is he not aware that recent figures suggest that life expectancy is now rolling backwards and that a good deal of that could well be attributed to Tory austerity?
Paul Masterton
I should point out that I spent 10 years as a pensions specialist before coming into this place. The hon. Lady is not actually correct. What has happened is that the increase in life expectancy is slowing down. That is not a UK-only phenomenon; it is happening right across the western world because of very large advances. It is not unreasonable or linked to austerity. Longer lives mean that there will be an increasing number of older people in our society; the proportion of people aged 85 and over is projected to double over the next 25 years.
Debbie Abrahams
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has made an error. Public Health England published a report, alluded to by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), that says exactly that life expectancy is flatlining for certain groups but going backwards for others and for certain regions. Not only that, it pointed the finger at austerity as the cause.
Paul Masterton
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I would point out that that is not what the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) actually said.
I want to address the order, which delivers on the triple lock to the state pension and provides an extra £3 billion for pensioners in 2019-20, uprating in line with earnings at 2.6%. The UK has a system whereby today’s taxpayers pay for pensions currently in payment. When people are living healthier lives for longer, spending much greater proportions of our lives in retirement, that is both unfair and unsustainable. The figure has already grown from 26.5% in 1981 to 33.1% in 2013. In 2010, the basic state pension stood at 16% of average earnings. Thanks to the triple lock, it will soon be around one quarter of average earnings. That has contributed to pensioner poverty falling significantly in recent years and the Government can be rightly proud of that. By some estimates, typical pensioner households now have higher incomes than their working-age counterparts. The triple lock has therefore served its purpose, and I would argue that it cannot be maintained indefinitely.
Jim McMahon
Does the hon. Gentleman see that as a justification for removing the free TV licence?
Paul Masterton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I will come on to some of the questions about universal pensioner benefits in just a second.
As the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) mentioned, all Conservative MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to replace the triple lock with a double lock of inflation and earnings from 2020. I believe that that was the right policy, and it would of course be more generous than the Cridland review’s recommendation of moving to a simple earnings link. Even this year, we are raising the state pension in line with earnings, because they have risen above the 2.5% floor the triple lock provides. The system should of course provide generous support for vulnerable pensioners, but that support should be properly targeted.
The current universal system means precious public funds are being spent on well-off pensioners. In fact, the richest one fifth of pensioners on average receive a higher weekly income from benefits, including the state pension, than the poorest one fifth. That would be a shocking statistic even without the context of strained public finances. If we are serious about addressing intergenerational unfairness, we must recognise the unfairness of allowing higher income pensioners, many of whom remain in very well-paid employment—for example, as MPs—to retain certain entitlements, while workers on an equivalent income lose their child benefit and their marriage allowance, to give just two examples.
We are building huge levels of intergenerational inequity in this country under the current system that the triple lock, having done what it was designed to do, will only continue to exacerbate. If we want to avoid increasing the burdens on younger workers to fund large transfers of wealth to better-off pensioners, issues around the triple lock and, although they are not in the scope of the measure today, universal benefits need to be addressed. Why are we increasing and providing these benefits to extremely wealthy individuals if it means having to freeze the entitlements for those who are in work and struggling to make ends meet?
I know that the political reality following the experience of the 2017 election meant that that manifesto commitment had to go and that that could easily lead the Conservative party to conclude that it has had its fingers burnt on many of these issues and should steer clear of them in future, but that would be a betrayal of my generation and those to follow. While I, of course, support the uprating order and particularly the increase to the UC work allowances, which many Government Members lobbied very hard for, I hope that the door is not being slammed shut on the grown-up discussion that we all need to have in the House about the triple lock and other universal pensioner benefits in the near future.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As much as on one level I would love to say otherwise, with some reluctance I say that we will not oppose this statutory instrument this evening. However, just because we do not seek to block these paltry, parsimonious increases to some social security benefits, Government Members should not think for one moment that we think that these miserable, inflation-linked rises are in any way adequate or go far enough to assist those in our society who are in most need of help.
Alison Thewliss
Does my hon. Friend agree that the WASPI women are one such group who deserve a pay rise and deserve the money that they have paid in but have not received? Does he pay credit to the women who came to march in Govan a couple of weeks ago not just from Scotland, but from other parts of these islands?
Brendan O’Hara
I absolutely do. My hon. Friend and many other Opposition Members have been fantastic champions of the WASPI women. I pay tribute to the WASPI women—in my time as a Member of Parliament, I do not think that I have come across a more co-ordinated, invigorated group. Those who attended in Govan should be left in no doubt that we know that they have not gone away and that they will not go away until justice is done.
As far as the Scottish National party is concerned, the Government stand accused of deliberately widening the gaps in the social safety net. If they push on with the final year of the benefit freeze, they will do so in the full and certain knowledge that those gaps will get wider. As they widen, low-income families, children, the sick, the working poor, the unemployed, the vulnerable and disabled people will continue to fall through that net—the collateral damage in the Government’s ideological crusade to seek to balance their books on the backs of the weakest in our society. I believe that, along with the catastrophic Brexit that we are about to face, entrenching poverty across the UK will be this Government’s legacy. I reiterate that these cuts are not a necessity. This is a political choice. These cuts are simply ideological.
Almost two years ago, the Prime Minister said famously, in response to a nurse who asked why she and her colleagues had not been given a pay rise, that
“there isn’t a magic money tree that we can shake that suddenly provides for everything that people want”.
Really? No magic money tree? You could have fooled me, because as far as I can see, there always seems to be a magic money tree handy when the Prime Minister needs £1.6 billion to bribe English MPs to back her appalling Brexit deal. There always seems to be one when her Government need to find £1 billion to buy off the Democratic Unionist party in order to keep themselves in power. Of course, there is always a magic money tree around when the historically hopeless Transport Secretary needs to be bailed out when he—as we know he will—messes things up again. Perhaps a more accurate answer to that nurse would have been, “Of course there’s magic money tree but not for the likes of you and those others who need it most.” Perhaps an even more honest answer would have been, “Of course there’s a magic money true, and you and the millions of people across the UK hammered by this Government for almost a decade are that money magic tree,” because the billions of pounds taken from the poorest and most vulnerable in our society have gone to bankroll much of the Government’s programme, and it has left deep wounds across many communities in the United Kingdom.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an impassioned speech—I admire the passion he brings to this debate—but the SNP are running away from their responsibilities for certain social security payments that it is within their power to take responsibility for. They cannot even begin to put their arms around the administration of those devolved responsibilities until 2024. When they talk in such impassioned terms, we have to match their words, sentiment and passion with the reality of the actions of the SNP Scottish Government, which are lacking in this significant area.
Brendan O'Hara
That is the sort of patent nonsense I have come to expect from Conservative Members. The Scottish Government have spent hundreds of millions of pounds in mitigating the worst excesses of this callous UK Government. The bedroom tax, universal credit and carer’s allowance have all been mitigated by the Scottish Government. However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Scottish Parliament is not a mitigation Chamber for this Government. As long as we are to be in this place and this Government control the vast majority of welfare legislation, this is the source of the problem. As responsibility for benefits gets to the Scottish Parliament, we will use it properly and in time, but my goodness I will take no lectures from the Conservative party about universal credit and welfare.
I reiterate the oft-made calls from the SNP Benches for the UK Government to end their deeply damaging and socially divisive benefits freeze. In the last three years alone, the value of benefits affected by the freeze has fallen by more than 6%, meaning that those who can afford it the least have been hardest hit. This is seen as one of the key drivers in pushing up the number of children living in poverty across the UK. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows the reality of the benefits freeze on something as simple as the cost of basic foodstuffs. In the past three years, when working age benefits have not increased at all, the reality facing families on benefits is that bread is now 11% dearer, sugar is 17% more expensive, whole milk is up 12%, tea and coffee are up 7% and butter is up an incredible 23%. That is the price increase since 2016.
It goes without saying—or it should—that poorer families are hit hardest by economic shocks. The poverty premium means that what middle-income families may consider to be a small economic shock, such as a rise in the cost of bread or milk, has a much greater impact on those with smaller incomes who have less disposable income. The Social Metrics Commission report on poverty in the UK published last year found that 2.5 million people were living less than 10% above the poverty line. Relatively small changes in their circumstances could mean they easily fall below it.
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend is making some very good points about the cost of living. Is he aware that the UK Government’s cuts and their restricting of the child element of universal credit to the first two children in a family mean that a single mum with three kids working 16 hours on the Government’s pretendy living wage will have to work 45 hours to make up the difference from the cuts?
Brendan O'Hara
I was aware of that. The statistics are shocking, as I will come on to shortly.
In this, its final and most punishing year, the benefits freeze will claw back nearly £4.5 billion. That is nearly £1 billion more than the amount for which the Government budgeted. Late last year, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that, by lifting the freeze a year early, the Government could take 200,000 out of poverty. Given the economic turmoil that is expected as a result of Brexit, the Government know that the quickest way in which they could get money to those who need it most would be simply to lift the freeze. It is not too late to do that. As we heard from the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), they could introduce primary legislation as soon as they wanted in order to remove the four-year freeze section from the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, and they could introduce a statutory instrument to uprate benefits ahead of April. Like the hon. Lady, I can guarantee the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends if the Government were to take that bold and imaginative step.
We said at the outset, back in 2015, that the imposition of a benefits freeze was morally reprehensible, but to continue that freeze in the face of the almost unprecedented economic uncertainty caused by Brexit would, in my opinion, be an unforgivable abuse of the weakest and the most vulnerable in our society. In his report of November 2018, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights wrote:
“Given the vast number of policies, programs and spending priorities that will need to be addressed over the next few years, and the major changes that will inevitably accompany them, it is the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society who will be least able to cope and will take the biggest hit.”
Worryingly, he also wrote that, on the basis of his meeting with UK Government officials,
“it was clear…that the impact of Brexit on people in poverty is an afterthought”.
If, back in 2015, the Government intended those receiving benefits to suffer the effects of austerity more than most, they have certainly succeeded. Recently published statistics from the Resolution Foundation make sobering reading. According to the foundation, basic support for jobseekers will be equivalent to 14.5% of average earnings in 2019-20, its lowest ever level. Only once since its introduction in 1979 has child benefit for a first child been lower, and for a family with two children, its value has never been lower.
We all know that the 2015 Budget contained some of the most punitive cuts in social security that this country has ever seen, which are now beginning to actively reverse previous reductions in child poverty. Today, in some of the poorest areas of the United Kingdom, child poverty rates are running at 50%. That is an unbelievable figure in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, although, sadly, it is all too believable in one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. According to Oxfam’s analysis of the 2016 Credit Suisse report, just 600,000 of the UK’s richest people are worth 20 times as much as the poorest 13 million combined.
It is predicted that, if the Government continue on the same path, 200,000 more children will be growing up in poverty by 2020. The Resolution Foundation has said that child poverty is projected to rise by a further 6% by 2024, which would mark a record high. I understand that the Government will soon publish some very damning child poverty statistics, but must we wait for those figures to come out before the Government start to listen to calls for them to change direction? According to the Child Poverty Action Group and the Institute for Public Policy Research, Government policy, particularly the two-child policy, will be responsible for pushing hundreds of thousands of children into poverty. When giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee in December 2018, CPAG said of the two-child policy:
“You could not design a better policy to increase child poverty than this one”.
Alison Thewliss
That is absolutely right. It is welcome that the Secretary of State rowed back on making the policy retrospective, but it will still have a huge impact on child poverty in the future. If it is unfair to some families, it should be deemed to be unfair to all of them, and the policy should go altogether.
Brendan O’Hara
Absolutely. I could not have put it better myself.
What the Government have created is a social security system that believes people can be punished out of poverty. They have created a system where benefits are fraught with the threat of sanctions, and where disability assessments are psychologically and physically distressing and involve an appeals system so complex and drawn out that they actively discourage claimants from accessing the support they are due.
This is not a system based on dignity or respect; it is a system where all too often compassion is the exception. This is a system deliberately designed to afford the individual claimant as little personal respect as possible, and a system deliberately designed to make the poorest and most vulnerable in our society pick up the tab for an increasingly incompetent Government as they desperately cling to power.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). I think it would be useful to reflect on the categories of claimant who will not be receiving this uprating. Among those who will not receive any additional support this year are people on child benefit, on jobseeker’s allowance, on employment and support allowance who are looking for work, on income support and on housing benefit. It will not affect local housing allowance rates, child tax credit, working tax credit and the majority of comparable elements of universal credit. These have all been subject to a four-year freeze, and before that they had two years of just a 1% uprating. The freeze since 2015 is equivalent to a 6.1% cut. So I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the savings to the Exchequer for this year alone. Could he also confirm that 10.5 million households will have the equivalent of £150 less in support available to them?
We have already heard estimates of the impact on child poverty, but it is important to reflect on them again. The freeze of child benefit and the child element of universal credit will be responsible for pushing 200,000 more children into poverty by 2020. The Minister said at the beginning of this debate that in his view the Human Rights Act is not affected. One of the rights in the Act is the right to education. How can children in poverty who are hungry and cold maximise the potential made available to them through education if they are hungry? More and more children are facing that.
More and more people from across all parts of this House are calling for the freeze to be ended, as are charities. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) has written to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State calling for the freeze to be lifted. I hope that the Minister can give us some good news at the end of the debate.
We had the DWP estimates debate last week, as I know you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker; you were in the Chair at the time. We debated how in some respects the DWP budget has increased to cover the additional pensioners we now face and the fact that tax credits in terms of universal credit have transferred from HMRC to DWP. But, as has been mentioned, the generosity of other social securements has actually decreased. The freeze and other social security changes have meant there have been £30 billion of savings to the Exchequer. By 2021, that will be £36 billion, rising to £38 billion by 2023. I understand that there has not been an assessment of the uprating order, so I would be very grateful if the Minister committed to undertaking an assessment of the impact on poverty levels of disabled people in the work-related activity groups. Will he also conduct an assessment of the impact of this social security uprating on overall poverty levels? Does he think it is acceptable to make these cuts and to cause these levels of poverty at the same time as cutting higher rate tax levels? Last week, the Office for National Statistics published data revealing the increase in income inequalities across the UK. What is the Minister’s assessment of how much further these inequalities will increase if the Government fail to change their regressive tax and social security policies?
In 2018, inflation stood at 2.48%, and although this has fallen since the beginning of the year, estimates for the rest of 2019 are not favourable, with Brexit-related uncertainty a key driver. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that the price of essentials has risen, with domestic fuel costs increasing by more than 40% over the past decade and the overall cost of food rising by a quarter in the same period. At the same time, the stagnation of wages and the rise in insecure work are putting immense strain on family budgets. Last year, working lone parents saw a decline in the adequacy of their income to meet minimum costs, whether they work full time or part time. Even those working full time on the national living wage typically fall £70 a week short of the minimum income standards budget advocated by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
In addition, what are the Minister’s estimates of the impact of a no-deal Brexit on these levels of poverty? What are his contingency plans for this? Will he be transparent and publish these reports? By continuing the freeze on the social security payments not included in this order, the Government are subjecting 10.4 million households to an average cut of £150 this year. I would be really grateful if the Minister would comment on the freeze, and on any opportunity there might be in the spring statement to bring it to an early end.
The dehumanising treatment of social security claimants is reflected not just in the poverty-level support they receive but in how they are treated. Many people have heard of claimants being sanctioned for months on end, but I have been contacted by some claimants who say that they were visited by DWP officials when they were ill in hospital. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this is Government policy or, as I hope, a mistake. Will he also tell us whether he intends it to be Government policy for the DWP to have unfettered access to claimants’ medical records, as was reported today in the GPs’ journal, Pulse?
I have already mentioned my concerns about the changes to pension credit and the lack of availability of this for a couple, when one of the couple is under retirement age. Age UK has described the change as a “substantial stealth cut” that could have a devastating effect on the health and wellbeing of some older people and increase the number of pensioners in poverty. Again, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assessment of the increase in pensioner poverty as a result of this measure.
We have to welcome any small changes in the uprating order, and of course we do, but we cannot get over the fact that 10.4 million people will still be worse off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has mentioned, those people are in absolutely dire need, so I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
Setting aside my concerns about the direction of the Conservative party, one of the motivations behind those of us determined to build a new centre ground party is the opportunity to develop policy based on evidence and to reflect on and amend our policy when that evidence changes. The motion in front of us today is one that this House debates annually. Its purpose is to increase welfare benefits in line with the economy—in other words, the consumer prices index. Those benefits include the state pension, disability living allowance, the personal independence payment, widows’ and bereavement benefits, the employment and support allowance support group premium, and the maternity allowance. However, as we have heard across the Chamber tonight, there is one glaring omission. The order excludes working-age benefits. Within this exclusion also sit standard allowances in ESA and income support, child tax credit and the child element of universal credit—in other words, benefits paid to those struggling to make ends meet but who are doing the right thing and working, as well as those too ill to work and those families with children who are also struggling to make ends meet. Our fair-minded constituents would be right to think that there must be some mistake here, but there is not. Individuals are being subjected to the final year of the four-year benefit freeze.
In the 2016 Budget, the Treasury announced the four-year year freeze with the aspiration of saving £3.5 billion by 2019-20. Everyone understood the need to reduce spending right across Government, but policy cannot be static and must be regularly reviewed, particularly when the policy so directly affects the most vulnerable people in society. Estimates recently published by the Resolution Foundation, which excels at statistical analysis in this space, indicate that the Government will have already exceeded their target by £900 million by the end of year three. Owing to inflation, the Resolution Foundation further estimates that while wages, the cost of living and pensioner incomes have risen over the period—everything has risen—these in-work benefits have seen a 6% real-terms decrease. The policy can no longer be right. The context within which the four-year benefit freeze policy was developed has changed. What kind of Government can think that it is morally acceptable to maintain this policy?
My recent visits with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) to the parts of the UK struggling most with poverty have provided me with clear quantitative evidence, too. Society is responding with compassion and the strength of human kindness. Beneath the Government’s welfare safety net, society is providing three further layers: the established and now almost “normalised” food bank network; third sector charities and faith groups who open their doors when food banks are closed; and, most movingly, individual families helping those around them. The motion before us today therefore brings into sharp focus the damaging impact of the benefit freeze on the most vulnerable in society. With the recent news that tax income in January outstripped public spending by £14.9 billion—the biggest January surplus since records began in 1993—there is simply no reason to persist with the final year of the benefit freeze. We can afford it.
Working-age benefits must be uprated in line with all benefits from April 2019. As we have heard, ending the freeze would lift 200,000 people out of poverty. It is now almost universally understood that working-age benefits are insufficient for claimants to even maintain subsistence living. Claimants at the lowest point in their lives cannot afford to live on the current welfare safety net. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions herself has spoken out about the need for the freeze to end, and I can see the discomfort among those on the Front Bench, because I know that it is not within their gift to change things, but it is not too late for the Treasury to change course and end the four-year freeze. I have also been disappointed not to hear any suggestion from Ministers that the matter will be dealt with at the spring statement on 13 March. This Government must look again at the evidence: their benefit freeze is no longer morally nor economically viable and must end in April this year.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The benefits freeze affects 10.7 million of the lowest-paid and most vulnerable people in our society. It comes on top of not just two years of a benefit cap, but a three-year freeze on tax credits from 2011 that saw them lose over £1,000 in value for ordinary, low-paid families. That came on top of VAT rising to 20%, the end of the education maintenance allowance and health in pregnancy grants, changes to the statutory maternity allowance and the £500 grant, and the bedroom tax. Families have lost a further £900 a year under the benefit freeze since 2016. It is therefore unsurprising that child poverty has risen since 2011-12, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation set out. We have seen the number of children living in poverty increase by half a million, almost all of them in working families supported by working-age benefits. Nearly half of children in lone parent families are in poverty. That number will sharply rise when maintenance is included in universal credit, and the up-front costs of childcare mean that lone parents struggle to escape poverty.
Work is no longer a route out of poverty. Four million working people, a record number, are still living in poverty—half a million higher than five years ago. This benefits freeze will cost families another £210 a year. When this Prime Minister took office, she promised to support people who are just about managing. What are these 10.7 million people on working-age benefits if not just about managing?
Instead, we see that six in 10—over half—of the poorest fifth of the population are now in problem debt, which is contributing to the huge rise in mental health difficulties and emotional anxiety. The biggest problem, as I said earlier, is housing costs. Since 2010, housing costs have fallen for the richest three fifths of the country, but they have risen for the poorest two fifths. Of those on full housing benefit, 43% of single parents and 37% of couples still have to top up their rent from already inadequate other benefits. It is no wonder that people are having to make a choice between heating and eating.
We are seeing the number of pensioners in poverty rising: 330,000 more pensioners are now in poverty than five years ago, and most of them are in rented property, according to the annual poverty report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is not disputed by any other organisation.
The costs for people on the lowest incomes rise even more than CPI inflation: food, heating, energy, public transport, council tax rises of 5% this year—4% in my area of Derbyshire—and rising care costs. Yes, charities can step in, and we are seeing some fantastic work by communities across the country, but this Government must not go back to a Victorian age in which struggling people are forced to rely on charity. With the best will in the world, charities cannot be expected to cover the whole country, especially in sparse rural areas like mine.
We also see people who are too proud to want to approach charities—people like Chris, whom I met on Saturday. Chris is living on the streets of my hometown of Buxton and unable to access support, and not wanting to because of the conditions placed upon it. It is not right that we have people living on our streets in this day and age, in the fifth richest country in the world.
This is a political choice that this Government have made at a time when corporation tax is due to fall again, the highest rate of income tax is also falling and the main rate of corporation tax for companies with profits of more than £1.5 million a year has almost halved, and will have halved over the next 10 years. That is where this Government’s choices are being made: not for the people who are visiting food banks, not for the people who are living on our streets but for the people who have the most.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
If it is true that, as we heard from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), tax income outstripped public spending by £14.9 billion this January—giving the Government their biggest surplus since records began—we have to ask ourselves why on earth we are doing this. There can be no persuasive economic case to support it. Why is there a need to persist with another year of benefits freeze? Why are we holding most working benefits and tax credits to their 2015-16 value?
Pensioners, as we have heard, can expect a 2.6% increase, which I welcome, but the Minister’s persuasive argument for the triple lock to maintain income security for vulnerable pensioners could just as easily be made for all the other people who are about to lose out. Benefits aimed specifically at disabled people and carers are also set to rise, and I welcome that too, but how are those people fundamentally different from young children in their needs?
I will not go over all of this, but we have heard about the range of frozen benefits—in particular, child and working tax credits and child benefit. The attack on those benefits is about the meanest of all. If they were not frozen, those benefits would be rising by about 2.4% in today’s announcement. That might make the difference in whether someone can buy their kid a pair of shoes or guarantee that they have their breakfast before they go to school in the morning. Over the past four years, the most exposed, the most vulnerable and those at the poorest end of our society have suffered the loss of about 6.1% of the value of their benefits. It looks as though this is a deliberate strategy to punish people for being poor and vulnerable. It is hard to equate that with the idea that austerity is over.
As we have heard, the ending of this benefits freeze would lift 200,000 people out of poverty, but as things stand this Government are on course to plunge a record number of children into poverty, and it sends the signal that they do not care. They could do something about it—there is no economic case here—but they do not care. If the Prime Minister had been sincere when she stood on those steps outside No. 10 Downing Street, we would not be listening to this uprating today. The social security uprating that has been announced tells us all we need to know about this Government. They are not only incompetent but mean-spirited and punitive towards the very people in society who should be most able to rely on our help.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank all those from across the House who have taken the time to speak in this debate. As in last week’s estimates day debate, there was a lot of passion about very important issues. Although we do not agree on everything, this is a helpful debate in focusing our minds as we share the proceeds of growth in the coming years to make sure that we are targeting support at those who most need it.
I wish to pick up on a few points raised in this debate. A number of speakers said that we were not supporting those too sick to work. Let me be absolutely clear that the employment and support allowance support group rate will be increased from £37.65 to £38.55, and the severe disability premium will increase from £77.65 to £79.50. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) was spot on when she talked about the impact of unemployment; we could not agree more, which is why we are proud to have delivered record employment in every region. That is in stark contrast to every Labour Government, who have left office with higher unemployment. This was echoed in the speech made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), who continues to attack job creation policies, seeking to remove the opportunity for people to fulfil their potential.
Jim McMahon
The Minister must surely know that the reason there are more people in work is that there are more working-age people. In my constituency, unemployment is higher this year than it was last year, and there is still a struggle to get people on long-term unemployment back into the labour market. He must know that, surely.
Justin Tomlinson
What we know is that every region of the UK is seeing more people working. Youth unemployment increased by 45% under the last Labour Government, but it has almost halved under this Conservative Government, and that will continue.
Ruth George
I assume that in claiming that I am attacking policies aimed at job creation, the Minister is referring to the huge cuts in mainstream corporation tax, which I analysed at the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers when working on some of the major supermarkets. They actually took their corporation tax reduction and refused to even put that amount into wage growth, let alone into jobs. This is not a job creation scheme; it has made profits for shareholders, not for workers.
Justin Tomlinson
It is delivering record employment in every single region. Increased corporation tax receipts are the folly of the hard-left failed economic policies that deliver higher unemployment every single time, which is why voters repeatedly reject failing Labour Governments.
Justin Tomlinson
I will just make some progress.
Many speakers talked about poverty. Income inequality has fallen—it increased under the previous Labour Government. Rates of low income and material deprivation for children and pensioners have never been lower. There are 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty and 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty. In the past five years food affordability has almost halved and is well below the EU average.
Debbie Abrahams
According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 100,000 children are in severe poverty as a result of the benefits freeze. Would the Minister like to accept that fact?
Justin Tomlinson
The stats are very clear: there are now 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty. Where we are in agreement in this debate is that all speakers rightly welcomed the additional £1.7 billion for the universal credit work allowances. We continue to support those who are seeking to enter work, increase their hours or increase their pay.
Overall, this order is about striking the balance between targeting support to those who most need it and what is fair for the taxpayer. Under the previous Labour Government, who increased welfare spending by £84 billion—the equivalent of £3,000 per working household—that was not a fair balance.
Jim McMahon
Can we just take away this artificial divide between taxpayers over here and claimants over there? People who claim benefits also pay tax. They contribute and work hard, and they deserve a better deal than this.
Justin Tomlinson
That is why we are delivering record employment and increasing support for those who most need it, and why we are today announcing the latest sharing of growth with those who most need it, with a £3.7 billion increase. We are maintaining the Government’s commitment to the triple lock for both the basic and full rates of the new state pension; increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by earnings to support the poorest pensioners; increasing the universal credit work allowances so that claimants can earn more before their payments are reduced; and increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs, and carer benefits, in line with prices. I commend this order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I notice that we now move on to some 18 different remaining orders, some of which are very important and will affect the outcome of Brexit for this country on a whole range of issues, from road traffic to animals, gas, energy and arms and ammunition—all kinds of things. If each of these remaining orders were subject to an individual Division, by my calculations it would take up around four and a half hours of the House’s time, which is quite incredible. I believe, though, that if we get past 10 o’clock, we can have the much more sensible opportunity of voting on these issues using the deferred Division procedure. Can you advise us on what steps we can take to make sure that Members are not unnecessarily detained this evening by multiple complex Divisions, until such a time as this House introduces a more sensible, modern electronic voting system?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I can give him no advice further than that of which he is already well aware as an experienced and erudite parliamentarian. The fact is that I am about to proceed to the motions, as on the Order Paper.
Jim McMahon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, there were exchanges relating to the Seaborne ferry contract, and I was staggered to see that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was at the Dispatch Box responding to questions. I would welcome your advice about whether that was standard practice or unusual. Was there a point in our recent past when that was the case? Apparently, the issue was—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The reason why the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was at the Dispatch Box is that the contract in question was made by the Department for Health and Social Care. It was therefore the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health. Such matters are not for the Chair or the Chamber, but for the Government.
Steve McCabe
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that this Government are tempted to play with rules as if they did not really exist, but is there any precedent for a set of orders of such importance to be placed on the Order Paper in the fashion that the Government have done this evening? I cannot recollect that ever happening in the 21 years that I have been in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Again, I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is quite normal for there to be several such orders on the Order Paper, to come up after the end of the business. I agree with him in saying that it is unusual to have such a large number, but he will not need me to tell him that this Parliament is currently dealing with a great many matters of secondary legislation in pursuance of the leaving of the European Union. If he notices that there is something unusual, then my guess is as good as his that that is what is unusual—we have not dealt with something of that kind before, and it does require a lot of legislation. As we have now passed the point of interruption at 10 o’clock, the matters before us will not be put for immediate Divisions—I think hon. Members had worked that out.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Road Traffic)
That the draft Road Vehicle Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2018, be approved.
That the draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.
Environmental Protection
That the draft Air Quality (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles Database) (England and Wales) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Arms and Ammunition)
That the draft Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Heath (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.
That the draft Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the draft Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions and of Reuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 6 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 10 to 12 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)
That the draft Securitisation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Energy)
That the draft Electricity and Gas etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Electricity)
That the draft Electricity Network Codes and Guidelines (System Operation and Connection) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Electricity)
That the draft Electricity and Gas (Market Integrity and Transparency) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 6 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Gas)
That the draft Gas (Security of Supply and Network Codes) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 6 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Electricity)
That the draft Electricity Network Codes and Guidelines (Markets and Trading) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Food)
That the draft Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 6 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Electronic Communications)
That the draft Mobile Roaming (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 6 March (Standing Order No. 41A).
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 18 to 20 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Civil Aviation)
That the draft Aviation Security (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)
That the draft Ozone-depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 6 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Customs)
That the draft International Waste Shipments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Demanding faster treatment for pancreatic cancer
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom demanding faster treatment for pancreatic cancer. I pay tribute to all those who have signed the petition, and particularly those who presented it to Downing Street earlier today, including the family of Erika Vincent, who sadly passed away while building the petition to its current size.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Declares that the Government’s 62-day target for cancer treatment is not suitable for pancreatic cancer, where 1 in 4 pancreatic cancer patients will have passed away within one month of diagnosis and 3 in 4 within one year of diagnosis, making it the deadliest common cancer; further notes the efforts of Erika Vincent who championed a campaign for faster pancreatic cancer treatment, and who sadly passed away last month shortly before her petition reached a milestone 100,000 signatories and further that like Erika, we demand faster treatment and know that this is readily possible.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to set an ambition to treat people with pancreatic cancer within 20 days of diagnosis, by 2024.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002431]
Bus Services: Greater Manchester
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I would first like to place on the record an interest, as a family member works for Transport for Greater Manchester, although not in the buses division. I bring to the House an important matter for debate and one that is as old as public transport itself: our bus services. I will speak about the impact of bus service reductions in Greater Manchester, the opportunities that arise through bus franchising and the need to bring about a new settlement for bus users in our city region.
For context, Greater Manchester’s bus services go back nearly 200 years to the original horse-drawn buses, but SELNEC—South East Lancashire North East Cheshire—brought together council transport departments from Manchester and its surrounding districts. In 1974, it became the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. In 1986, the bus operation was transferred to GM Buses, with its iconic orange and brown livery, which serviced communities across the city region and beyond until its employee buy-out in 1993, when it split services between the north and south of Greater Manchester. That was an important moment for the routes, services, pricing and quality of services we see today.
As a child growing up off Queens Road in Cheetham Hill, in the shadow of the imposing Queens Road bus depot, I would look at it as I walked to school each day, or to the Irish centre across the road, and the orange and brown livery was as powerful to me as the Coca-Cola or Heinz brands are to the whole population. It is a little-known fact—I am not sure that I should be saying this—that as a child playing on my pedal bike, I was so preoccupied with the plastic bottle that I had positioned against a rear wheel of the bike to try to make a motor engine noise that, as I went out on to Queens Road, I did not notice the passing vehicle and was struck by a bus driver. I am forever grateful that he was driving his car to work, and not his bus, at the time. I broke my collarbone and learned an important lesson about road safety. The local museum of transport housed in the depot would provide a staple visit. I made sure that each of my sons made their mandatory visit, whether they liked it or not, to take a photograph in the seat of a bus and a tram.
But it is not the past that occupies my time or my postbag today, but the state of public transport in Greater Manchester. By 1996, GM Buses South had been sold to Stagecoach and GM Buses North had been sold to First Bus, both of which are still operating from the depots that they inherited, basically splitting Greater Manchester in half. Rather than creating active competition, that created two, in my view, private sector monopolies with differential pricing and ticketing, and entirely different approaches to routes. Today, 82% of bus mileage in Greater Manchester is commercially operated and accounts for 90% of passenger journeys. Stagecoach operates the majority of routes in the south and First Bus operates the vast majority in the north, with very little mutual competition.
This was explored by the Competition Commission in a two-year investigation that found that nationally there were high levels of market concentration and a number of barriers to entry for new competitors—not least, the cost of establishing a depot, buying buses and creating routes. Its report found that head-to-head competition was uncommon and that the costs to passengers through the lack of competition was between £115 million and £305 million a year nationally.
The experience of many bus users is that bus services are being run for the benefit of the operators rather than bus users. Let us remember that when we say bus users, we are talking about those who need accessible, affordable and reliable transport to get to work, school or college within a system that is, at the moment, complex, expensive and too often not fit for purpose.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In my constituency, we are extremely reliant on the bus services. We have only two railway stations that serve only a part of the constituency. Complaints about bus services are a constant in my constituency emails. I am very grateful to him for raising these really important issues, which mean a lot to my constituents.
Jim McMahon
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I congratulate her on the work that she does in supporting constituents for whom this is a real issue. Middleton and Heywood have First Bus as the main operator as we do in Oldham, with the main depot being based in Oldham for north-east Manchester. It runs the lion’s share of the routes, so there is no competition that would mean that the standard was raised. I appreciate that point being made.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend and neighbour concerned, as I am, about the reliability of bus services? That is a constant cause of concern not just in casework but among my staff, one of whom had to wait over an hour for a bus tonight and was yet again late. Is my hon. Friend also concerned about the decrease in the use of bus services? There has been a decrease of 25 million journeys in the space of five years in Greater Manchester.
Jim McMahon
Over the past decade, we have seen 32 million fewer bus journeys a year as a result of poor services. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on the work that she does in fighting for access to rural services, where many people feel isolated. When the bus does not turn up on time when it is needed, particularly in the winter when it is dark, as at the moment, it can be very difficult for local people. She campaigns on that with real effect, and I congratulate her.
Liz McInnes
It is really important that we remember the role of bus services in addressing social isolation. A constituent came to see me about the cutting of a bus service, which meant she was unable to go out in the afternoons to shop and visit friends and family. She was an elderly lady. I wrote to the Minister for loneliness about it, who wrote back to me and said, “This is a matter for the Department for Transport.” Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more joined-up working between Departments?
Jim McMahon
That is a really important point. By and large, someone living within 5 miles of Manchester city centre on a main road will probably get a reasonable bus service, and there will be quite a lot of competition for it. But for someone who lives off a main road, on an estate, the chances are that their route has been cut or cancelled completely. For many people—particularly those who live on estates on steep gradients—that can mean that they are completely cut off from access to good bus services and do not leave the house. People have experienced that in Royton and parts of Chadderton where bus services have been taken away. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
The current system unfortunately sees Greater Manchester in a clean air crisis, with pollution causing around 1,200 premature deaths a year. That is across all transport, not just buses, but it is important that we try to get people on to sustainable, environmentally-friendly transport, not just to get to work and college but to save lives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As I said to him before the debate, Translink has spent a substantial amount of money on new buses in my constituency. Those buses are environmentally friendly, but they are also disabled-friendly. It is so important that we give the opportunity of rural and urban bus travel to people who are not able to access normal buses. Does he see that as one of the things that the Government should pursue in his constituency?
Jim McMahon
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell you how reassuring it is in these crazy parliamentary times to have an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); it gives a lot comfort. That is a really important point. Disabled people find it difficult to leave the house, and they have to contend with not only buses but, when they get off the bus, the shops, department stores and supermarkets that are not accessible. What we can do as a public service is ensure that public transport is accessible, to connect them as much as possible with our towns, city centres and villages. I appreciate that intervention.
As I have said before, we cannot address the clean air crisis if we do not address the bus crisis. Over the past 10 years, we have lost 32 million bus journeys every year in Greater Manchester. That is a staggering number of journeys being diverted. I should say, out of balance, that that is partly because there has been significant investment in our tram system, so some people will choose to use the tram rather than the bus network, but that still does not account for the 32 million. We have seen a significant shift, and too many people rely on their private cars to get to work because bus services just are not good enough.
As a result of commercial decisions or because bus subsidies have been cut due to local councils having their budgets cut—of course, subsidised routes are funded by council tax through the transport levy, so if the council budget is cut, transport naturally gets cut, too—many communities have seen routes reduced or cancelled completely, cutting off entire communities. Many older and vulnerable people are now isolated. At the same time, we have seen the cost of travel increase. Ticket fares have increased by over 55% above the rate of inflation in the same period. How can it be right that we are losing 32 million bus journeys a year, but the cost has increased by 55% over the rate of inflation? People are paying from both sides—through increased subsidies to operators and through poor services, and they are then charged on top of that. I pay credit to the Better Buses for Greater Manchester campaign, which provided that data.
Given the north-south divide in Greater Manchester, it is more expensive generally to travel across the city. If someone needs to make a bus journey that requires more than one operator, they have to use what is called a system one ticket, which is a multi-operator bus ticket. That costs £5.80 a day or £19 for a weekly ticket, often for people who are on the minimum wage and struggling to get by. We should compare that to what we pay for bus travel in London. Someone who needs to use multi-modal transport—say, the bus and the tram—will pay £9 a day or £38 a week. If we compare that with the same ticket in London, where someone wants to use a bus and the tube, they will pay £21.20. It is £38 in Greater Manchester, but £21.20 in London, so weekly tickets are more expensive—179% more expensive—in Greater Manchester than in London. Quite literally, passengers in Greater Manchester are being taken for a ride.
Jim McMahon
Well, I had to say it. Give me some credit, please.
In 2014, the devolution agreement was reached with Greater Manchester leaders. At the time, I was the leader of Oldham Council, and we agreed to bring forward plans to franchise bus services in Greater Manchester. This would allow greater power over routes, frequency, operating hours, fares and standards. There has been a great deal of concern that the big operators, such as Stagecoach and First Bus, would seek any legal challenge to prevent bus franchising from happening, and there is little doubt that that has in part accounted for some of the delay we have seen.
Funding has already been spent by the Greater Manchester combined authority and the Mayor: £6 million to date, with a further £3.5 million to come and followed by another £2.25 million for bus reform towards 2020, totalling £11.25 million. Incidentally, that is dwarfed by the profit Stagecoach made last year alone, when it had a £17.7 million profit margin for the year. That may account for some of the nervousness we have seen: when making that much in profit, it provides a decent fighting fund if it has to take legal action to protect that profit. However, it is a bad deal for taxpayers and bus users.
Greater Manchester must now recognise that with every week, month and year that passes, it is the millions of people in our city region who will be paying the price of delay. That brings me to explore the willingness to do it Greater Manchester’s way. There is a reason why Greater Manchester secured the largest devolution settlement outside London and why Greater Manchester has attracted attention. It took things seriously; it made the evidence-based case; and it built partnerships and long-standing relationships to get things done. It is just not good enough that passengers and decision makers in Greater Manchester seem to be held to ransom by bus operators, which have taken hundreds of millions of pounds from routes, while routes have been lost and, year on year, the taxpayer subsidy is passed on. Unless a more balanced settlement is reached, that just is not a good deal, but it requires energy and determination to form a different vision.
While we wait for franchising to seek powers, we must use this time to secure any possible passenger advantage. It will come as no surprise that First Manchester was heading for difficulties because, after it secured an operating margin of 17.3% or £18 million in 2010, it lost ground with losses in 2016 and 2017 amounting to £11 million. When it became common knowledge that First Manchester was seeking buyers for its four depots in Greater Manchester, including in Oldham, together with its fleet of 500 buses and 2,000 employees, it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring some order and sustainability to bus services covering some of the poorest communities in Greater Manchester. I took the opportunity to raise this in my letter to the Mayor of Greater Manchester on 6 February, and I still urge that action be taken.
A difference seems to arise from the Bus Services Act 2017 in relation to whether the restriction in the Act on setting up a new company means there is also a restriction on buying an existing operation. I am conscious of the time, so I will jump ahead in my speech. I sought the advice of the Library, and I was referred to a companies law specialist. They said that
“it is clear that acquiring an existing company does not constitute the formation of a new company and so, as I would understand it sits outside the restriction in the Bus Services Act”.
They also said:
“It is my considered opinion that buying an existing company does not constitute forming a company.”
Even if conflicting legal advice was received focusing on the letter of the law as outlined in the Companies Act 2016, rather than the implied spirit of the Bus Services Act, there would be other options. We must make sure that we do not miss opportunities. For instance, there is the opportunity to have other municipal bus operators expand into Greater Manchester, such as those in Warrington, Reading, and Nottingham, which are performing well. If that is not considered to be an option, we could look at the formation of mutuals or co-operatives to make sure that passengers are part of the shareholding, or we could look at Manchester airport buying the service as a going concern and holding it ahead of bus franchising. There are plenty of options around. Fortune favours the brave, and it is important that we see determination.
Unfortunately, we have learned that the Queens Road depot, together with its 163 buses, has been sold to Go-Ahead for £11.2 million, separating it from the three remaining depots, including Oldham. While I accept that the new operator will work with other operators through the OneBus partnership it is my belief that carving up the north of Greater Manchester with a range of new operators buying the depots individually will make franchising harder, not easier. It is hugely disappointing, to put it mildly, that we have not capitalised on an opportunity that rarely presents itself.
Greater Manchester has done a great deal to ensure that there is investment in public transport. For instance, it has spent £90 million on bus priority measures and £130 million on bus stations, with an additional £29 million to support clean buses. It is important that operators play the game. I had an unfortunate exchange with Stagecoach Manchester on Twitter, as it was criticising the Mayor and the Greater Manchester combined authority for introducing new powers to reduce air pollution, as though that was not a reasonable thing to do, and it was not taking into account the £29 million clean bus fund invested by Greater Manchester. There was more than just a stick—there was also a significant carrot.
Public transport is key to giving people across Greater Manchester access to jobs, including constituents such as mine in Chadderton, Oldham and Royton who seek employment at key employment sites such as Trafford Park and Manchester airport, but who are denied that option because buses simply do not run to meet shift patterns, or are unaffordable and complicated, which disadvantages people trying to hold down more than one job, or who have with caring responsibilities and for whom time is precious.
This matters—all public transport users across Greater Manchester care about it, as 76% of all journeys using public transport are by bus. We must grasp this opportunity. Two and a half million people in Greater Manchester deserve better, but it requires courage. Remember, faint heart never won fair maiden, and it certainly does not get the buses to run on time either.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for bringing this important issue to the House, and I welcome the opportunity to debate it and to collaborate on how we can continue to support and promote buses. I was particularly touched by the throwback images and his first impression of a bus. We all had those back in the day.
Buses play a hugely important role in our transport system. As we heard, they connect our communities to the workplace and to vital public services. They support our economy, they help to tackle congestion and they have an important contribution to make in reducing emissions—I hope to come on to that. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about bus passenger numbers, which vary across the country, but we must not forget that there are over 4.4 billion bus journeys a year and buses remain the most popular form of public transport.
It is interesting to know—this is why we are all here and championing buses—that passenger satisfaction remains consistently high, with 88% of passengers satisfied overall with their bus journey. I cannot think of any other public service that rates so highly. We should take a moment to thank bus drivers, who are key to good journeys, and good bus companies that operate a good service. The benefits of a reliable and innovative bus service are clear: greater productivity and communities that are connected, rather than apart. That is why the Government remain committed to improving bus services and expenditure on buses.
Each year, my Department provides about £250 million in direct revenue support for bus services in England via the BSOG—the bus service operators grant—scheme. Of that, about £43 million is paid directly to councils outside London to support buses that are not commercially viable but considered socially necessary. The rest goes to commercial bus operators. Without that support, fares would increase and marginal services would disappear. Government funding supports the approximately £1 billion spent by local authorities on concessionary bus passes every year. The Government have committed to protecting the national bus travel concession, so that about 10 million people get the support that they need to travel off-peak anywhere in England.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of younger travellers. The Government recognise that young people’s travel and the level of fares is a complex area. There is no statutory obligation to provide a discounted travel price to young people, but many commercial and publicly funded reductions are available. I was particularly pleased to see Transport for Greater Manchester introduce its Opportunity Pass, giving all 16 to 18-year-olds free bus travel. Since 2010, the Government have invested over £450 million in bus-related local authority transport schemes, including £32.5 million in the Manchester Cross City bus scheme, to deliver a range of bus infrastructure and congestion management measures. That was no doubt welcome in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
To support buses today and to help them into the future, the Government delivered the Bus Services Act 2017, which contains a range of options for how to improve local bus services in England. In addition to franchising, there are new and improved options to allow local transport authorities to enter into partnership with their local bus operators to improve services for passengers. Partnership working between local authorities and their bus operators achieves the best results. It is not always about funding. Bus passenger numbers are up 50% in Bristol, 36% in South Gloucestershire and 31% in Reading. In York, the city council and operators launched a customer charter setting out the standard of service passengers can expect, and have committed to a range of measures to encourage bus use. Those are just a few examples of how effective partnerships can work.
Partnerships may not be the best solution in all areas. The 2017 Act also gives local authorities the potential to use new powers to franchise bus services in their areas. Like the system in London, franchising will enable authorities to specify the services that passengers want and deliver an integrated network of services. Mayoral combined authorities such as Greater Manchester are provided with automatic access to franchising powers, reflecting the clear, centralised decision-making responsibility for transport they hold. All the powers needed for Greater Manchester to franchise its bus network are already in place. However, the Greater Manchester Mayor felt he needed additional powers to fully consider bus franchising for Greater Manchester. Buses fall under many Departments, so the order that will be debated in the House tomorrow to give the Mayor the additional powers he has requested is being managed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Jim McMahon
Just for the record, the additional powers the Mayor of Greater Manchester will receive through the statutory instrument tomorrow relate to precepting powers to pass the charge on. The Government have not provided the funding required to deliver bus franchising in Greater Manchester, so it now has to go on the council tax payers of Greater Manchester.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the statutory instrument tomorrow, but funding for buses, especially for Manchester, is particularly high compared with other parts of the country. It does very well for buses through different types of funding across the Government. For example, I sign off on budgets for low-emission buses. Manchester is always very good at putting together fantastic bids and securing funding, including, I believe, a section of the £2.5 billion transforming cities fund, which will again provide an opportunity to support buses and tackle congestion, thus bringing communities together.
The hon. Gentleman talked a lot about how services can improve, especially when more information is available on routes and ticketing, and accuracy and transparency on fares. That is why the open data part of the Bus Services Act is absolutely key. We know that passengers want to have good information and clarity not only about when they can get their bus but on how much their ticket is going to be. The bus open data powers in the 2017 Act will go further than the partnership provisions requiring all bus operators of local services in England to open up route and timetable, fares and tickets and real time information for passengers from 2020. Those improvements aim to remove uncertainty in bus journeys, improve journey planning and help passengers to secure best value tickets.
The hon. Gentleman touched on accessibility. We recently launched the inclusive transport strategy, which looked at how we can further reinforce the accessibility that buses have and remind drivers in particular which parts of the bus are available for wheelchair users. That work will continue.
I will touch on air quality because the hon. Gentleman raised that valid point. The environment is absolutely key for our constituents and buses across the UK are cleaner than ever, with 15% of the fleet now operating using low-emission technology. The ultra-low-emission bus scheme was announced in March 2018, making £48 million available for local authorities and operators. He will be pleased to be reminded that bus operators operating in Manchester and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority received £14.76 million, which will fund 70 electric buses and support infrastructure.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister said that 15% of buses are low-emission buses. What timescale are we looking for to get to 100% of buses being low emission?
Ms Ghani
The Department is doing what it can through the money that it is making available—for example, the £48 million that I mentioned—and the assumption is that that will help not only to retrofit buses but to encourage bus operating companies to invest in their infrastructure. We know that one reason why people will jump on a bus is that they realise that it is a cleaner way to manage the environment.
I fear that I may be running out of time. We have to accept that there is no single solution that will work everywhere. I am confident that our commitment to local transport and the powers in the Bus Services Act will help to drive up bus numbers, as we would like to see across the country, but we must remember that buses are managed by local politicians, local authorities and bus operators. Only they can deliver better services by working together. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and anybody else who is passionate about buses to do what we can to improve bus numbers up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. The draft regulations will be made under the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the EU in March—this month—without a deal. The Government seek reciprocal arrangements on motor insurance following this country’s exit from the EU, but in the event of no deal, we are under an obligation to ensure that the country has a functioning statute book.
The draft regulations will amend various pieces of domestic legislation to correct deficiencies in the legal framework for compulsory motor insurance arising from the UK’s leaving the EU without a deal. The draft instrument seeks to maintain the status quo on compulsory motor insurance, including the requirement for all third-party motor insurance policies to cover the European economic area, along with making technical changes to ensure that insurance requirements for vehicles in the UK are preserved. It will also amend redundant references to the UK’s being an EU member state.
The draft regulations will remove specific obligations on the UK’s Motor Insurers Bureau under the protection of visitors scheme, which is commonly referred to as the visiting victims scheme. If these changes are not made, the obligations would remain unilaterally on the MIB in the event of no deal. The changes will come into effect on exit day.
While the draft instrument was initially laid as a proposed negative instrument, we agreed with recommendations from the sifting Committees and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to re-lay the draft instrument using the affirmative procedure, acknowledging their concerns about the impact of the changes on UK citizens. I thank the Committees for their work in considering the draft SI.
It may be helpful to give the Committee some background on the legislation that is being changed. In 1930, the UK Government introduced a law requiring every person who used a vehicle on the road to have at least third-party insurance. Today, compulsory motor insurance requirements are governed at EU level by the consolidated motor insurance directive, which was implemented in the UK through the Road Traffic Act 1988 and subordinate legislation.
The amendments in the draft instrument are necessary to uphold motor insurance requirements as they currently stand in the UK if we leave the EU without a deal. The draft instrument will also deal with requirements under the codified EU motor insurance directive for member states to make arrangements to allow victims injured in a road accident in an EEA country other than their home state to claim compensation when they return home. This is facilitated through insurance undertakings, with member states appointing in all other member states a claims representative to handle and settle claims by victims injured in accidents abroad.
Each member state must also appoint a compensation body responsible for providing compensation in certain circumstances in which insurance undertakings through the claims representative fail to do so. Those circumstances include, for example, where there is no claims representative or where the claims representative fails to provide a reasoned response to a claim within three months. The MIB currently fulfils the compensation body role for the UK and is reimbursed by its foreign counterparts under the directive.
The amendments made by the draft instrument will be twofold. First, it will make amendments to reflect that, once the UK is no longer an EU member state, the motor insurance directive will no longer apply to the UK. If we do not make this change, which relieves the MIB of obligations under the visiting victims scheme, the MIB would be required to continue to reimburse its foreign counterparts in respect of EU27 visitors injured in the UK. It would also have cost exposure for claims made by UK residents injured in the EU, without being able to seek reimbursement from its foreign counterparts.
There will no longer be an obligation under the motor insurance directive on insurance companies based in the EEA to appoint a claims representative in the UK, as is currently required. The MIB could therefore face the additional cost of handling claims that would previously have been dealt with by claims representatives. That additional cost burden would most likely be passed on to its members—UK-based insurance companies—through its membership levies. Those members could in turn be expected to pass the costs on to UK motorists through higher insurance premiums.
The proposed change under the statutory instrument will therefore relieve the Motor Insurers Bureau of obligations under the visiting victims scheme and remove the potential cost burden that would fall on it if the legislation remained as it is. In future, without visiting victims provisions, UK residents injured in road traffic accidents in the EEA will still be able to make a claim, but they may need to do so outside the UK.
The rest of the amendments make technical changes to domestic legislation that are limited to what is needed for the legislation to continue to function effectively once the UK has left the EU. They maintain the status quo in respect of compulsory motor insurance requirements.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
My question is about existing victims who have litigation under way—for example, someone who has suffered a brain injury in a hit-and-run accident in France and has litigation under way. If we leave on 29 March, the limitation period for bringing cases will change—pre 29 March compared with post 29 March—so what will happen to UK litigants after 29 March in that circumstance?
Jesse Norman
I am glad that the hon. Lady asked that question. The visiting victims provisions will be maintained beyond exit day for open cases in which legal proceedings were begun before the day on which EU law ceases to apply. After that, UK residents injured in a road traffic accident in the EEA will still be able to make a claim, but they will need to do so outside the UK.
On Northern Ireland, the UK Government remain committed to restoring devolution, but with exit day less than a month away and in the continued absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, the window to prepare Northern Ireland’s statute book for exit is narrowing. In the interests of legal certainty in Northern Ireland, therefore, the UK Government are taking through the necessary secondary legislation for Northern Ireland at Westminster. The draft regulations therefore amend the Northern Irish legislation to make equivalent provision for Northern Ireland as for Great Britain. That is being done in close consultation with the Northern Ireland civil service.
In summary, we aim for a comprehensive agreement on motor insurance following the UK’s exit from the EU, but the draft regulations are essential to ensure that in the event of no deal, the UK’s legal framework for motor insurance is clear and fully enforceable. The rules on compulsory motor insurance are at the heart of the road safety regime. We must avoid any disruption to their proper functioning if we can.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Walker; it is always an absolute privilege to serve under your chairmanship.
As the Minister has explained, the draft regulations amend various deficiencies in the statutory framework for compulsory motor insurance that will arise when we leave the European Union. I have some concerns about the statutory instrument that I hope he will be able to address.
Access to justice is a right, and it should never be a privilege. My real worry is that leaving the European Union threatens that right, and that UK residents injured abroad might be denied compensation. As we have heard, as things stand, if a UK resident is injured in a road traffic accident in the European Union or the European economic area and the injury is caused by the negligence of another person, the injured person may pursue a claim for compensation in the UK. That makes the process simple, because people can claim in their own language, with a local solicitor, as they would do had the accident happened here in the UK. In a situation in which the foreign insurer fails to appoint a claims representative or to respond to a claim, people may go through the Motor Insurers Bureau. The MIB then recoups the cost from its counterpart in the country where the incident occurred.
In the frankly unlikely event that the Prime Minister’s deal gains the support of the House, my understanding is that during the transition period that agreement will continue. If we get to the end of that transition period, however, there will be no obligation to appoint a claims representative in the UK. Will the Minister address this issue: is he seeking to negotiate exactly the same arrangements as we have now when the transition period comes to an end? In the event that we crash out of the European Union in a disastrous no-deal arrangement on 29 March, what work have his Department and the MIB done with the EEA countries, as part of a no-deal contingency, to ensure that a bilateral agreement is in place?
In the most serious cases, someone injured in a road traffic incident may not be able to work again and compensation will be needed to pay for personal care. Other EU member states’ legal systems may not be as effective and efficient as our own, and an injured person may not be able to afford delays to any claim. What support will the Government put in place to assist people in processing these incredibly important claims?
Most of the uncertainty can be taken off the table if the Government agree that a no-deal situation is disastrous for the country. It would put to bed all this certainty if the Government were prepared to do that. Unless the Minister is prepared to give proper assurances on my concerns, I am afraid I cannot support the statutory instrument.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I will keep my remarks brief. Everybody will appreciate that the draft regulations are very important to protect motorists. In fact, they are far too important to be considered with just over three weeks until Brexit. Once again, it is a pity that we find ourselves scrambling at the last minute to bring in some damage limitation.
The UK Government’s retention of EU policy in so many areas is a testament to the regulatory excellence of the arrangements we already have, which some people in this Parliament would like to reject. I ask the Minister to offer reassurance on some concerns that have been expressed. The main point—I know it has been made, but it is important—is that the Department for Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau must work together to ensure that bilateral agreements are in place with EEA countries, in order to guarantee that UK residents who have the misfortune to be injured abroad in road traffic accidents continue to have a straightforward route to justice.
As we have heard, currently when a UK national is injured in a road traffic accident in the EEA and the injury is caused by another’s negligence, the injured person can pursue a claim in the UK in their own language, with a local solicitor. After the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, any such UK resident will have to make their claim in the country in which the injury occurred.
It is obvious how that could create difficulties for UK citizens, since there may well be language barriers. A solicitor would need to be found and any such claimant would need to pay for their legal advice and representation, which may not be recoverable. They may need to visit the country in which the accident took place in order to fully pursue the claim, with all the extra costs that may be incurred. For far too many people with legitimate claims, that may be prohibitively expensive. Depending on the severity of the injuries suffered, it may not even be possible. There is also concern that such claims may take many years to be heard, never mind settled. What reassurance can the Minister offer for those concerns?
I am sure the Minister will understand that confidence in this Government has been profoundly shaken with regard to Brexit-related transport issues, given the cancelling of the boatless ferry firm Seaborne Freight. The fact that a ferry firm with no boats could ever have been awarded a ferry contract has left many deeply concerned about post-Brexit transport issues, which I am sure he will understand.
Jesse Norman
I thank hon. Members for their comments and questions. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East rightly emphasises the importance of access to justice. It is a fundamental principle of our rule of law.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on the matter of access to justice?
Andrew Bridgen
Some 90% of hauliers bringing goods into our country are EU-registered, with steering wheels on the wrong side for our roads, giving them a different blind spot from our HGV drivers, particularly when approaching islands. Those hauliers are seven times more likely to be involved in a road accident than UK-registered hauliers, and according to the Road Haulage Association 20% of those accidents are never settled through insurance. Does the Minister agree that, when we have left the EU, we will be able to create a level playing field for haulage in the UK, which will reduce the incidence of accidents on our roads involving foreign drivers for which insurance is never paid out?
Jesse Norman
I cannot comment on the facts that my hon. Friend gives, but I certainly confirm that the Government are thoroughly hostile to insurance claims that are not able to be made or that are not properly settled, whomever they may involve. That is also, in its own way, an access to justice issue.
Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East on whether we seek to negotiate the same arrangement, there are two scenarios to be considered. The first is that we come out without a deal. As he will be aware, the Government and the MIB already have very close relationships with all the corresponding entities. That contact has been maintained and the discussions about that unlikely contingency are very much in view, as it were.
Secondly, if the deal is accepted and goes through next week, or whenever it may be, there will be two sets of circumstances to think about after the transition period—of course, in the case of a deal there will be a transition period. The first regards what might be called uninsured or untraced drivers, for which we would again have to go to bilateral agreements, because they cannot be legislated for in their own right. The second regards drivers who are insured in the normal way, which we expect to be part of the future economic partnership. It is a measure of that discussion that they will be, I think, an important part of that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East also asked whether there will be Government support, which in a way bears on the question from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I think the answer is that, if it turns out to be a material issue, the Government will of course look closely at how people claiming abroad can be supported in that environment.
Karl Turner
What discussions has the Minister had with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which represents a great number of personal injury solicitors in this country? I wonder what it has said about the proposals and what concerns it might have raised with the Government on this issue.
Jesse Norman
I have not spoken to that association, but I am happy to do so. I have no doubt that, in the course of preparing the draft instrument, my officials spoke to the association or were well aware of its concerns, which are well tabled and understood.
On the apparent lack of notice that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran touched on, she will be aware that the timetable is not of our choosing in every case. We have had to operate within a timetable that is in part based on the speed at which EU member states and their insurers, compensation bodies and so on are willing to go. It is not always the case that we can determine the timetable ourselves.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and his party will not vote against the draft instrument, which we laid in order to avoid additional burdens on the UK insurance industry, and therefore on drivers. Those burdens would inevitably be quite regressive on the least well-off drivers if they were passed on in the form of insurance payments, which I am sure he would not want. It is only in the public interest that we laid the draft instrument in the first place.
Karl Turner
I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the Minister. For that reason, the Opposition cannot support the draft instrument. We need to go much further, and the Minister needs to make an awful lot more progress on these issues for us to be satisfied.
Question put.
Draft Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. These are the two affirmative statutory instruments in my portfolio that extend and apply solely to Northern Ireland. These regulations relate only to Northern Ireland and concern devolved areas of policy, which would normally be dealt with by the devolved Administration at Stormont. Another Committee of the House will debate regulations on habitats applicable to other parts of the UK later this week, and the second of the two regulations to which I am speaking has already been considered and passed by Parliament in regard to England and Wales.
Because there is already a well-established body of separate Northern Ireland legislation in these two areas, having separate SIs will help to preserve the coherence of the Northern Ireland statute book. The UK Parliament is being asked to consider and pass these SIs in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That said, I am delighted—the Committee will not be surprised to know—that the civil service continues to operate fully in Northern Ireland and officials there have prepared these statutory instruments. I requested that we be joined by officials from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, to help answer any questions that members of the Committee may have.
These two sets of regulations are made under section 8 and paragraph 21(b) of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Act retains EU-derived legislation in UK law. Section 8 of the Act enables regulations to be made to address deficiencies in EU-derived legislation, so that the law continues to be operable.
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that legislation protecting biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and species will continue to function after exit from the EU. The regulations make technical amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable. The amendments represent no changes of policy, nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public.
Part 2 amends the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, to ensure that species of wild birds found in or regularly visiting the UK, but not elsewhere in the EU, continue to be protected. Part 2 also includes a technical amendment to the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. The change will ensure the operability of two powers within the order, to give effect to retained EU obligations.
Part 3 is the main focus of the regulation and amends the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995. The 1995 regulations, together with the Wildlife (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, transposed the requirements of the habitats directive and the wild birds directive into Northern Ireland law. Various terms in the regulations or the directives that relate to the EU are amended to be relevant to the UK. For example, the instrument removes references to the UK as an EU member state. The instrument introduces five main changes, mainly involving a transfer of functions from the European Commission to Ministers.
Sites designated in the United Kingdom under the nature directives are part of the EU’s Natura 2000 network. Those sites are the EU’s contribution to the Emerald network, established by the Council of Europe to fulfil the Bern convention. Those sites will now form a national site network and will continue to fulfil the UK’s international biodiversity obligations. Any such area that is currently part of the Natura 2000 network will continue automatically to be part of the Emerald network on leaving the European Union.
New regulations set out by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs make it its responsibility to manage and, where necessary, adapt the national site network in co-operation with other authorities. The network’s management objectives look to secure compliance with the aims of the habitats directive and the wild birds directive as retained EU law.
On the designation of special areas of conservation, functions currently undertaken by the European Commission are being transferred to DAERA, which will assess any new special areas of conservation designation proposals, acting on advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee using existing criteria.
Regarding IROPI, which stands for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, this instrument transfers the role of the European Commission in being able to offer an opinion to local decision makers such as local planning authorities to DAERA. The opinion concerns whether imperative reasons of overriding public interest may apply in the granting of a planning application for a proposal that might adversely affect priority habitats where there is no feasible alternative. In doing so, DAERA would need to take account of the national interest and consult widely, including the UK Government, other devolved Administrations and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I should point out that it is my understanding that IROPI has never been deployed in relation to priority features regarding planning proposals anywhere in the UK, such that no final dossier has been submitted to the European Commission for an opinion.
Turning to amendments to annexes and schedules, a new instrument-making power allows DAERA to make amendments to the annexes and schedules as required to reflect technical and scientific progress. DAERA will set out in guidance the means by which expert input is sought, including from statutory advisers, before making any amendment to the schedules and annexes. To ensure transparency and accountability of environmental performance, in line with current requirements, DAERA will report publicly on the implementation of the regulations within six years of the date of exit and every six years thereafter.
The second set of regulations we are considering, namely the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively with regard to Northern Ireland environmental legislation, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Legislation amended by the regulations covers a wide range of environmental law in Northern Ireland, including the management of waste, producer responsibility, permitting and licensing, noise, environmental liability, air quality and genetically modified organisms.
The regulations amend six pieces of Northern Ireland primary legislation and two sets of regulations. Part 2 of the regulations makes amendments to the following Northern Ireland primary legislation: the Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991; the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Northern Ireland) Order 1998; the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 and the Environmental Better Regulation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016.
Part 3 of the regulations sets out amendments to the Environmental Noise Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and the Liability (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009. Part 4 of the regulations makes savings in respect of the amendments made to the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 by this instrument.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I have a question of clarification: in the explanatory memorandum to the Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) regulations that we are discussing, in section 7.2 it says:
“With EU exit day less than one year away”.
As I understand it, the Government are insisting that we will still leave the EU at the end of this month. I just wondered why that wording was used; is there something the Minister knows that we do not? Also, although I understand she is a hard-working Minister and someone I have always had great respect for, how many other SIs does her Department need to get through before the end of March, and will it have a functioning statute book by the time we leave?
Dr Coffey
The 29 March is within a year. I think this SI was written prior to Christmas, and deliberately written to give that sense. I think it is standard wording that is being used across every Northern Ireland statutory instrument being taken through the UK Parliament, so we have not changed the wording in that regard.
I do not have the answer to the hon. Lady’s second question; she may wish to speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) who is in charge of statutory instruments for DEFRA. In terms of statutory instruments for which I am responsible, our last SI together, which might be not quite my last opportunity to debate with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, is a week tomorrow. I am confident from my side, but as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East would expect, we will ensure that the legislation is in place.
In summary, the draft regulations are technical in nature and amend various aspects of environmental legislation, focusing primarily on references to EU law, to Commission processes and to the UK being a member state of the European Union, which will no longer be the case. If we do not address those deficiencies, the result could be legal uncertainty for regulators, stakeholders and the Government, ambiguity about environmental obligations, and difficulty with enforcement for regulators. There are no policy changes and no reduction in the environmental standards or obligations to which Northern Ireland is currently subject. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, I think for the first time. May I place on the record Opposition Members’ regret that the former DEFRA Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), resigned from the Government? He was a good Minister and we enjoyed many Committee sittings debating with each other. I know that he will offer a formidable Back-Bench critique to whoever replaces him on the Front Bench.
The Opposition will not oppose either of the statutory instruments we are considering, because we believe that our environment faces a climate crisis and that we must be able to protect it properly after the UK leaves the European Union. However, as with the other DEFRA statutory instruments we have considered, we have serious concerns about the scale and pace at which these SIs are being considered and the potential lack of proper scrutiny.
On environmental protections and governance in Northern Ireland, the Opposition are increasingly concerned that, due to the lack of an Executive, Northern Ireland not only faces unique challenges because it shares a border with an EU country but is not sufficiently well equipped to stop it lagging behind the rest of the EU on the environment in the future. I appreciate the Minister setting out the case for the two SIs. In the absence of an Assembly in Northern Ireland, it is important that Westminster scrutinises them, but we have particular concerns about several elements of them.
According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, humans have wiped out 60% of animal populations since the 1970s. Now, more than ever, is the time to strengthen our conservation efforts. The Government must be careful not to dilute any current environmental protections with these or any other SIs. We have a number of questions about that. I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on those and provided reassurance that there is no reduction in protections for our environment in the two SIs we are considering.
Both SIs seem uncontentious—they seem to effect a very simple transposition of regulations on to the UK statute book—but the Opposition are concerned that there is stakeholder fatigue among those people who would normally provide the expert advice that enables us properly to review SIs on the basis of an informed legal framework, especially at the pace we are going through them, to ensure there are no errors or problems with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East pointed out potential errors in the explanatory memorandum, or areas in which it may be seen as obscure. What else might have slipped through?
Emma Reynolds
Does my hon. Friend agree that this situation was totally avoidable? If the Government had gone ahead and started to put these SIs through Parliament earlier last year, we would have had more time for scrutiny.
Luke Pollard
I entirely agree. There is speed and pace to our considerations. In previous SI Committees, we have spoken about the importance of strong and robust pre-legislative scrutiny for such SIs. I have asked the Minister previously whether the particular SIs we were considering were part of the Department’s online reading room, which was made available to some stakeholders. She has suggested that those reading rooms are not suitable for parliamentarians to undertake pre-lay scrutiny of SIs. I would be grateful if she set out what stakeholder feedback, if any, was received about these two SIs in particular. It is important that we have decent scrutiny of them.
The Minister will be familiar with my concern about the impact assessments of SIs because we have spoken about them in every single Delegated Legislation Committee that we have sat on together, and I am sure that will be a feature of the one that she mentioned in her opening remarks. The explanatory notes state that the two SIs will have
“no, or no significant, impact”.
I say again that “no impact” and “no significant impact” are two different things. Although we are coming to an end of the SIs that she and I are doing together, I remain concerned about that, given that no impact assessment has been carried out. Although these are very technical and, on the face of them, uncontentious SIs, I am still concerned that Ministers will potentially have a “get out of jail free” card if an impact is discovered in the future.
Species are declining and we must do more to protect our natural habitats. The special areas of conservation included in these SIs protect 78 types of habitat and 43 species that are native to the United Kingdom and Ireland or are normally resident here. Throughout Europe, such areas protect 189 habitat types and 788 species. Their importance cannot be overstated. It is therefore very important that we transfer those protections to UK statute after we leave the European Union.
The Opposition are worried that this draft SI will dilute the current designation process, as outlined in regulation 7(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, which state:
“Once a site of Community importance in Northern Ireland has been adopted…the Department shall designate that site as a special area of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most.”
This draft SI removes the provision and does not replace it with a similar time requirement. Will the Minister explain why the time limit for establishing special areas of conservation has been removed from the SI? It could be because all those areas have been designated, or the Department expects no new ones, but that clarity would be welcome. We cannot afford to lose protections and accountability for protecting those habitats.
Regulation 9 outlines the duty to designate special areas of conservation. Proposed new regulation 6(8)(a) states:
“in relation to the application of stage 1 of the Annex III criteria, have regard to the advice of the appropriate authority”.
Sub-paragraph (b) states:
“in relation to the application of stage 2 of the Annex III criteria, have regard to the advice of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.”
Will the Minister clarify what is meant by “have regard to”? How does it differ from “have the consent of” or “have consulted with” the JNCC? Those three phrases are very different and are contained in different elements of Northern Ireland environmental regulation.
Regulation 8 states that the Department shall publish reports
“in such form as it sees fit”.
That does not seem to match the current scrutiny outlined in article 17 of the habitats directive, which says:
“The report, in accordance with the format established by the committee, shall be forwarded to the Commission and made accessible to the public.”
I know, from having raised similar concerns relating to these points with the former Minister, that the format of reports was about reporting from the UK to the European Commission. I am concerned that the lack of definition of what the format should be could open the opportunity for reports not to be as full, and not to provide a paper trail, which would allow scrutiny by stakeholders and parliamentarians at a devolved or UK level. We have concerns that the regulation makes no provision for the reports to be reviewed or for any failings to be identified and addressed, as is currently required by the European Commission. The format of a report is about data collection, and it is also important that we ask about what happens to the report afterwards.
The Opposition are doubtful that the mere act of publishing the reports will be sufficient to match the current level of scrutiny. We suggest that this SI or a future one should include a requirement that reports are also reviewed and assessed. This draft SI revokes the agreed format for the reports to the European Commission. It merely requires that they are published in a way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, with no reference to format in the future. In our view, that is too open to interpretation by the current and future Secretaries of State, and by those preparing the reports. It is likely to lead to reduced quality and possibly less effective monitoring and security of important environmental commitments in the future.
Proposed new schedule 3A, on the prohibited means of killing mammals and fish, raises the most concern for the Opposition. Regulation 36 is being amended to remove paragraphs (3) to (5) and place them into proposed new schedule 3A. Those paragraphs deal with animal welfare and conservation protections that we categorically believe should not be rolled back. They outline prohibited means of taking or killing mammals and fish. We know of the recent penchant among those on the Government Benches for the killing of foxes and the inhumane cull of badgers and our concern is to prevent the rolling back of animal welfare or environmental protections, in relation to the killing of mammals or fish, as an inadvertent consequence of any changes.
The draft SI gives Ministers powers to amend the list of prohibited methods of taking or killing. The explanatory note states that the new powers will allow for future amendments for scientific or technical reasons, but those terms are undefined. I should be grateful if the Minister would make a commitment not to use the powers to roll back animal welfare standards as the Government please.
It is important to say that I appreciate that, as Northern Ireland does not currently have a functioning Assembly and Executive, the Minister cannot bind future Administrations in Stormont as to what they might do with the powers. However, we have concerns about the mere creation of the potential for change. In the absence of an Assembly, I should be grateful if the Minister would also explain what scrutiny, if any, the changes will be subject to. Will the process for amending the methods for taking and killing mammals and fish set out in new schedule 3A be subject to any public consultation?
I mentioned stakeholder fatigue earlier. In relation to the brief review of the SIs, some stakeholders are concerned that there is no specific requirement for expert input or even a duty to consult relevant statutory nature conservation advisers or take account of their advice. I should be grateful if the Minister would set out the type of consultation that she envisages as most likely in the event of the list of killing methods being changed. The issue is of particular concern with respect to those changes that can be made without an affirmative SI, with its scrutiny processes in this place.
I now want to talk about the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. I am concerned that we are rushing to pass such items before the 29 March deadline. I have previously raised a concern about how this bit of the SI jigsaw fits with other SIs—already passed, or yet to be passed—to provide a coherent picture. There are elements of Northern Ireland regulation, especially in the absence of a functioning Assembly—and, I believe, as I look around the Room, Members from Northern Ireland reviewing the measures—that concern me. I want to make sure that their implementation in Northern Ireland will fit with the implementation of other SIs that have been passed, and those that may be passed in future.
The example used by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, of EU exit day being less than a year away, raises concerns about what additional elements have been included in a generic form or held in a fridge in Whitehall waiting to be defrosted and warmed up again when the Government decide to put the SIs through Parliament. I appreciate what the Minister said about standard wordings but, as I have said in relation to impact assessments, standard wordings—such as the phrase
“no, or no significant, impact”—
still cause me concern. I am also concerned about standard wordings in some explanatory notes. I suggest to the Minister that it might be prudent at this point to have words with officials to make sure that any standard wordings do not raise such concerns as have been highlighted today.
The Opposition have no major issue with the draft regulations, but I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions about how they fit into the Government’s proposed regulatory environment, so that they can be implemented and can continue to protect the environment in Northern Ireland as currently happens. Given the lack of an Executive in Northern Ireland, can the Minister set out what plans there are for an environmental protection agency with responsibilities to ensure that there is sufficient oversight of these SIs as they are implemented, and whether the environmental protection agency as envisaged in the draft legislation that the Government are proposing would extend to Northern Ireland in the absence of an Assembly or an Executive in that respect?
I turn next to the question of how the protections that people in Northern Ireland have become accustomed to enjoying, due to Northern Ireland’s being part of the European Union, can be rolled over when there is no system necessarily to do so in the absence of a fully functioning Executive. The European Union has been acting as a stopgap, or backstop, to ensure that those protections are enforced; I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what conversations she has had with colleagues in Northern Ireland to ensure that there are no gaps and no concerns about what is happening in relation to that.
I have set out the Opposition’s case for wishing to scrutinise these two SIs. I say to the Minister and particularly to any Whips who might be sitting next to her that, when considering Northern Ireland SIs, it would be helpful if the Committee could at least include some hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I would feel uneasy if an SI Committee without any Plymouth MPs on it looked at regulations affecting Plymouth. That is a concern that I am sure colleagues on both sides of the Committee, without partisan interest, may feel about ensuring that regulations are drafted and implemented to ensure the fullest effect, especially because climate change is real, we know it is getting worse and we must ensure that the environmental protections that we as a House have put in place are not only effective, but implemented and scrutinised properly.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to respond to some of the queries that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has raised. On the professionalism of the civil service in Northern Ireland, I have full confidence that it will continue the effective regulation that it undertakes today, including its regulators, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. I expect it to be enforcing the law in exactly the same way on 29 March as it will from 30 March onward. The point of these statutory instruments is to allow it to do so and to ensure that the obligations and the law continue as they are.
On the question of fatigue among non-governmental organisations and time to consider stakeholder feedback, there has been considerable time to consider these particular statutory instruments. Some of the stakeholder feedback was received before Christmas and some has been received since—a discussion about whether the ongoing status of the special areas of conservation was clear in law. We agreed with certain things that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said and not with others, but the feedback prompted us to make the statutory instrument clearer. We chose to withdraw and re-lay it to ensure that it was clear, and the RSPB confirmed, as did Greener UK, that that was welcome.
I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the phrase,
“no, or no significant, impact”.
I tried to explain to him in a previous Committee that that is a standard of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the body that has set out how certain things must be drafted and laid out in the explanatory memorandums. I suggest, since he has taken a huge interest in the JCSI, that the Opposition Whip might wish to volunteer the hon. Gentleman to sit on that Committee in future. “Due to have regard” is a fairly standard legal phrase that is used, in effect, where Government or a regulator must look at regulations and those regulations are what they follow. That is the intent of that phrase.
Regarding the report format, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about how it might be scrutinised and whether it will lead to reduced quality, but it is fair to say that the reports sent to the Commission at the moment are all done to accommodate the needs of the EU 28. It may be that in future it is decided that there is a simpler way of preparing the information required, and we may want a more tailored way of doing so. I know that we regularly see minor changes here and there from the Commission, where we update how we report on certain matters; this SI just leaves us the power to make similar changes.
Luke Pollard
Could the Minister set out how any changes in format would work with the Republic of Ireland, given that Northern Ireland shares a land border with another EU member state and there are some habitats that cross the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Good Friday agreement requires both countries to have regard to each other, to collaborate and to co-operate, but not, even now, to be identical in every aspect, although of course EU regulations apply directly to both. However, for example, directives can allow legislation to be written somewhat differently if it achieves the same outcome.
I expect that that co-operation will continue, whether through the North South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council, a meeting of which I attended about 10 days ago. Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough each have one management body, involving the north and the Republic working together, so there are already good examples of direct collaboration on different things that are needed. However, I expect that DAERA will consult on any changes to formats.
On scrutiny, obviously the regulator will still be in place and will be able to scrutinise exactly what is going on, and it will be for the Administration to decide whether to scrutinise the reports that are generated. It will be open to the Assembly to undertake that role in due course. A lot of those reports, especially on habitats, have to be presented to the Council of Europe, through the Bern convention secretariat, which again offers opportunities for scrutiny. There is also the ongoing scrutiny that is often done outside Parliament, which I expect will continue.
On the different aspects of new schedule 3A, scientific and technical progress comes up quite a bit when discussing elements of the environment or animal welfare. Quite straightforwardly, the new schedule recognises, as happened not that long ago when we discussed updating humane trapping standards—I think several Committee members were there—that there is some progress for which we need to update the law, rather than its being stuck in aspic. The new schedule gives us the opportunity to do that.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether that means that animal welfare standards could be lowered. It would be a brave Northern Irish Administration that wanted to do that. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that we are committed to the non-regression clause of the withdrawal agreement, which I expect includes animal welfare. I say again that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth has been one of the biggest champions of ensuring that we preserve our animal welfare standards. In fact, it will actually go the other way; it will be the United Kingdom pressing the EU 27 to make sure that they keep up with the animal welfare standards that we have championed for so long.
On scrutiny of Northern Ireland after we leave the EU, the Northern Irish Administration have asked us to consider including them in the remit of our proposed Office for Environmental Protection, which we are considering as part of our pre-legislative scrutiny. However, it is my understanding that it is not the case that Northern Ireland will automatically come under the scrutiny of that office; that will be a decision for Northern Irish Ministers to make in the future. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have chosen to not join the OEP, but I am pleased to see that DAERA wants to at least set in place the possible opportunity and mechanism for such scrutiny and ongoing monitoring in the future.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about aspects of new schedule 3A. I understand that the new schedule allows us to mirror, if appropriate, future changes to the corresponding annexe of the directive, or to the Bern convention. We have talked about designations of special areas of conservation under the amended regulation 7(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995. Existing sites of Community importance are mostly designated. That is my understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. They certainly have to be designated within six years, which is the current practice.
In essence, the obligation is on member states to designate sites as soon as they meet the selection criteria, as we have seen in the UK recently with the designation of sites for harbour porpoise. They have gone through the process of being deemed of Community importance, and now have gone or are going through the SAC process. Those things all take a certain amount of regulation to take them forward, but there is no change, as far as I am aware, in the regulations from how we operate today. That is relevant to the retained EU legislation.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is frustrated about the pace of trying to get through a lot of statutory instruments. I assure him that I have met the Democratic Unionist party spokesman to discuss a lot of these Northern Ireland statutory instruments, just as I have extended the offer to the Opposition and to the Scottish National party to come to us in advance with queries about any of the statutory instruments. That offer still stands for the remaining few statutory instruments related to my portfolio.
I am conscious that I may not have addressed all the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I hope he accepts, however, that we are not changing policy—that is an opportunity for Parliament in the future—but making sure that the important legislation that we have in place for preserving the natural environment and trying to do more to address its decline, as he rightly pointed out, especially when it comes to species conservation, will still be in place in Northern Ireland, and that the regulators will have the powers, through the amendments in the second set of regulations, to ensure that there is proper ongoing environmental assessment and management.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
Roadside littering from vehicles
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
School Funding
(5 years, 8 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
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 232220 relating to school funding.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I present the petition on behalf of Mr Andrew Ramanandi, the headteacher of St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, Blaydon, and more than 104,000 teachers, support staff, heads, parents and governors around the country who have signed it. I acknowledge the fair funding for schools campaign, which was started by Mr Ramanandi and joined by all headteachers across the borough of Gateshead. Their imaginative campaign has captured the attention of the public and many politicians, and they will be listening closely to the debate. Mr Ramanandi is in the Gallery.
Dedicated staff, who are by far the most important resource in our schools, face an uphill battle due to not only school funding, but curriculum reform, an increasing workload and the growing and often complex needs of many of our children. Time and again, we hear that morale and staff retention are low. Our educators are looking to us as politicians to help them to respond to that challenge.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and fellow Petitions Committee member on securing and introducing this important debate. In January, the Minister encouraged MPs to write to their local schools and congratulate them on their improvements in key stage 2. I did just that, but I heard back almost immediately from my local schools, which had improved their results significantly, that they were having to lose the key staff who had helped them to do that. Does she agree that that is completely counterproductive and hugely concerning for the future performance of those schools?
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge, however, that there is still a huge difference between the funding for schools in rural shire countries such as mine and that of schools in metropolitan inner-city areas?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Before the hon. Lady moves on, can she give us an idea of the percentage increase that she thinks would now be sufficient?
Liz Twist
I will make some progress, but I will take some interventions shortly.
The campaign started with a letter co-signed by headteachers of primary, secondary and special educational needs and disability schools in Gateshead, who became increasingly alarmed by the impact that a real-terms reduction in school funding was having on the children and young people in their care. The letter, which was sent to parents before Christmas, informed them that schools may no longer be able to provide the same level of service and asked them for their support in raising the schools’ concerns with the Government.
This is a speech of two parts. The first part is about the facts and figures that we regularly bandy around the Chamber and in official papers. Eventually, they get down to the school heads and governors at the kind of scale where they can see the black holes in their budgets and try to work out how they can balance their books.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Coventry has experienced the same sort of difficulties as my hon. Friend’s constituency. I did a survey and visited several schools last year, which showed that out of 103 schools, 102 were suffering from teacher shortages, demoralisation, rising class numbers or low pay. Does she agree that the Government have to do something about that?
Liz Twist
I will make some progress, so that the debate makes some sense.
As I said, this is a speech of two parts. The first part is about the facts and figures and the second part is about what they mean for our schools—the staff, the governors, the parents and, most of all, the pupils.
Sir Hugo Swire
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise those inequalities, but does she concede that this Government have tried to do something about fairer funding? In our part of the world, in Devon, there has been an increase, but we are still chronically underfunded. Every child in a Devon school gets £304 less than the national average, so we lose out on £27 million per year. Under a previous Labour Government, funding was skewed towards the inner cities and away from the shire counties.
Liz Twist
As I have said, the debate is about having enough funding for all schools to provide the education that children deserve.
The second part of my speech is about what the figures mean for our schools. At the start of the debate, we should establish the facts about school funding. It is right that more money has been allocated to education, following pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House who know the pressures that their local schools face. It is also right to acknowledge that the Government have offered additional funds to support increasing pension costs, which have hit schools badly.
The Minister must know, however, as I do, that those measures do not go anywhere near far enough to meet the real-terms cuts that schools face year on year. The statistics from the School Cuts campaign, which were verified by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, show that 91% of schools across England have experienced real-terms cuts in per-pupil funding since 2015.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
One of my primary school headteachers, who has been a teacher for 30 years and a headteacher for 15 years, tells me:
“I’ve never experienced a time when the range of needs has been so complex and the financial support so thin.”
She is the head of a school in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency and faces an overall deficit of £70,000 this year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not adequate to enable her to do the job that she has been doing for so long?
Liz Twist
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of the situation. That is a real problem, as it is for Mr Ramanandi and schools in Gateshead.
As I was saying, the Minister must know that schools face real-terms cuts year on year. It is simply not right to say that funding per pupil, which is the measure that really matters, has gone up. The Government’s statistics show that England’s schools have 137,000 more pupils in the system. The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies acknowledges that schools have suffered an 8% real-terms reduction in spending per pupil, despite growing numbers of pupils coming through the door.
With increasing numbers of pupils, and decreasing funding in real terms, schools have had to make cuts that have resulted in 5,400 fewer teachers, 2,800 fewer teaching assistants, 1,400 fewer support staff and 1,200 fewer auxiliary staff. If funding per pupil had been maintained in value since 2015, school funding in England would be £5.1 billion higher than it is now.
Like the petitioners, school leaders across England are concerned that the Government have not kept their promise to increase school funding in cash terms this year. The Secretary of State for Education promised that
“all schools would see a modest rise in funding”.
However, 4,819 schools have not received the Education Secretary’s guaranteed cash increase, meaning that one in four primary schools and one in six secondary schools have had their funding cut in cash terms this year. Locally, 71 schools in Gateshead have suffered Government cuts to per-pupil funding since 2015, losing out on £14 million. In my constituency, the average cut is about £45,000 per primary school and £185,000 per secondary school.
Headteachers in my constituency tell me that, as funding has become tighter, schools have had to cut back on essential resources: teaching and non-teaching staff; support staff who work with vulnerable pupils; small group work; interventions with children who are not thriving; teaching resources; subject choices; classroom and extracurricular activities; repairs for buildings, including asbestos management; and renewal of equipment.
Unison, which represents support staff in many of our schools, forecast that over the next year one in four schools across Gateshead borough will see redundancies. We know that, on top of that, many schools are not replacing staff who leave, so the reality is much worse for them.
Support staff are disproportionately affected by the redundancies. These are mostly part-time or term-time-only jobs, low-paid and generally taken by women living close to the school. By 2021, all but three schools in Gateshead are expected to be in budget deficit, so it is likely that further redundancies are on the horizon. How do we expect our schools to plan for the future?
Steve Double
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady and fellow member of the Petitions Committee for giving way, and she is making an excellent start and making the case for more funding for schools. I am sure that there is no one in this Chamber today who does not want to see more funding for schools. However, schools in Cornwall have been making the sorts of rationalisations and working efficiently in the way that she is describing for many years. So while we make the case for more funding for our schools, does she agree that the allocation of that funding must be fairly distributed across the country, because metropolitan schools have had too big a share of the cake for far too long?
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will share my concern about children in areas of high deprivation. They are already well behind the curve in terms of development; they were disadvantaged the day they were born. The education system can actually drag them out of poverty, but does she agree that this Government policy ensures that they are left in poverty?
Liz Twist
Yes, clearly the lack of resources in schools and the loss of jobs mean that attention cannot be given to important issues, which is a real detriment to the people affected.
The second part of my speech is about what these figures mean for our schools: for the staff, the governors, the parents, but most of all, for the pupils in each and every school. I am sure that other Members will indulge me if I talk about the schools in my constituency; I have no doubt that many of them will wish to share experiences from their own schools.
Last Friday, I visited Portobello Primary School in Birtley. During my visit, the headteacher and governors of this great community school told me about their concerns about funding pressures. In the last year, they have lost four valuable members of staff to redundancy: a higher level teaching assistant with 20 years’ experience in early years education; an experienced teacher who led on the arts curriculum; a highly skilled teaching assistant who was trained in supporting children with medical and educational needs; and a dedicated school counsellor, who supported young children with their mental health.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for children with special needs, such as those in Coleridge Primary School in my constituency, this situation is a double whammy?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
We all recognise that supporting the higher needs budget is extraordinarily important because of the vulnerable children that it supports. However, does the hon. Lady agree that when there is just a compulsory virement away from other budgets, that exacerbates the problem and that what we need is higher needs properly funded as a bloc?
Liz Twist
Yes, I most certainly agree with the hon. Lady.
The headteacher and governors at Portobello Primary School also said that the impact of real-terms budget reductions has made it harder to deliver specific interventions with pupils; that it is increasingly difficult to provide personal and emotional support for vulnerable pupils; that they have lost decades’ worth of experience and curriculum knowledge; and that they are finding it harder and harder to take children on educational visits and purchase up-to-date teaching resources and equipment.
Due to these redundancies, staff are taking on extra duties and the local community are supporting the school by fundraising. I applaud the commitment of the staff of Portobello, who are doing everything they can for the children in their care. Most headteachers in my constituency could tell a similar story; it simply is not good enough that schools are not adequately funded to provide an outstanding education.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way.
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. May I ask Members on the Benches at the sides to come forward to speak, so that the microphones can pick them up?
Seema Malhotra
Thank you, Sir David. My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Given the feedback that I have received from schools in Hounslow, in my own constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), I know that the pressures and demands, particularly regarding the special educational needs of the most vulnerable, could now become the next national issue, just as adult social care has been in crisis because of the lack of places. In my constituency and the rest of Hounslow, although we could provide over 1,200 places with the extra investment and funding that has come, there are more than 2,000 children with educational and healthcare plans. Does she agree that is a concern?
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I want to put it on the record that the Backbench Business Committee asked on 5 February for a six-hour debate on this issue, and that request has been granted. That request was supported by 43 Members, many of whom are here today. It is about time that the Government found time for this very valuable debate, because it is roundly supported.
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Lady very much for that intervention. What is clear from all Members here today is that we need a long debate on this issue, and I hope that we will have one soon.
Last November, I visited St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School in Blaydon, along with our local parliamentary outreach worker, Gillian. It is the school of Mr Ramanandi, the lead petitioner—and a fine school it is, too. I met some of the younger pupils there: they were polite and well-behaved, but also fizzing to make inquiries and ask questions. They were not afraid to ask some of the questions that many adult constituents would be too polite to ask.
Our discussions ranged far and wide, really covering some important local, national and environmental issues. These children had clearly been taught to have inquiring minds and to express themselves—in fact, I had to leave the school without answering all of their questions as I was late for my next meeting. In December, I had the chance to see the school Christmas play in a church just down the road from my office, and what talented and well-behaved ambassadors for their school the children were! I congratulate Mr Ramanandi and the staff on that.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters. She reminds me of my own experience at East Acton Primary School, which I visited on Friday. In London, there are not just redundancies; there are also retention issues, because of the prohibitive cost of housing in London. As a result, there is a very imbalanced age structure of the teaching staff. They can get newly qualified teachers up to the age of 30, but then they are off somewhere else, because they want to put down roots. Does she agree that that is a tragic state of affairs?
Also, I spoke to one teacher who qualified in 1998. Our taxpayers have funded her training, but such older professionals are now brain-draining away. The teacher I met is moving to Beijing, because she cannot live on the wages here. Is that not a tragedy, too?
Liz Twist
It is indeed a tragedy to see such a waste of the skilled people who are teaching in schools. It is a loss to our schools.
The point of my telling Members about St Joseph’s is to impress on them that the school, like Portobello and many other primary schools in my constituency, has great, dedicated staff who put all their effort into giving the children the best education they can have. When Mr Ramanandi and other heads tell me that their funding is not enough to maintain the high, rounded standards of teaching, learning and support their pupils need, I ask questions of them, but I believe and support them.
Liz Twist
I will carry on a little.
Of course, it is not just primary schools that are feeling the strain; our secondary schools face real funding problems. Steve Haigh, head of Whickham School, says:
“The more pressure on my budget, the more class sizes have had to increase. We started a national petition to tell the Government that these cuts can’t go on, because children in Gateshead and across England deserve better. Headteachers are facing impossible choices. They care deeply about the whole of their communities—children, parents and staff. When choices are made to cut deeply in areas of need, making staff redundant and cutting the support for vulnerable young people, hard won gains are at risk, and effort and sacrifices made over the last decade may be thrown away if schools are not adequately funded. I stand proud with my community for our successes and I feel every cut I have to make—well concealed, painfully made, shamefully felt.”
I agree with Mr Haigh, who does excellent work in our local secondary school, especially in supporting pupils’ mental health.
Let us not forget the impact on children with special educational needs, who are also losing out because of the pressure on school budgets. Joanne, a parent, wrote to me:
“I am writing to express my serious concerns about school funding. I have an 11-year-old son and a 9-year-old girl in primary school. A regular topic of conversation in our house is how disgusting the school toilets are. It’s not that they are not cleaned; they are so old and dilapidated they are beyond looking nice. There is no spare money to replace them, nor has there been for many years. My son has autism, and during his whole school life he has never received the one-to-one support to which he has always been entitled, due to funding. My daughter regularly runs straight to the loo after school, after holding it in all day rather than use the toilets. I cannot fault the school, they try their very best at all times. Isn’t it the job of Parliament to do better for our children, our next generation?”
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
One school in my constituency is looking at more than £1 million of cuts by 2020-21. That will mean that it will not be able to afford any learning support assistants, teaching assistants, office staff or site staff. As children with special needs need one-to-one support from learning assistants, does my hon. Friend agree that school cuts will disproportionately affect them?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. Does she agree that the education system is on the brink of insolvency, and that it is unacceptable for parents to be asked for money, for professional fundraisers to be employed and for charges to be introduced for parents, to provide basic provisions in schools?
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Bringing food into schools to feed the kids in the morning, hand-me-down school uniforms, staff putting their own cash into raising funds, and headteachers paying for cleaners out of their own pocket is the reality in Hartlepool. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a sad indictment of the national funding formula’s effects?
Several hon. Members rose—
Liz Twist
I will press on.
Because of the petition, in recent weeks my mailbox has been packed full of stories from school staff and parents across the Blaydon constituency. Sheena, a teaching assistant—a TA—wrote:
“I love my job! I have worked in a local infant school for 30 years as a teaching assistant. But over the last 3 years we have lost 8 members of staff due to redundancies due to lack of funding. We run our school on a skeleton staff. We are unable to buy resources for the children due to lack of funding (staff sometimes use their own money!). We have just gone through the redundancy process again, losing another TA, which leaves us with 2 TAs in a school with 6 classes (3 classes are Early Years Foundation Stage, which require…a TA…). Does this mean we have to turn children away because of lack of staff? In turn, this means less funding! Teachers without a TA have to leave their ‘teaching’ to see to poorly children, first aid and collecting resources, all because of reduced funding to schools. Not having a TA in every classroom…does have a detrimental effect on our children, especially the slower learners and SEN children.”
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
The hon. Lady comes on to talk about teachers, and it seems to me that the impact is not only on the children. We risk those in this much-needed profession being too exhausted and stressed to cope with the additional pressures and workload. We risk alienating them from the profession altogether.
Liz Twist
Yes, I most certainly agree. When visiting schools, I see the enthusiasm that teachers have, but also the strain they are under because of the lack of support and resources.
Susan, another teaching assistant, said:
“As staff, our main concern is the welfare of the children in our care. We are making as many adjustments as we can to try to absorb these cuts with minimum disruption to the education we provide for the children. But there is only so much we can do!”
And Dominic, a secondary schoolteacher, wrote:
“This is at a time when students in general appear to have greater needs. The rates of mental illness are on the increase. We have a talented team of pastoral and welfare teachers who would willingly spend more time one-to-one with students, but who have no time because they are dealing with endless cases of misbehaviour. There are increasing incidents of self-harm, internal truanting and bullying, which could be addressed with more money for more staff.”
I have received dozens more stories from parents and governors as well as from staff, and I am sure colleagues will share their own experiences.
For headteachers, parents, teaching and non-teaching staff, governors, and—most of all—children, this should not be about politics, and the petitioners have made that clear in speaking to me. Our schools simply want to go about their jobs, delivering high standards of education, and preparing our children and young people for life, ensuring that they have the best possible start. We cannot afford not to fund our schools properly.
Sir David, the petitioners do not just want me to tell you how hard things are because of the funding problems they face; they want to ask the Minister for some action, to provide adequate funding—fair funding—for our children and young people. They call on the Government to increase funding for schools, so that they can provide the education their pupils need.
Mr Ramanandi was talking to me earlier about how tomorrow he will be telling his staff at St Joseph’s the outcome of his funding and redundancy consultation—not something he is looking forward to. He would like to tell them that in the future his school will be able to offer the broad, rounded curriculum and supportive environment that makes our children healthy, rounded people who have had the best start in life. I hope that the Minister is able to tell Mr Ramanandi that he can do that, because of the actions the Government have taken. I also invite the Minister to join me in visiting the schools in Gateshead, to see the great work they are doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to need to call the Front Benchers at 7 pm, so that leaves about two hours for Back Benchers. Given the numbers of Back Benchers standing, I am going to limit speeches to four minutes, but that may well have to be reduced later.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Much like Elizabeth Taylor’s latest husband said, it is difficult to bring something new to a debate that we have had so many times. There is a real sense of déjà vu, and the number of Members present shows the extent of the problem up and down the country.
Having spoken in just about every other debate on this subject for some time, I want to bring one new thing to the debate today, which is that the forthcoming recommended 2% pay increase for teachers is going to have a serious effect on the already fragile budgets of many of our schools. Last year, 1% was to be funded by schools, with the rest largely funded by central Government; this year, responsibility for funding the full 2% will fall on schools, whose budgets are already highly stretched. When I tabled a question to the Minister, asking what sustainability criteria had been taken into account, I was sent a circular that said:
“we know there is considerable scope for schools to improve their efficiency and use of resources…our”—
the Department for Education’s—
“high-level analysis indicates that if the 25% of schools spending the highest amounts on each category of non-staff expenditure were instead spending at the level of the rest, this could save over £1 billion that could be spent on improving teaching.”
The problem is that over many years, certainly in West Sussex and in my constituency, schools have taken all their surplus expenditure out of the system. In some cases, they are now spending over 90% of their budget on staffing, which leaves a tiny pot from which those schools can supposedly take further savings to pay for that increase. That is going to be a problem. Running schools, or paying for pupils in our schools, has not got any cheaper since last year.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Bailey
On the issue of pressure on teacher’s pay, I have had a communication from a headteacher in my constituency about the upcoming 40% increase in teachers’ pension contributions. Teachers in my constituency are absolutely desperate, because they do not know how they are going to fund those contributions within the existing levels of teaching grant and budget support.
Tim Loughton
Indeed; I mentioned just one aspect of the further upcoming expenditure and pressure. I will not take any more interventions, because I do not seem to have got an extra minute for that one, so that was probably a mistake.
Last year, I got together all the chairs of governors from all the schools in my constituency to tell me, in real-life terms, what impact the funding pressures were having on their schools. I did a similar exercise with all the headteachers. A lot of national figures and a lot of misinformation have been thrown at us from all sides, and some of the campaigns in our constituencies have been highly politicised. Simply because I put a DFE press release on my website, one head of a secondary school in my constituency wrote to all the parents of the children in his school castigating me, despite my having been in every single debate on this subject and having stood side by side with parents, teachers and others to get fairer funding. Politicising those campaigns does not help. If we are going to get a better deal, we need to work together with heads, parents and governors, as I have been trying to do.
Rather than all sorts of misinformation, I got hard information and I wrote an eight-page letter, which I am happy to give to all hon. Members, about the impacts that funding pressures are having on our schools. Shortfalls are being clawed back by reducing staffing costs, which in some cases account for 90% of a school’s budget. Senior leadership teams are covering classes. Extracurricular activities and trips are being culled, and certain subjects are being taken off the curriculum altogether. In one school, teaching assistant support has been reduced by over 200 hours. Higher level teaching assistants are being used to cover classes so that school cuts’ effects on supply staff are lessened, and I am afraid that in some cases, quality is being compromised. Just today, I got an email from the head of a primary school in my constituency, which said:
“We have a long waiting list of children who benefit from work with a therapist (who works here two days a week), she has had a great deal of success with children with social and emotional needs; we are not sure if we can maintain her hours. The danger is that some of these children who could and would have been able to engage and flourish in education and society will end up costing society a great deal more than the adequate funding of their needs in school”
because they are missing out.
This is a national emergency. In West Sussex, it has been an emergency for some years. We need to have fair funding now; it is a false economy for our children if we do not.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The school in my constituency that seems to have the biggest problem with budget reductions is Cardinal Hume Catholic School. That name should be familiar to the Minister and the Secretary of State, because they came to that secondary school to launch the opportunity fund for the north-east. It should be remembered that the opportunity fund for the north-east will not actually benefit Gateshead, but they came to my constituency to launch it anyway.
Cardinal Hume Catholic School is one of many schools in my constituency—too many to mention—that are due to lose significant amounts, having lost significant amounts already. Some 26 schools are due to have a negative budget by the end of the 2019-20 budget round, in a context where headteachers across the borough and the region are struggling to provide for the children in their schools, many of them in very deprived communities. We should bear in mind that Gateshead has an unemployment problem that has been on the increase, year on year since last year, and month by month in that same period. Some 7% of the working population are now unemployed, and many others are underemployed. There is significant deprivation in that patch.
What headteachers wanted to impress on me, and asked me to impress on the House as well, was that because of significant cuts to a range of other services, there is pressure on them to try to backfill for those cuts: for the welfare reform, for the cuts in local authority services and children’s services—for all of the cuts that have taken place since 2018. I know that Government Members sometimes struggle to get their heads around this issue, but the simple fact is that when I resigned, or had to retire, as the deputy leader of Gateshead Council in 2010, we had an annual revenue budget of £310 million. The commensurate figure this year is £200 million. Some £110 million has gone out of the annual revenue account of that local authority, while at the same time demand, particularly for children’s services and adult social care, has grown like Topsy.
Because of the concerns, particularly welfare concerns, that headteachers in our schools have about the children in their care, they are trying to provide services that used to be provided but sadly no longer exist. By the way, it is not just the DFE that was involved: the DFE was part of that process, but the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and other Government Departments were also involved. A range of important services for the welfare of children have gone by the board, and funding needs to be restored.
Representatives of the teaching profession tell us that a minimum of £2 billion needs to be restored to the system; possibly £2.7 or £2.8 billion, and perhaps as much as £5 billion if we are to keep all services’ funding in line with inflation. That might be pie in the sky, but we should not expect great benefits for children, particularly those in deprived areas, when services have been cut and headteachers are being expected to pick up the slack. Those benefits are not going to happen without significant investment. Invest in our children and our schools.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. At the start, I pay tribute to the many teachers and teaching assistants in my constituency; I do not often get to publicly pay tribute to them, and this is a timely moment to do so. They are some of the best public servants that we have, along with all of the others who we routinely talk about. However, in the context of what has become such a toxic debate, it has to be remembered that MPs are public servants too, and that MPs on all sides of the House are trying to do the best that they can. Some of these debates have become so unpleasant that we are slowing down progress that might put some of these things right for our constituents, our schools, and our teachers and teaching assistants.
During debates on this subject, we routinely hear two sides of the story: the Opposition side and the Government side. The Government have a good tale to tell on schools. I know as I say that that some people will laugh and make comments, but it is not right to say that there is only one side of the story.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies talks about real-terms cuts of 8%. When Members go through the Division Lobby and vote for such policies, people—teachers, parents and the community—will remember.
Royston Smith
This is the very point I am trying to make. If we are to make progress, we need to listen to Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who are talking about how politicised the debate has become,. We know that more needs to be done. We know that schools need more money. I know that schools in my constituency are struggling with their budgets, but it does not do to constantly—[Interruption.] That is the point I am trying to make. Every time someone tries to make a point, it becomes a political argument. We do not make progress by saying one side is right and the other side is wrong. Many of the increases to school budgets we have seen in recent years have been in no small part due to the lobbying skills of people like my hon. Friend. Those increases have come about because of such people, not because they have always been playing the political game.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He says there are two sides; surely one is funding and the other is outcomes and standards, which are ultimately what matters. Does he agree that we are seeing real and significant improvements, particularly in phonics and GCSE results, that mean our children will do better in life? That is what matters, surely.
Royston Smith
That is exactly the point, and it should be what we talk about. We should be talking about our children, their outcomes and their future and not constantly make it a political battle.
School budgets have increased, but I concede they have not increased enough. [Interruption.] If Members could just allow me to get on to the points they might agree with, we might make some progress. The teacher and teaching assistant to pupil ratio in my Southampton constituency is around 10 children to one adult. When I went to school—I concede it was a long time ago—it was 30 kids in a class, sat in rows with one teacher and a blackboard. I know we do not want to go back to those days, but things have changed beyond all recognition even from, when my daughter went to school about 10 years ago. We never seem to do anything to acknowledge that, and we should, because otherwise we sound like we are moaning and whining and nothing is ever good enough.
I concede—this is important, because this is what people say, and they are right to say it—that pension contributions and national insurance are increasing. The national living wage has increased. Pupil numbers are rising. Inflation has not stood still. Pay has been held down and is quite rightly starting to rise. They are additional pressures, and they need to be funded.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a huge additional pressure is the complexity that some pupils are presenting at school with? Whether that is behavioural problems or emotional problems, those are significant additional pressures that schools are being required to address.
Royston Smith
I absolutely agree. How schools deal with children who have significant and complex special educational needs or disabilities has changed beyond all recognition from how things used to be. We are doing so much better. [Interruption.] Members shake their heads, but things are so much better than when I went to school and when my daughter went to school. The reality is that it could be better still. If all we ever do is refuse to acknowledge what is happening, we will never make the progress we all want.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the needs of children with special needs in school, but when he was at school, many of those children would have been in special schools—separated and with a different level of provision. We support the integration of children with special needs in our schools wherever possible, and that needs resourcing.
Royston Smith
That is exactly what I just said, but the hon. Lady decided to interpret what I said as not thinking that children with special educational needs and complex educational needs were being looked after in schools far better than they used to be. There is nothing wrong with putting the case for extra funding from Government, and I expect everyone to do that, but it has to be done within the envelope of public spending. Everyone is asking for money for everything.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
In the last Budget, the Chancellor talked about giving “little extras”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we need is proper funding, not “little extras”?
Royston Smith
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, but what we are getting is far more than we did. What we need is even more than we have got.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am grateful to have been called early in the debate, and I will try to be brief. In the very short time I have, I would like to focus on the overall school system and the malaise that can be taken right back to academisation and this Government’s ideological approach to academies.
Academies, which were originally designed to introduce a degree of competition and choice for parents, have become a system in which there is no more local oversight and scrutiny. It has therefore become incredibly difficult to get to the bottom of the funding problem. Eight years ago, school oversight was done by the local authority. In my authority of Bath and North East Somerset, the council’s schools management budget was just under £1.8 million. That paid for the director of schools and the school support officers for all 78 schools in the borough.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I sit on the board of a multi-academy trust in the constituency I am privileged to represent. Many of the other governors who sit on various different academy boards are also locally resident. They provide rather better oversight than many local authorities.
Wera Hobhouse
I too am a board member of one of my local academy trusts. The oversight provided through the local education authority, the overview and scrutiny committee in the council and the direct accountability of local councillors. was better than what the boards can do.
Bath now has 10 multi-academy trusts. That is 10 management structures, 10 chief executives on similar pay to the LEA director of education and 10 lots of support staff. Additionally, we have the new regional schools commissioner and their staff, which is another chunk of overheads.
Education funding in Bath has dropped by 8.8%, or £414 a pupil, over the past seven years. The Education Secretary said that good teachers, not management structures, create good teaching, but in our 2019 education system, where national trusts and commissioners support regional trusts and commissioners, far too little funding reaches individual schools, let alone individual teachers and students. Here in Parliament we must ask how such management structures enrich and add value to our children’s education. If money is paying for management at the expense of teachers, we should know about it.
We should have transparency about where education money goes in Bath and elsewhere. Ten years ago there was, with schools under the oversight of the local authority and councillors on the governing bodies; there were local overview and scrutiny committees and councillors were answerable to the community and parents. That is no longer the case. Local accountability has been replaced by multi-academy trusts accountable to Whitehall. Often they operate over several local authority areas, and that is a problem.
Multi-academy trusts provide excellent education, but so do local authority schools. If academies cost more to provide the same education, we should know about it. Where are the comparative figures? I have tried to find out how we can compare what happened in 2010 with what happens now, but that is difficult because we do not have local figures anymore and multi-academy trusts can keep the figures to themselves. If they cost more, we should know about it. Our children’s education matters. If the changes introduced over the past 10 years cost extra in management and overheads at the same time as per pupil funding has fallen by 8.8% in Bath, let us be open and talk about it. Let us have fair comparisons and find solutions to ensure that funding goes to the frontline and to our young people, not to the management of a fragmented system.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on a fine speech. Obviously, we all sympathise with the points she made because there are concerns in our schools. I have just had a letter from the Stour Valley Trust in my constituency, and I have forwarded it to the Minister. There are significant concerns: capital is the one that schools in Suffolk mention the most. However, there is a positive picture to paint, particularly in relation to standards.
On Friday, I had an inspirational visit to a primary school in my constituency. I have 42 primaries, most of which are tiny and in very small rural areas. Hadleigh Community Primary School, which I went to on Friday, is exceptional because it has 500 pupils. I went to Edgware Primary School in north London, which has 680 pupils, but in South Suffolk Hadleigh primary is very large. It has just gone from “requires improvement” to “good”. Its excellent headteacher, Gary Pilkington, asked me to give the Minister a message: that the funding situation is improving significantly because of the change in the formula.
It is all well and good people denying the point about how the cake is divided, but on the Government side of the House, where many of us represent rural constituencies, we have disadvantage, too. We have poverty in rural areas. When a child has special needs there should be no difference in the amount they receive, wherever they are in the country, and we have campaigned for such principles. From the evidence that I am getting, that is now leading to more funding getting through.
Sandy Martin
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the so-called fair funding formula has disadvantaged Ipswich and Lowestoft far more than the rest of Suffolk? Those are the places where there are the largest problems with SEN provision and the lowest levels of attainment. Does he not accept that it does not necessarily make sense to provide exactly the same resources for every child?
James Cartlidge
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but, if we were disadvantaging the other schools in Suffolk, standards in Suffolk would not be improving. The statistics show very strong improvement in Suffolk. In March this year, just under 90% of Suffolk schools held Ofsted ratings of “good” or “outstanding” compared with 72% in December 2013. We have seen significant improvements in GCSEs: 64% of students in Suffolk now achieve the expected standard in English and maths, putting Suffolk in the top third of local authorities. The county has risen from 67th to 42nd out of 151 local authorities ranked on Progress 8 schools, which is a significant improvement. If Lowestoft and Ipswich, our biggest towns, were struggling to badly, we would not be attaining such improvements.
I have only one minute left, so I will make my key point. Yes, spending is important, but, with respect, Opposition Members focus relentlessly on that when standards and outcomes are what ultimately matter. What matters is the education our children achieve, the grades they get, how our country performs, and how they will be able to compete in a global marketplace.
Dr Wollaston
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that wellbeing and mental health are also important? Would he support the campaign being run by YoungMinds, who are in Parliament today to tell Ofsted to count in mental health and wellbeing in our schools?
James Cartlidge
With the extra time belatedly allocated, I can say that I see a role for that. It is timely because a report on SEND in Suffolk was published today, and I am afraid Suffolk is still struggling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said earlier in his intervention, there is a growing awareness of the problems that we see in special needs children who are on the spectrum, and of the extra funding that that requires, so I agree that mental health and so on should be included.
On the point about standards, in the modern labour market our children might go out to compete globally, working abroad or competing with people coming here from other countries that have rigorous and high-quality education systems. Our children have to be able to compete. If we look at international comparisons, not only do we have the highest funding in the G7 on state primary and secondary—something to be proud of—but our international progress on all the key markers is also improving. We must be doing something right. We are now in joint 8th place internationally on phonics: the best position we have had since the test started in 2001. That is in large part down to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
For me, this is the most important statistic: compared with 2009, the last year when the Opposition were in power, 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds are now 50% more likely to go to university. That is social mobility. We have to pay for it and find the money, but we have to see the positives. Significant improvements are being made, but we need to continue to find a fairer formula that benefits constituencies such as South Suffolk.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate Andrew Ramanandi, the headteacher of St Joseph’s Primary School in Blaydon, for starting the e-petition. Without his hard work on the petition, we would not be here today discussing this very important issue. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on speaking so eloquently and on taking so many interventions in opening this fantastic debate.
I want to focus on how the Government’s policy of austerity in education is harming the wellbeing and life chances of my constituents in Edmonton, especially children with special educational needs. Austerity has created an £8.5 million annual funding shortfall in Edmonton. Every single school in my constituency has had its funding cut since 2015. Furthermore, Edmonton, ranked the 50th most deprived constituency in England in 2015, has suffered some of the worst cuts in funding per pupil in the country.
Since 2010, owing to pernicious funding cuts from central Government, Enfield Council has been forced to find £178 million of savings, but further cuts mean that the council has to find £18 million to draw out of essential services by 2020. That £18 million is more than Enfield’s current net spending on housing services, leisure, culture, libraries, parks and open spaces combined. In an already struggling community, the education and overall life chances of every single pupil in Edmonton are being systematically undermined by the Government.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that London’s education has been transformed thanks to investment by the previous Labour Government, but the cuts of £16 million in five years under the Conservative Government—including in constituencies such as mine, which has the highest child poverty rate in the country—make a mockery of the so-called fair funding formula as it does not take into account the deprivation indices facing our constituents? If the Government are serious about maintaining and improving education standards and making our education world class, they should continue to invest in all areas.
Kate Osamor
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I will share the story of a parent whom I saw in one of my surgeries. The parent has a child with a developmental disability. He spends around £800 per month on one-to-one sessions for his child’s needs, which the family cannot get the council to pay for. Without the sessions, the family believe their child will have no hope of an independent life in future, but paying for the sessions is financially ruining the whole family.
I have also heard reports of children in Edmonton with statements, or education, health and care plans, who receive no special provision at all, or who receive a fraction of the legally required support, because schools and the local authority simply cannot afford it. Worryingly, some councils are pushing back against parents seeking legitimate support for their children, which has led to almost nine in 10 cases taken to tribunals across the UK finding in favour of parents. Every tribunal case is a family struggling and a young person failed by the system.
Time is against me, so I will end by saying that I want the Minister to please listen to the cries from all of us here today. All our children need fairer funding—some children even more than others.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to speak today in support of the petition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on putting this important debate before the House, and of course it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
I believe in investing money wisely in things with a proven record of return, and there can be no greater stock worth investing in than our children’s education. It is true: never has more public money been spent on education, and the Government should be commended for that. The diversion of an extra £1.2 billion is a good start, but, bluntly, I want more cash for schools in my constituency.
I was pleased that more than 1,000 residents from Hazel Grove signed the petition, placing us 14th in the ranking. That reflects not only how strongly local residents feel about the proper funding of their children’s schools, but the fact that they are becoming ever more aware of the unfair imbalances in funding that have left local authorities such as Stockport underfunded for decades.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue facing schools is that they are being asked to do more to support children with special educational needs and disabilities? We understand those conditions better and we have legislated in this House to raise standards and entitlements for those children. We need to ensure that schools and councils have the resources to provide what we have asked them to.
Mr Wragg
Yes—it is high time that the resources caught up with that justifiable expectation.
Since being elected as the MP for Hazel Grove, I have sought to build strong professional relationships with the schools and headteachers in my constituency, and I am grateful for their insights on school funding. I am particularly grateful to those who have met me. I will rattle through the schools quickly, because they all deserve a name check. They include: Romiley Primary School, Norbury Hall Primary School, Brookside Primary School, Torkington Primary School, St Stephen’s RC Primary School, Fairway Primary School, Ludworth Primary School, Mellor Primary School, Werneth School, Harrytown Catholic High School and Marple Hall School. I defy other Members to mention as many schools as that. They have all provided me with important facts and financial analyses of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has said is the real impact of the lack of funding.
I, of course, supported the national funding formula, and I and many other colleagues are in the f40 group, which represents the lowest funded local education authorities in the country. We have had many positive meetings with Ministers. However, as time has gone on, and with the implementation of the national funding formula, it has become increasingly clear that, although the Government are still technically honouring their commitment, some schools are set for an increase so slight that it is essentially negligible.
Of the 25 schools in my constituency, four will receive an increase of under 1%, and 10 will receive an increase of under 3%—only four will receive a sizeable increase of 5% under the new formula. We are asking not for the world: merely resources comparable to those of similar schools in different parts of the country. It is inherently unfair to expect schools with similar characteristics to achieve the same results on wildly differing budgets.
It is a timely coincidence that the Education Committee, of which I am a member—I am pleased to see many august members of the Committee present this afternoon —is conducting an inquiry into both school and college funding. The evidence that we have received from across the sector points towards the true figure needed to address the historical imbalances, as the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) indicated earlier. It is not the DFE’s current £1.2 billion, but at least £2.1 billion.
I know that Education Ministers will argue strongly for their budget in the forthcoming spending review, but can the Minister indicate whether that figure is on the cards? The evidence suggests that that is what is really needed to get school funding to where it needs to be, so that schools can stop endlessly worrying about making ends meet and focus on the business of providing great education.
I have a specific question for the Minister. Writing to us in September on pension contributions, the Education Secretary said:
“There will be a consultation and it is the Government’s firm intention to fully fund schools for the additional pressure that the pension contributions place on their budget, ensuring that the core schools budget continues to be protected.”
Can the Minister confirm that this afternoon?
I congratulate all Members on taking part in the debate. I thank the 1,000 of my constituents who signed the petition. I hope that in the spending review we can give good news to our local schools, and give them the cash that they need.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for leading the debate.
Last week, I spoke in the estimates debate on education funding, appealing for increased funding for our schools and colleges. Seemingly, every Education Committee inquiry references the lack of appropriate funding, or misdirected funding, as a cause of many of the problems. As a teacher and headteacher of 34 years—I am not speaking politically now, but personally, as a professional—I get so frustrated by the fact that we, and teachers, have to come cap in hand to such debates to appeal for funding so often, when it is every child’s right to have a quality education. However, I thank the teachers, head- teachers and parents who signed the petition and brought it to Parliament for the debate.
My colleagues, both in education and in politics, will no doubt agree that the passion and determination of those in the education sector should never be underestimated. That passion drives teachers, teaching assistants and others, who want children to get the best education possible, to take on extra work and responsibilities, or to use their own money to buy learning resources that schools cannot afford. However, it should not be like that. It should not be the case that 95% of schools in my constituency are facing real-terms cuts in per-pupil funding.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Schools in my constituency in Bedford and Kempston will lose £1,000 per primary school class, and £1,600 per secondary school class, despite the Government’s promises that the national funding formula would fix everything. The reality is that class sizes are going up, and school funding is going down. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are hopelessly out of touch regarding the crisis in our schools, and parents, teachers and pupils know better than to be fooled by paltry funding for “little extras”?
Thelma Walker
I completely agree. From having spoken to many headteachers in my constituency, and around the country, I know that they now say that they have made it work, and made it work. They are now crossing red lines, and can no longer deliver proper provision for the children in their schools.
Colne Valley secondary schools should not have a total annual shortfall of more than £1,360,000, and primary schools a total of more than £1,720,000. It is not difficult to see how rising pupil numbers and reductions in funding are putting schools in a terrible position.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I reinforce my hon. Friend’s point about headteachers being at the end of their tether. One of my constituents, who is an officer for the National Association of Headteachers, and who happens to be in the Gallery, organised a very useful meeting for me with headteachers from across my constituency. Like my hon. Friend, a number of them have been in the teaching profession for decades. Several of them also said that under no previous Government had they seen anything like such large cuts. Does she agree, and has she heard the same from her headteachers?
Thelma Walker
I absolutely concur. I can speak personally about that. Under the last Labour Government, I had a headship for two schools and had a school with a Sure Start centre, which was funded adequately and making a real difference to the quality of children’s and families’ lives. I can speak personally about the investment from the previous Labour Government.
At my latest meeting with Colne Valley headteachers, I was told that funding issues have led to cuts in staffing and resources, and difficulties in SEND provision. I know that that is the case for headteachers up and down the country. The cuts have also limited opportunities for learning in schools. A recent report by the Fabian Society found that there has been a dramatic decline in arts provision in primary schools, and that it is of a poorer quality than in 2010.
It is the same for modern foreign languages. Analysis from the BBC shows a drop in the number of pupils taking a GCSE language course of between 30% and 50%. The Sixth Form Colleges Association revealed that 50% of schools and colleges have dropped courses in modern foreign languages because of funding pressures, with A-levels in German, French and Spanish the main casualties. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) spoke about equipping schoolchildren for being the future workforce. A decline in the number of young people taking modern foreign languages will have a negative impact on that.
The funding cuts not only put an unnecessary and unwelcome amount of pressure on professionals; they take away from what should be a broad and balanced curriculum. The Government need to listen to professionals—on issues in the system, and on the types of learning and environment that benefit children and the level of resources that it will take to deliver them. Decisions should be responsive to what is happening, and should not trivialise concerns, offering only “little extras” here and there. I know that the people supporting the campaign better to fund our schools, colleges and sixth forms will keep going. I hope that today’s debate reassures them that they have allies in this place who are listening and who will stand with them.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on opening the debate. I also thank my fellow West Sussex MP, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for his speech; I endorse his comments about the pressure on school budgets in our county.
Last week, I was privileged to take part in a Westminster Hall debate on global education. It is absolutely right that this country does all it can to ensure that education is improved in developing countries, because that is important for the future prosperity and security of us all. We should never forget that children and young people in this country have a very privileged education in comparison, but there have been extraordinary pressures on our school system.
Historically, West Sussex has been very underfunded. I see many Labour Members present; I am pleased that the debate is well subscribed, but when I was leader of West Sussex County Council—a local education authority —between 2003 and 2010, I saw schools in my county being significantly underfunded. During the Administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, per-pupil funding in metropolitan areas such as London was almost double what it was for my local schools, and I certainly did not hear complaints from Labour Members.
I welcome the important £28 million funding increase for West Sussex schools under the new national funding formula. I also welcome the increase to 200 places at Manor Green School, a special school in my constituency, but we need to go further still. The historical underfunding of West Sussex schools under the Blair and Brown years has left a lot to make up for. The additional funding under the national funding formula is very welcome, but the pressures that have been described today need to be better addressed by the Department for Education.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency’s schools are getting more funding. If more money is being spent in some schools, that is great, but how does he justify the fact that schools in areas such as North Tyneside are losing 3% funding per pupil? It does not make the balance any better. Surely he cannot rejoice that his schools are doing better when other schools are losing funding.
Henry Smith
I certainly would not advocate that schools in one part of the country should lose to benefit schools in other parts, which is what happened under the last Labour Government: schools in my constituency of Crawley were given about half the funding of their equivalents in metropolitan areas, particularly here in the capital. I believe that funding for pupils should be made available across the whole country. The historical underfunding needs to be addressed; it is beginning to be addressed, but if we are to properly equip our young people and support teachers to ensure that our young people have the best education, we will need more still.
I should have declared an interest at the beginning of my speech: when I was leader of West Sussex County Council, I was chair of the West Sussex learning disability partnership; I am also currently a vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association. I will end with a plea to the Department for special needs to receive extra attention. Those children and young people deserve our support so that they can have a start in life equal to that of all other pupils up and down the country.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on introducing this important debate.
I would like to focus in detail on one consequence of school underfunding for an inclusive education system. Rising demand for specialist provision in mainstream schooling, which is already facing an undue burden from cuts, is resulting in a two-tier education system and in the disappearance of the different and the disabled from our mainstream schools. Parents across Bury all too frequently share heart-wrenching stories of their struggles—often years long—to get the support that is needed for their children with special educational needs and disabilities in the mainstream school system. That failure is sponsored by Government direction, budget cuts and the narrowing field in which we judge our children to have succeeded.
In our inquiry into SEND, the Education Committee has uncovered a crisis. Parents are forced to fight with schools and local authorities through tribunals, often at great emotional and financial cost to their families, to secure the specialist provision needed to ensure that their daughter or son fulfils their potential.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions children who have special educational needs or are disabled. In many instances, children with higher needs have actually been removed from mainstream schools and moved into a separate education system in which they are not getting the support that they require.
James Frith
I absolutely agree. It seems to me that in the education system, we ignore everything that we would deem important when using the word “special” in any other context. Enhanced provision, accurate service, more rather than less attention—in education, those things are just not happening for those with special educational needs.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded that between 2010 and 2018, total school spending per pupil fell by 8% in real terms. The National Audit Office says that schools will need to make efficiency savings of £3 billion by 2020—8% of the total schools budget. Ever-tightening school budgets are forcing schools to make difficult and often short-term decisions about lower-level preventive SEND support that would meet the needs of many children without the need for statutory plans and interventions. The failure in mainstream specialist provision creates a perverse incentive to push for education, health and care plans: 320,000 children and young people had EHC plans last year, which represents an increase of 35% since 2014. Schools have to find the first £6,000 for the additional support needed—yet another burden on their budgets.
The Local Government Association has warned of a £500 million SEND funding gap for 2018-19, which is set to increase to £1.6 billion by 2021. Local authorities have stated in evidence to the Education Committee that spending their already limited budget on facing down the legal challenges at increasing numbers of education tribunals is politically and practically more palatable than funding mainstream schooling better in the first place, even though that would be a preventive measure. When appeals go to tribunal, 90% of decisions are found in favour of parents. The number of cases going to tribunal has increased year on year since 2014, at an average cost of £6,000—70 million quid overall. That money would be better spent on improving SEND provision, instead of on the “crisis first, crisis only” provision that there is under this Government.
At every stage of the Government’s education system, we can see the Tory-touted promise of opportunity becoming wasted opportunity. Nursery providers are being forced to ask parents for money. Schools are riddled with asbestos and face a £100 million shortfall. Capital funding has disappeared. Teacher recruitment and retention are at crisis point. College funding is stagnating. Lifelong learning budgets have been gutted by 32% this decade.
I say to the Government: spend more upstream in mainstream. Instead of just increasing the budget, move the money upstream, reach into the system and enable the simple change of frame that is required. Our country deserves a world-class education service for all, from nursery to university and lifelong learning— one where every child matters, can fulfil their potential and take advantage of a lifelong education system that is based on inclusivity and difference, and repeated opportunities.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. When I was first elected to the House almost 22 years ago, the problem in Gloucestershire was that we were underfunded due to something called the area cost adjustment. It has taken a long time to start to correct that, as this Government have done. We lost out not just to inner-city areas, which received a lot more money per pupil, but to other rural areas that got much more than Gloucestershire did.
I was very pleased that this Government agreed to set up the national funding formula. That was good news, but we need to start to see the fairness of the formula coming through a bit more quickly. If we continue at a very slow pace—let us say that it takes 20 years for there to be an equalisation of funding per pupil—three or four generations of pupils will lose out. I say to the Minister, “Well done so far, but perhaps we need it to happen a little bit quicker than it is happening at the moment.”
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the wrong Minister responding to this debate? That is in no way a personal criticism of him—quite the opposite. I believe that he and his colleagues in the Department for Education are listening, but they can allocate only the funding they are provided by the Treasury. Is it not the Chancellor who should be answering our requests for more funding for our constituencies? Should not our key request to the Minister be to ask him to take back to the Chancellor our calls for more funding for our constituencies?
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am absolutely delighted that the schools Minister is here to listen. He and his colleagues have an open-door policy: they are always prepared to meet hon. Members and listen to their concerns. I take the point that the Education Secretary and his Ministers can divide the cake only in certain ways, and it is their decision. Perhaps we need to grow the cake, which is the point my hon. Friend correctly makes.
I want to turn to higher needs funding. I welcome the fact that, again, the Department listened to many of us who said that higher needs requires more spending. Several colleagues did that, and more money was forthcoming, which is very welcome. Although I welcome recognition of the problem, even after receiving more money, Conservative-controlled Gloucestershire will have a shortfall in higher needs funding this year, and it will increase next year. We need to see more money going into that.
I have two absolutely excellent special schools in my constituency—Alderman Knight and Milestones—and I recognise that mainstream schools are also struggling with this particular issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) made the point that when we were at school many years ago, class sizes were bigger and there was no such thing as a teaching assistant—that was also the case when I was the chairman of governors at a primary school. However, I accept and recognise that there are now greater and more complex higher needs, and more pupils with them, than there were in those days. I fully accept that we need to do more in that respect.
I met about 40 or 50 school governors on Saturday morning, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). It was a very good debate, but one teacher said that a teacher at her school had been assaulted by a pupil. I have seen that happen in other schools, and one of the problems is that there are not enough staff in schools. I asked them, “If you had a load more money, what would you spend it on?” The answer was more staff and perhaps better facilities in schools.
I recognise that the Government have given more money for capital spending, but also that there are problems in schools. Fairly recently, I had a school that was actually dangerous—there was asbestos in it and the windows were very dangerous and almost literally falling out. The Government came forward with emergency money for that. It is an issue that we have to recognise.
I started by saying that when I came to this place, there were different reasons for concerns about school funding. Although we are getting absolutely excellent education in our schools—the ones I visit are amazing in the work they are doing, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) is right to point out that outcomes matter at the end of the day—I have never known the concern about school funding to be as strong as it is now. That is not in any way to deny what the Government have done, or to deny the progress that has been made; it is recognising that there is a real problem.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship in this incredibly important debate, Sir David. I am proud that nearly two years on since local parents, children, support staff, teachers, headteachers, Fair Funding For All Schools, the Labour party and I protested in Nantwich town centre and marched in our thousands on the streets of Sandbach, my constituency is still demanding answers to the crisis the Government and 10 years of austerity have inflicted on our education system. We still come in the top 10 constituencies in the country for responding to this petition, and I thank every single person who took the time to do so.
Since being elected, I have spoken many times about the funding crisis that has gripped our schools. I speak as an ex-teacher, an educational campaigner, a parent and now as a Member of Parliament and as vice-chair of the f40 group, which represents the worst-funded authorities in the country. Today I speak on behalf of all of those brave professionals who continue to stick their head above the parapet and speak honestly about life in schools. In Crewe and Nantwich, they constantly hear the misleading claim that this Government are providing more money for schools than ever before, but they know full well that they have faced real-terms cuts on a massive scale. After all, 100% of schools in my constituency have experienced such cuts. They do an amazing job at trying to deliver the best experience they can for the children and families that attend, but it is becoming an impossible task.
I regularly meet head teachers in my area, both as a collective and as individuals. Without exception, they relay the same message: they cannot shave any more meat off the bones of their budgets. They are demoralised and devastated, and they feel let down, because teachers believe that every child matters—that is a fundamental idea that should unite everybody in this place whenever we discuss education. It is the belief that every child matters that inspired me to go into teaching.
I want to focus specifically on the issue of SEND provision. It is not only the first topic mentioned by the majority of headteachers, but shows that somewhere along the line this Government lost the belief that every child matters. The f40 campaign states that the funding currently available is not enough to deliver education for the modern world. All SEND in schools has increased dramatically in recent years, including the low levels of SEN. Schools are dealing with those higher levels, an increase in pupil numbers and the increase in the cost of running a school, while their budgets have been slashed in real terms.
Mrs Hodgson
On the issue of SEND, I want to mention the importance of teaching assistants. UNISON, which is represented in the Gallery by its regional director in the north-east, recognises their importance. My daughter is a newly qualified teacher in her first year of teaching and has said that she has a number of children in her class with special educational needs, yet she has only one teaching assistant for a few hours. Does my hon. Friend recognise how detrimental this is to those children?
Laura Smith
I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s daughter is going into the profession. I cannot speak highly enough of the talents of the teaching assistants and support staff who work in schools. They are desperately needed, and we do not want to see anybody losing teaching assistants.
Just this morning, a headteacher who knew that we were having this debate got in touch with me, saying:
“At my school, budget cuts along with having to fund the first £6k for SEN pupils has forced us into a deficit budget (the first ever) and consequently into a whole school restructure situation which has left us unable to fund any general classroom support. I have had to make redundancies which has curtailed our ability to provide the broad and varied curriculum that OFSTED are now demanding. We are only able to offer teaching assistant support to pupils with EHCP’s. I have also had to cut allowances to dedicated and hardworking teachers (who have always gone the extra mile for pupils at my school) leaving them undervalued and demotivated after years of exemplary service which has kept our school one of the most consistent and respected schools in our town.”
The head continued:
“I am only asking for enough money to effectively run a school in the 21st century that supports the needs of ALL pupils not just SEN and deprived children. After all shouldn’t education offer fairness of opportunity to all?”
Minister, I am sick of empty words. I am sick of the fact that so many of my friends in the profession feel crushed. I am sick of those dedicated professionals reporting to me that their mental health is suffering and that they may leave the profession they love. I am sick of the lousy pay that they are expected to work for, while the work piles on. Most of all, I am sick of the Government’s abject disregard for the education of the many children in this country who do not attend a fee- paying school. As a parent, I am sick of the fact that those who care for and nurture my children are so demoralised. I am furious that future generations are being let down so catastrophically. Test results and attainment are a small part of what makes a successful school.
Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order.
[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I have been a Member of this House for 14 years. Interestingly, for the first decade school funding was not especially an issue in my constituency. The debates that we had with the local education authority and West Sussex County Council were more about standards. That is perhaps not surprising, because overall funding per pupil in this country rose considerably over that period, reaching a peak in 2015, when it was 60% higher than in 2000. Overall, until 2015, there was a very big increase in spending per pupil, but from then on, although overall funding for schools was increased, costs—some of which have been alluded to—rose faster. That drew the attention of schools in my constituency to the fact that our county is the worst-funded county education authority and the third-worst funded education authority in the whole country. It is therefore no surprise that three Members from West Sussex have contributed to this debate.
We all accept that needs are considerably higher in other areas of the country. I represent an affluent rural constituency and I have hon. Friends in West Sussex who have urban areas in their constituencies whose needs are much higher than mine. Nevertheless, the inequity—the gap—is very large. Spending per pupil in some other areas of the country is between 50% and 70% higher than it is in West Sussex. We were therefore strong supporters of a national fair funding formula, and we benefited from the change. In 2017, West Sussex received an extra £28 million through the national funding formula—an increase of 6.5% in its provision—which went more than halfway towards what the f40 campaign estimated we needed to redress the funding gap.
Nevertheless, the rising costs continued to outstrip the income that was provided. The county council adjusted the formula to give more help to primary schools, some of which actually lost under it, and less help to secondaries. Some of the secondary schools in my constituency face deficit budgets and are very concerned. There is a question about whether the formula recognises the basic costs that every school must meet to run.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for emphasising the importance of per-pupil funding. In Newcastle, per-pupil funding has gone down by £240 since 2010. I grew up getting free school meals at a state school. Does he recognise that people on lower incomes have less capacity to do well when funding cuts are made? The pressure put on parents to make up for the funding cuts is higher and cannot be met.
Nick Herbert
Yes, I have already said so. We all recognise that there are areas of the country where needs, and therefore spending needs, are much greater. My point is that all schools need a basic minimum. In the last couple of years, West Sussex schools and some in my constituency have struggled to make ends meet because that minimum has not been reached. Given that their funding was at the lowest level per pupil anyway across the whole country, it is much harder for them to make savings.
When we argued for the national funding formula, we never sought to take money away from other schools; we wanted fair funding for our area. It is much harder to introduce a national funding formula in an environment in which spending is not rising sharply. In the last Budget, a number of public service areas benefited considerably from big increases in spending—notably the national health service, defence and social care. Resources are finite, and every Government must choose how to allocate them. That is exactly what the spending review will be about. There is a case to be made for ensuring that the education budget does not fall in real terms, even if the falls are not quite as catastrophic as has been made out. Spending per pupil in the UK is the highest of any G7 country for primary and secondary schools. If adjustments are allowed to happen and budgets that are already tight receive less money, the only way a lot of schools will make savings is by losing people, and that is not something we want.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.
Over the past few months, I have conducted two surveys in my constituency about the adequacy of school funding and the impact of funding cuts to schools. The first was of the schools concerned, which described the impact of funding cuts on their ability to deliver the educational outcomes that their pupils deserve. The second was of parents, who are all too aware of the impact of the school cuts on their children’s education. I want to channel their voices and tell hon. Members more about schools and parents in Leeds North West. and by extension the whole country.
For schools the problem is clear: every school surveyed had experienced the need to make some form of cut since 2015. More than 57% have been forced to make staffing cuts due to funding pressures, and 86% have had to reduce the number of books and the educational equipment available to students. More than half the schools surveyed had to let teaching assistants go, and the same number had to make cuts to cleaning and maintenance services, potentially putting our children at risk.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Teachers and students in my constituency told me just the other day that A-level students have only just been able to get textbooks at this point in their second year of their studies, when they are taking their A-levels in the summer.
Alex Sobel
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I will reinforce later in my speech.
All the respondents expected further cuts to be made in the future. Some 43% of schools had experienced a rise in pupil numbers, and 100% of respondents were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. It is uncertain how schools will take on the extra family support obligations created by the cuts to council services elsewhere. One school said:
“We cannot continue to hit the DfE’s expectations for pupil achievement and take more pupils, with less staff and resources. We are at breaking point in this profession. As the council continues to make cuts in other areas, more is put onto schools. We cannot provide the support that is needed for families without the funding to do so.”
The fact that schools are willing to use the term “breaking point” is shocking to me, and should be shocking to the Government.
We heard the same refrain in the parents’ survey. One parent said:
“schools are doing an amazing job and are often the only source of support for children in crisis. Schools should not be trying to provide mental health support and there is no alternative provision for kids with heart-breaking mental health and behavioural issues.”
Another said that
“there is a complete lack of adequate mental health provision for children in primary schools due to funding cuts elsewhere in the system. This is very marked, and I have spoken to a number of parents who are at their wits’ end about where and how to get the right support for their children.”
I had a huge response to my survey. More than 90% of respondents felt that schools had been negatively affected by cuts, and that the cuts were making their children’s education worse.
With those cuts being layered on top of cuts to council services, schools are now clearly at breaking point. That has an effect right across school activities. School trips, for example, are the canary in the coalmine—the first sign that is something going wrong with the school budget. One parent of a year 6 pupil said:
“The head sent out a letter last week explaining that they can no longer subsidise school trips and events in school due to cuts in the school budget. This is very concerning to me … as I know this will prevent a number of children from attending trips … and missing out on the important experiences these trips bring. Also, a lot of class work is focused on the trips children go on”—
so some children cannot go on trips, and that means they are behind on school work. It is not an optional extra, but part of the curriculum of that school.
Children are being left not with the bare minimum of an education, but with an inadequate one, which promises to have knock-on effects for their future and for wider society. Even the most ardent Conservative must be aware that the cost to the public purse of the loss of revenue generated by reduced educational attainment in this country will be far from inconsequential, as will be the social cost of failing in the historical promise that has long linked the old to the young—that things will continue to get better, that the future will be brighter and that we pass on the promise of more than we had ourselves. One constituent put it this way:
“As parent and teacher, I firmly believe the quality of education we are providing this generation is dire. Between funding cuts, inaccessible exams, no support for SEN or EAL, no trips and extracurricular activities being squeezed, I see a generation being told they are failures because we are not providing the funding or resources to help anyone except the most well adapted and able pupils to achieve. We are a laughing stock at best. Shame on this Government for letting it get to this.”
Those are not my words, but those of a parent and teacher in my constituency.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Having spoken in the estimates day education debate last week, I do not intend to keep the House long now. However, I thank the 214 people from Colchester who signed the petition, and I declare a small interest in that my wife is a teacher.
I am passionate about education for a number of reasons, but primarily because it is an enabler of social mobility. At the heart of equality is equality of opportunity, and education is very much at the heart of that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), I thank teachers in my constituency, who do an amazing job. Pressure on teachers is immense, and they are asked to do more and more every single year.
Only last week, I met a number of teachers and school governors at North Primary School; some of them came from other schools. We discussed the disconnect between the messaging from the Government and the messaging from schools, and how that confuses parents and the wider public. The Government rightly say that more money is going to schools than ever before, but schools say that they face incredible cost pressures and have to not replace or to lay off support staff.
In effect, both are correct. I praise the Government because between 2010 and 2015—before I entered Parliament—there were no cuts to education per se, to age 16. Inevitably, however, cost pressures have risen considerably over that time. I went into the different cost pressures on schools last week, so there is little point in going over them again, but the amount of increased funding has not kept up with those considerable cost pressures on our schools. That is the reality, so I strongly support calls for an increase in both revenue and capital funding for our schools.
In particular, we need to look at further education. The 16-to-19 budget has been frozen since 2013-14, and all those cost pressures that I mentioned in the debate last week have equally affected sixth forms and colleges. As a result, educational standards are suffering.
One point that has not been made in the debate so far—if an hon. Member has done so, I apologise—is about certainty of funding. We have talked about increased funding, and that is important, but certainty of funding is too. We ask schools, rightly, to set a three-year budget, but we do not tell them what funding they will get next year or the year after. That presents a problem. We have just created a 10-year long-term plan for our NHS to give certainty of funding. We need to do something similar for our schools. I am not suggesting that that has to be for 10 years, but it needs to be at least three years, so that headteachers and school business managers have the certainty of knowing what funding they will have.
Why have this debate now? We know that more money is going into education but that the cost pressures are rising. I genuinely feel that we are at the precipice. Two, three or four years ago, governors and headteachers were not raising such issues with me. Yes, there were efficiencies to be made in our schools—the Government sent out a helpful toolkit on saving money—but there is now no fat left to trim. Schools have maximised efficiencies, so there is only one place left to go. In a school whose budget is 80% or 90% spent on staff, what else is there to trim apart from staff? When we start to take away staff, we hit educational attainment. We are at the precipice. I fear that we will start to see results decline. I urge the Minister to increase funding for schools.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on leading this debate and Mr Ramanandi, who led the creation of the petition, as well as those who organised and signed it throughout the country.
This is the second debate on education this year that I have attended in this Chamber—the first was on college funding—and the pattern is the same: Government party Members wring their hands about the impact of financial cuts in their constituencies. When will they realise that what they are describing is a direct impact of their failed austerity project? We cannot do more with less.
I concur with many points made already by Members in this debate, so I will focus on how the cuts in school funding have impacted in my borough, Hounslow. I have seen at first hand the great work that our schools are doing—23 of our schools are rated outstanding by Ofsted; our secondary schools perform above the UK average in Progress 8 scores; and our primary schools exceed the national average in reading, writing and maths—and that is in a community where the majority of children do not speak English as a first language at home and with high levels of churn in its schools. Hounslow Council has also invested £177 million in capital funding for the expansion of primary, secondary and SEN schooling, but that is all happening despite the steeply rising and unjust cuts being imposed on our schools by the Government.
Other Members have talked about the experience of their constituencies. In Hounslow we have seen cuts in total spending per pupil since 2010, and real-terms cuts in per-pupil funding between 2015 and 2019. Local authority spending on school services has been cut, so that—if they still exist—they now have to be bought back by schools. Before, schools had them for free and yet now school budgets have been cut, as we have heard so many times. The range of extracurricular and curricular activities supported by councils has gone down and down. This year, schools in Hounslow have lost teachers, teaching assistants, support staff, auxiliary staff and the essential additional support that children in crisis or trouble need in particular.
To give some numbers, we have had an additional 5,640 primary and secondary places in the borough, and a 51% increase in children with special needs or an education, health and care plan since 2012—that is the third highest increase in London—and we face £27 million in funding cuts in 2018-19, with £4.5 million savings in education and early-years provision. Added up, that has a massive impact on the ability of our children to learn with good quality. As others have said, many schools, teachers and parents have expressed concerns about children with special needs in particular.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend’s experience in Hounslow is mirrored in other parts of London, including in my constituency. The headteacher of an outstanding special needs school in my constituency wrote to me, knowing this debate was to take place, to flag that in order to balance her budget she faces having to drastically reduce staffing ratios in her school.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is both the numbers and the quality of staff at special needs schools that make such a difference to children’s outcomes. But that is for the children who get into the special schools: I hear again and again from parents, teachers and governors about children who desperately need to be assessed. Even once assessed, they desperately need the right support either in their mainstream school or in a special school, but they are not getting it. They have to wait—not because of a lack of will, but because of a lack of professional support and places. In London, we have the additional problem of a massive shortage of professional psychological and psychiatric support in child and adolescent mental health services. Children with special needs who are not supported not only are suffering, with an impact on their future; their troubles have an impact on the other children in the class, affecting their learning. That is unacceptable.
Teachers and governors have written to tell me about a number of things, including the inability to provide maintenance to replace air conditioning—in Hounslow under the flight path, the windows cannot be opened in summer. Another cannot replace an inclusion mentor and children are not getting the high-quality art and technology support because the technician has had to be cut.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), it is about time we had the six-hour debate that this House has been promised. Indeed, 43 Members supported that and I know a lot more who could not sign but wanted that debate, as can be seen in the number of people wanting to speak today. We have only a few minutes, which is nowhere near enough.
We accept that more money has gone in, but if more people are invited to the party, rations have to be spread ever thinner. Many schools are spreading those rations beyond belief. I particularly want to raise a concern that a headteacher told me, which has not been raised yet. She felt guilty about almost heaving a sigh of relief when a very senior member of staff left, because that meant she could take on a more inexperienced junior member of staff and therefore have a bit more give in her budget. I was teacher a long time ago, but I can remember being a probationary teacher, as they were called in those days. We need experienced teachers to lead from the front, to drive schools forward. We cannot expect our schools to constantly rely on a churn of young inexperienced teachers who need to learn on the job, but also make sure they have plenty of time for lesson preparation.
Teachers cannot pay their bills with long holidays, as I used to say to people.
Laura Smith
I find myself agreeing with the hon. Lady, probably because we have both been teachers. She is exactly right with regard to—the point has gone from my brain. Sorry!
Mrs Main
I was right, and that is all that matters. Every Member will be told the same by other schools. In high-value areas such as mine, we cannot pay bills with holidays. Teachers have to pay bills with their salaries. They are struggling to get on the housing ladder in areas as expensive as St Albans, where the average house price is £600,000. Recruiting members of staff is difficult; retaining members of staff is very difficult, as they find their pounds go a lot further elsewhere.
Thelma Walker
On recruitment and retention, for the first time in history, as far as I know, more people are leaving the profession than entering it. One of the issues that headteachers bring to my attention is that many young people who do not have those years of experience are promoted too swiftly when they enter the profession. They are given responsibility, but there is burnout just a few years later.
Mrs Main
No, if she does not mind, because Members on the hon. Lady’s side are waiting to speak. We need those experienced teachers and we must ensure that teachers are not overwhelmed so quickly that they fancy quitting the profession.
I am also worried that we will end up cutting the curriculum to the bone. Gone are the times when there would be the luxury of a peripatetic music teacher coming to schools. There simply is no latitude in schools to pay for anything other than the bare necessities. The statutory obligations on a school have to be paid for first. It also worries me that sometimes there is a reluctance to statement pupils; if a pupil is statemented, that pupil is rightly required to have additional assistance. However, a school might drag its feet in that scenario because it does not wish to be obliged to provide the extra funding.
I went to a public meeting in my constituency. It is not easy to have rocks thrown at us, but sometimes we need a rock to wake us up. It is hard to admit that schools are struggling. Schools have always been struggling; anyone who has worked in a school will say that the roof has always leaked and the windows are always awful. But there comes a point when things have to be tackled—they cannot be put off any longer. As many Members have said, robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer. Taking away from one set of schools to give to another set of schools that are very deserving is not the answer.
An hon. Member earlier talked earlier about the results meaning that we must be doing something right. My schools have excellent results, but that does not mean they do not need the resources. At some point, those results will start to crumble. The curriculum has shrunk down to the core topics, so perhaps those results are already sliding. When I was at school, I was passionate about art. Many young people are not academic but value those topics as much as anything; they inspire young people to go into school, and those teachers may inspire them and know how to deal with the complex needs of some youngsters who have been turned off by education.
We cannot just look at results. Value adding to a pupil means that pupil may have benefited far more from being taught in a good school than another pupil who is academically high achieving. I simply cannot accept that by looking at a set of results we can judge how well our schools are doing. We must ensure that every pupil is making the best of whatever they have to offer.
I accept that more money has gone into the system. We can all talk about how much extra there is, but Sian Kilpatrick of Bernards Heath Primary School told me that she had to write to parents to explain why she had to ask them for money: because a lot of things that used to be paid for are no longer paid for. This is the banquet I am referring to: outdoor visit risk assessments, legal and human resources advice, general maintenance costs and staff insurance. When parents send their children to school to get educated they do not expect that a teacher will have to divert money from teaching their pupils to pruning back overgrown trees in the playground that a risk assessment has identified as a problem to the pupils.
It is high time we had the six-hour debate. I do not think that views in here will change, but looking at what has been expected to be done with the money that schools have had is the only way to see whether there is enough money. If there is not, we may have to find some more.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) was spot on about so many things in her speech. She spoke from her experience as a teacher and no doubt someone who keeps in close contact with her schools.
In east Bristol, school funding has reduced by 7%, which is about £359 per pupil. Some people have spoken in headline terms about overall spending rising, but that is meaningless. It is the per-pupil spending that matters, and it has gone down by 7%. When the increase in school expenditure—which I am told is around 8%—is factored in, that is a real-time cut of 15% in per-pupil funding. It is pointless to have the debate unless we accept that situation.
Colleagues have spoken about schools having to reduce staff numbers to accommodate that. At one point, teaching assistants were in most classes. They provide such a valuable addition to the classroom, giving extra attention to the pupils who need it. Those might be pupils with SEND, but they might also be pupils who are just shy or for some reason lag behind and need that extra attention, perhaps even just on one particular day. Funding cuts have also meant that things such as reading recovery classes and forest schools have had to be cut. My sister was a TA and a forest school leader; the budget for that school was axed and it could no longer afford her. Kids absolutely thrive on such outdoor experiences.
On what was said about senior teachers, I had a meeting with governors from a number of infant and primary schools in my constituency on Friday, and they made the point that good schools manage to keep their teachers—teachers want to stay there because they love being there—but that means there is a higher wage bill. That puts the school in an invidious situation.
Laura Smith
My hon. Friend raises the point I forgot when I intervened on the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). I remember how much respect I had for the teachers who mentored me when I first entered the profession, and how I was able to develop my teaching practice as a result. I agree with both my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady that that is now going, which is a tragedy.
Kerry McCarthy
We absolutely want a balance of newer and more experienced teachers in schools. However, it has been raised with me that schools have to pay the apprenticeship levy, which is about £10,000 per school, but they do not want to take on apprentices. That money could be spent on a teaching assistant. Schools do not need apprentices. That is a very quick way in which the Minister could help schools.
In the limited time I have left, I want to focus on SEND. Since 2010, Bristol City Council has lost more than 40% of the funding it gets from the Government, and funds for early intervention have stopped being ring-fenced. That means the council’s high-needs budget has been in deficit for some time, and it has had to raid the mainstream education budget to compensate. Over the past few years, the number of SEND pupils in Bristol has risen three times faster than SEND funding. Obviously, that has an impact. It means children with SEND are often diagnosed later, and that they miss out on early intervention during their first years at school. Early intervention is crucial for ensuring that a child thrives and often prevents problems from developing into something more serious. Services such as CAMHS and speech and language therapy, which have supported schools, have also been cut. That is leading to a crisis. If we do not have early intervention and cannot support children at an early stage, they will develop far more serious problems as they become older.
I am involved in a project called Feeding Bristol, which aims to eradicate food poverty in the city. There is also a very good school food project, which looks particularly at holiday hunger, breakfast clubs and so on. It is not just a case of getting food to children. We can get donated food for breakfast clubs and holiday hunger schemes from excellent projects such as FareShare, but schools need to be able to afford the staff. That little bit of extra money that schools cannot come up with makes the difference—it means children do not have to start the school day hungry or go through the long school holidays hungry. This is about so much more than just providing education. We need to look at the whole picture. If we are to produce well-rounded, physically and mentally healthy children, which is what we should be doing, we need to be able to support them outside school as well as in school.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The word “crisis” is overused in this place, for certain, but it feels very much as though the situation with school resources is a crisis. However, it is a crisis largely in disguise, for two reasons. First, headteachers and the profession as a whole are loth to get involved in what they consider to be politics, or in any way to use the children they serve and teach as pawns in a political debate. Secondly, headteachers do not want to speak about the situation quite so much, simply because, understandably, they fear competitive disadvantage.
Thelma Walker
I am sorry, but the fact that 1,000 head- teachers marched on Downing Street last year is symbolic of their frustration at the point we have reached.
Tim Farron
And it really takes that. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remark, which of course comes from her experience. As I said, the other reason this issue has not been spoken about as much as it might have been in another part of the public sphere is simply fear of competitive disadvantage. If a headteacher talks about having to lose teaching assistants, the children who would have come to their school might go to another school instead. People therefore keep quiet and suffer in silence.
However, as the hon. Lady rightly says, we have got to a breaking point—a point of immense frustration, which has led headteachers, who would normally dutifully have got on with the job, to speak out very clearly. Just this week, 16 headteachers in my constituency, representing primary schools, special educational needs schools and secondary schools, clubbed together to write to parents and others in our community to be explicit about what the cuts mean for them. That is a brave and unprecedented thing to do. They deserve our taking notice, and they deserve the Government’s taking notice. We must listen.
Those headteachers note that in my constituency alone, there has been a £2.4 million real-terms cut in schools funding, even allowing for the fact that, as a rural area, we are a net beneficiary of the fairer funding formula. The net impact on us has been £2.4 million of cuts—£190 per child has been lost from schools funding in Westmorland and Lonsdale. Headteachers in my community talk explicitly about losing teaching posts—indeed, about making some teachers redundant—and getting rid of teaching assistants. They talk about having smaller establishments, meaning the merging of classes and reductions in the options available, particularly at secondary school. Any country’s greatest asset is its people, especially its young people, so to underfund our schools in this way—to undervalue our greatest asset—is not just cruel but incredibly stupid. Investment in our education is an investment in our country’s future.
Teachers are committed professionals. They do what they do not for the money—there isn’t a right lot of it in the profession—but because they are passionate about making a difference in our young people’s lives, so it breaks their heart to see the impact of these cuts on the quality of education. They also see cuts that affect children in other parts of the public sphere. In Cumbria, because of a cut in public health funding, all school nurses have been abolished. Only 75p per child is spent on preventive mental healthcare across our area. Three years after it was promised, there is still no specialist one-to-one eating disorder service for young people in our community. Just before Christmas, £500,000 was sneaked out of public health spending. That affects the community as a whole, but particularly our young people.
Nowhere are cuts in schools funding more noticeable, though, than in special educational needs. Of course, the first 11 hours of special educational needs provision are paid for by the school. One small high school in my constituency with fewer than 500 pupils spends £105,000 a year on supporting those children. That comes from its main school budget. We penalise schools that do the right thing and advantage those that do not. Will the Minister fund special educational needs directly, rather than damaging schools?
I will give the last word to a highly respected headteacher in my constituency, who wrote to me just yesterday:
“In the last two years we have made reductions to teaching and support staffing, with no reduction in the overall workload. All we get is hackneyed and frankly quite pathetic suggestions from the DFE on how to economise…I love my job, but…I do not wish to be head of a school in a state system that is en route to economic meltdown.”
This Government are demoralising our teachers and letting down our children. That must change.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank everyone for their contributions, which I found incredibly powerful. We hear so much about the cuts as numbers; it makes such a difference when we hear what they actually mean, so I am going to take the advice of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and talk a little about outcomes.
Here are a few outcomes for the Government to ponder. First, 15.93% of children with special educational needs are excluded, compared with 3% of those without such needs. Pupils identified with special educational needs accounted for around half—46%—of all permanent exclusions and 44% of fixed-period exclusions. Pupils who have an EHCP statement are five times more likely to be permanently excluded than those without SEN. Pupils on SEN support are six times more likely to be excluded than those without SEN.
I have a few more outcomes for the Government to hear about. The latest school workforce statistics show that in England schools have 137,000 more pupils, but 5,400 fewer teachers, 2,800 fewer teaching assistants, 1,400 fewer support staff and 1,200 fewer auxiliary staff. Students are also being taught by less experienced staff. According to Unison, 70% of teaching staff were doing work previously done by higher-grade staff and half of those doing the extra work were not trained to do it.
Another outcome is that fewer support staff mean that support staff make up half the school workforce and are the lowest paid in the public sector. Since 2013, despite the increase in pupil numbers, there has been a 12% reduction in the number of science technicians and a 10% cut in the number of teaching assistants in secondary schools. What does that mean? It means there is less support for our children with special educational needs, who desperately need it.
I am not suggesting for one moment that schools or teachers have suddenly become cruel and that that is why exclusions for children with special needs are rocketing, although I have mentioned to the Minister on numerous occasions that he needs to look again at his school accountability measures. However, the simple fact is that children with special educational needs and disabilities are expensive to teach. It has already been mentioned that schools are welcoming it when older, more experienced teachers leave, because that can save money; it is not difficult to conclude that some schools may also welcome it when an expensive child with special educational needs is leaving—or the school may choose to develop ways to encourage the parents to send that child to the school down the road, rather than to their school. They know that they simply do not have the money needed to give that child the education they need.
The Minister will be pleased that, as a good Methodist, I will not for one moment suggest gambling or placing a bet with him, but the comment made by the Minister for Academies—that he would bet schools “a bottle of champagne” that he could find them savings—was a real slap in the face for many headteachers. In my quest to be helpful, I have a few suggestions for the Minister about how he could save money.
First, £4.3 million has been spent on the troops to teachers programme, which so far has resulted in 69 teachers and apparently has £10 million waiting to be spent. LocatED has been set up to acquire land and buildings across England, as part of plans set out in the spring Budget to build 500 new free schools by 2020, and it has a budget of £2 billion. The regional schools commissioners programme originally had £4 million spent on it in 2014, but that has now risen to £31 million. The Department for Education spent £833 million on 175 sites for free schools. Twenty-four of those sites cost £10 million, and four of them cost £30 million.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I shall keep my remarks brief because there are Members who still want to speak.
As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson)—a friend in this respect— said, we spent Saturday morning being assailed by governors and headteachers in Gloucestershire. It was a salutary experience, if not a harrowing one, because the message, which we have heard loud and clear from everyone here, is that it is very difficult out there at the moment. Most Members, if not all, would agree that it is more difficult than it was previously.
We had our own debate about Gloucestershire on 30 January, which the Minister responded to. I will not rehearse the same arguments now, but I will give him some specific ideas that came from Saturday’s meeting, which the Government could do fairly quickly. It was unanimously agreed that two things would help special needs across the board, at both mainstream and special schools. First, the additional needs budget should be ring-fenced, because schools feel that too often it does not reach the areas that it should. It is important that it reaches the schools that need it.
Secondly, there is the issue with the £6,000 for the education, health and care plan. That is a perverse incentive. As is happening in Gloucestershire, it means that there is a huge rise in the number of children being taken out of school to be home educated, as well as in the number of exclusions. Sadly, in the south-west we are now top of the tree, which is unusual as we have usually been in the average range.
I contend that those two issues have arisen because we are not getting quick enough diagnoses, which would make parents confident that their children were getting the support that they needed. Can the Minister make some noises? Clearly, this is about talking to the Treasury, but it is a specific funding request—not just about more money in education. It could be targeted in the way that we were led to believe would make a dramatic overnight difference to schools in Gloucestershire. A lot of their deficits have begun to arise from that.
I hope the Minister will respond to that, think about it, and go out and try to allay some of the fears of those schools. Schools do not believe that there is an understanding of how bad things have become. All schools —even grammar schools, dare I say it—stand to gain if there is clarity over how the SEN funding mechanism could be targeted at children who need it, and quickly. Then we could deal with some of the other, wider problems.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who made some excellent points, and I congratulate her on this debate. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Prior to this debate, I received messages from parents, teachers and staff at schools in my constituency, who are rightly concerned. We know the statistics, even if the Government often seem unwilling to accept them. The Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that school funding is down by £1.7 billion in real terms since 2014-15, while one in four primaries and one in six secondary schools have had their funding cut in cash terms this year.
According to the National Education Union, in my constituency the per-pupil funding between 2015 and 2018 dropped by £347. When we discuss the numbers and the scale of cuts, we must remember the impact on staffing and resources and what that means in practice for our schools and our children. Last week, I met the headteacher of a school in my constituency who was worried about the cuts she was being forced to make, and the impact it would have on the children she and other staff members were trying to support, especially those with additional needs who were awaiting assessments or specialist provision.
A headteacher of another local primary school contacted me about the £1 million deficit the school is facing as a result of increased costs to schools, uplifts in pension contributions and the planned fair funding formula. The school is about to cut six teaching assistants who currently support SEN children and it will need to make further reductions to try and prepare for a 9.3% cut in overall funding.
Meanwhile, a year 5 teacher wrote to me following an hour-and-a-half stock audit at his school, which was done to limit the stock they use. For example, six glue sticks were to be used per half term. The teacher is worried about what happens next and the headteachers told me they were unsure how they will manage to maintain their currently good provision. Does the Minister have any answers? What does he say to the children and their parents at the 10 schools in Birmingham that now close at lunchtime on Fridays because they cannot afford to stay open for longer?
Constituents and school staff have contacted me about this debate. They are not asking for more money to support children, but they are increasingly asking for the savage cuts to be less vicious, and asking whether the cuts can be graduated to try and minimise the negative impact they are having—and will have—on children and young people. Let me be clear: I am asking for more money.
As a mother with two children at school, I think this is a shocking state of affairs and a situation of which the Government should be thoroughly ashamed. The Government have cut funding while expecting schools to do more. Schools are meant to manage the increasingly complex needs of children with mental health problems, special educational needs and disabilities. The LGA estimates that councils are facing a high-needs funding shortfall of £472 million in the 2018-19 financial year and that the funding gap could rise to £1.6 billion by 2021.
With schools close to breaking point, having already cut resources, staff and opening hours, how are they meant to support children and young people with complex needs? The Children’s Commissioner said that the Government’s plans required quadrupling funding to ensure there are no gaps and black holes for children who need support with their mental health. Does the Minister agree that in order to invest in prevention as well as treatment of symptoms, schools must be sufficiently resourced? Can he tell us what steps are being taken to achieve that?
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
I thank all the Members who have taken part in the debate and the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition. Last year, I surveyed more than 30 schools from across my constituency to try to understand the scale and impact of Government cuts to our children’s education. I was shocked to learn that since 2015 more than 80% of schools in my constituency have been forced to cut basic educational provision such as books, equipment and teacher training. The same number reported that they have had to make staffing cuts owing to funding pressures. Most damningly, every one of the schools surveyed in my constituency reported that they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their current levels of funding.
Despite the best efforts of our hard-working school leaders to protect pupils from cuts, it is becoming more and more difficult. We know all too well by now that cuts to schools hit the poorest children the hardest. Current levels of funding risk robbing a generation of working-class children of their future. A primary school headteacher in my constituency recently got in touch to raise a number of concerns that illustrate the crisis in schools well. That headteacher represents a school in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. Despite that, the school achieves excellent results, coming in the top 2% of schools for progress in maths and the top 5% for English.
The headteacher told me that the school achieved those results by working closely with families to support their needs, and by trying to ensure that the children have the resources they need to thrive and achieve. They believe that through support to the whole family children are given the best possible life chances, but she told me:
“I have built a strong, highly skilled and highly effective team to do this—families tell us how much they value the work we do. However, under the current climate of worsening school budgets this service is threatened. I am facing over the next few years a deficit budget. What do I cut? I know that the services we offer make a real difference to our children, but within a couple of years I will struggle to fund the very basics required to educate our children”.
How can the Minister justify putting hard-working educators in such a position?
As that example makes clear, schools with the potential to achieve the very best results are being held back by insufficient budgets. It is a scandal, actively undermining the hard work and progress made by schools in my constituency. Many other local primary schools recently wrote to me expressing similar concerns.
Next week, the Chancellor will issue his spring statement. That is an opportunity for the Government to listen to the concerns of teachers and parents across the country and substantially increase funding for schools. I call on the Government to put an end to their unsustainable programme of education cuts—a programme that is placing an intolerable burden on the future of the country. If the Government are serious about the future direction of our country post Brexit, they must start seriously investing in those who stand to inherit it.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a privilege to take part in this debate and to listen to my colleagues’ fantastic contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for introducing the debate, but I particularly thank the petitioners, without whom we would not be able to have it. It is a matter of regret that the Government have not seen fit to allow us time to debate the issue in the Chamber. Were it not for the fact that the petition was signed by so many people, we would not even be here today to discuss it now.
The message is crystal clear. I met chairs of governors in my constituency on Friday and I visit schools all the time. I have been a governor at several schools in my constituency. I went to school there and my children go to the same comprehensive school that I went to. I feel I have got to know many of the people who work in schools in Darlington well over the years. I went to school with someone who is now one of the headteachers, which makes me feel a bit old, I must say. I have never known the unhappiness among leaders in schools to be so great. I remember being a governor between 2002 and 2008, and there was sense of shared mission in the schools—that we could achieve something, narrow the gap, make sure that every child mattered and got what they needed, invest in buildings and the curriculum, and enrich the experience of school life for every child. There was a sense that we shared that common aim between us and were making progress. I am afraid that the shared mission now has become “How on earth do we make this budget balance?” That is not the mission that I want in schools in my constituency.
We have been talking about outcomes, and in the north-east we have the lowest achievement of English baccalaureate and the lowest number of young people gaining two A-levels. We have the highest number of young people with no job and not entering a college course at 16. Social mobility has stalled. My schools are not thriving, but struggling. Schools in Darlington are falling down the league tables. I should like to avail myself of the offer made on the Minister’s behalf by one of his party’s Back Benchers, who said he has an open-door policy. Perhaps he could indicate whether he would be happy to meet me to discuss school performance in Darlington. The regional schools commissioner is invisible. The levers to effect change that were once available to the local authority and to me as the Member of Parliament no longer exist in the same way. Who will decide what is going wrong and intervene to put it right for schools in Darlington? It is not working. Whatever is going wrong needs to be identified and put right.
My headteachers are not a belligerent, ideological bunch. I am going to end with a quotation from one of them, Pete King at Mowden School:
“School leaders have previously tried to shield parents from the difficulty but because the situation is not sustainable, we now need parents to know. There simply are not the savings to be made that can make up for the huge shortfall in our funding, and it feels very unfair to our children and our staff.”
That is the message that is coming from everybody. Government Members may have been very polite about it, but it is the same message. Something is going badly wrong. The results that are wanted may be possible today, but, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, I seriously doubt that they will be achieved in five, six or 10 years’ time unless we put things right.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me in this important debate, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for delivering such a powerful and cogent speech, which I completely agree with. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and indeed the petitioners for initiating this debate.
Like many Members, I have been contacted by a lot of constituents—headteachers, teachers, support staff and parents—who have encouraged me to speak in the debate. I do not want to repeat arguments that other hon. Members have made this afternoon. The last time I was in this Chamber and it was so busy, it was during the debate on state pension inequality. Members were sitting on the window ledges. I hope that the Government will take note of this terrible injustice, which is one of a number that need to be addressed. Although I am straying from my script, I must say that when Government Members suggest that somehow we have arrived at the current funding crisis by chance or happenstance, we must be absolutely clear: it is deliberate policy. Conservative Members have gone through the Lobby to vote for austerity and cuts in school budgets—effectively, in real terms—and this is the consequence. It is not an accident but deliberate policy, and it is in our gift to do something about it.
I am really disappointed that the promises made that all schools would have a modest increase in funding have not been delivered. When the truth is stretched thin enough, people start to see through it. Other Members have quoted lots of data about the number of schools that have not had a real-terms cash increase. Out of 243 schools in County Durham, 194 will face cuts and some will have very modest increases. Easington is not classed as an urban area, but it is a very deprived area, with large numbers of people facing all sorts of problems; I was at the opening of an extension to our food bank on Saturday. There is an argument that areas facing such challenges should be better resourced. I am not suggesting we should take money away from the affluent south, but I am suggesting that we should recognise that there is a cost, that needs should be met and that we must provide the necessary resources.
Class sizes in County Durham have gone up, as they have elsewhere. The local education authority has lost an astonishing £8.2 million between 2015 and 2020, which equates to a loss of £133 per pupil. In Durham, as elsewhere, budgets have been cut. Education is an investment in the future prosperity of our nation, and I urge Ministers to consider very carefully the points that have been put.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) has kindly agreed to forgo some of the time for his winding-up speech to allow time for the next speaker.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
When I came into this House, schools in York were the seventh worst funded in the country. However, we then proceeded to fall to the very worst-funded schools, and there have been serious consequences. My fear is that the lack of investment now will run through this generation of children as they prepare for later life. We know how much stress and strain children and schools are under at the moment. We have a broken system and we are breaking our children with the stress and strain we are putting not only on them, but on teachers. Colleagues of the Minister are piling more and more responsibilities on to teachers, such as dealing with mental health issues, because our child and adolescent mental health services are seriously broken too.
While we are talking about the amount of money that the schools are being allocated, we must remember the additional costs of pensions and national insurance, and the increasing amount of funding that they have to find for other things. In York, we have had the fourth biggest fall in staff numbers in our primary schools and the largest rise in class sizes in our secondary schools—significantly more than any other area. When I look at where the cuts have fallen in our city—the worst-funded in the country—they have fallen on the schools in the most deprived areas; Tang Hall Primary School will lose £559 per pupil.
There is a correlation with the consequences that that will create, but I also draw attention to the impact it is already having in terms of the attainment gap. As well as being worst funded, York also has the largest attainment gap in the country, at 31%. Three out of five children from disadvantaged backgrounds are not school-ready by the age of five, and that follows through in their schooling: 26% have an attainment gap at the age of 11. Only 40% of disadvantaged children reach expected standards in reading, writing and maths, and that figure has been static. As that moves through to secondary school, we see high absenteeism for children on free school meals, at 44%, so we know there is a correlation between attainment, funding, class sizes and attendance.
I ask the Minister to look at this issue and to see the consequences that are being built as a result of the cuts placed on our schools. Perhaps he could look again at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report on the postcode lottery in schools, and its suggestion of an early excellence fund. We know the difference it makes when we fund early years, whether through Sure Start or through putting a right strategy in place for early years. It will set up a child for life and we need to see funding there.
I will touch on capital funding, because we have some serious issues in our school buildings. Tang Hall Primary School was 90 years old last November; it is so cold in the winter that the children have to wear hoodies just to keep warm, and their hands are so cold as they sit in those classrooms, yet they are boiling in summer. They need a new school. Tang Hall was top of the Building Schools for the Future list in 2010 and there is still no sign of a new school. Carr Junior School has water ingress and needs repairs, and St Wilfrid’s RC Primary School needs green space for its children. We have too many children trying to squeeze into schools. The spring statement is coming up; we need the funding now.
Wera Hobhouse
On a point of order, Chair, I failed to declare when I spoke earlier that I am a trustee of a local academy trust, the Palladian Academy Trust. I apologise for the omission.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting that on the record.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). I always want to sing “Blaydon Races” every time I think of her constituency. I thought she did her duty diligently as a member of the Petitions Committee, and despite a barrage of interventions, she was very composed when she made her speech.
I thank Mr Andy Ramanandi, the headteacher of St Joseph’s Roman Catholic Primary School, and the group of headteachers, staff and parents who launched the petition we are debating. Over the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands of people have watched their Facebook video, explaining the scale of the impact of the cuts on their school. Headteachers such as Mr Ramanandi, Mr Malik and others who have been involved in the campaign are here today. Their efforts have ensured that cuts to school funding are being debated in this place again, and I commend them for their work. Is it not ironic that the headteacher of a school named for St Joseph, the patron saint of workers, will have to go back to Gateshead tomorrow to start consulting on redundancies to make people unemployed?
This has been a fascinating debate. Normal practice as shadow spokesman is to thank all the hon. Members on my side for the excellent speeches they gave today—“You did really well, well done everybody,”—but that is not what I am going to do. I want to highlight a few hon. Members on the Government side who spoke today. It seems that nearly every MP from West Sussex is in the room: the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Crawley (Henry Smith), the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and the Minister himself—
Mike Kane
Forgive me; the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), too. We know that that authority is having to cut—let me get my figures accurate—£8.9 million from the schools in their patches between 2015 and 2020. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) spoke well about Southampton losing £4.9 million over the same period. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), my footballing partner, spoke of Suffolk losing £7.8 million over that period.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) spoke passionately about his schools in Stockport. Stockport, my neighbouring authority, is losing £6.4 million and a special school in Stockport has said just this week that it will have to cut Friday afternoons from its curriculum. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) represents Gloucestershire, spoke of cuts of £11.1 million. The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) spoke about Essex—I was at St Dominic’s just the other week, and what a fantastic school it is—and the £29.8 million cuts faced there. Finally, there was a really powerful speech from the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), speaking about Hertfordshire having to cut £33.2 million from the budget. I will end my speech with what she said about the cake.
We can be in no doubt after what we have heard today about the impact of continued Government austerity on education. In fact, it is not austerity anymore; the Secretary of State has already said he wants to reduce spending on education and that he thinks it is too high. The policy is ideologically motivated. Education urgently needs investment across the board, and the Government must finally begin reversing the devastating cuts. Just look at how many right hon. and hon. Members have turned out today.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Education Secretary have both stated in the House of Commons that every school in England would see a cash-terms increase in its funding, but that flies in the face of the reality we have heard about today, what parents and teachers are telling us and what is happening on the ground. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has stated that it is simply not accurate, and the UK Statistics Authority has even rebuked the Education Secretary for his statistical inaccuracy. There has been a concerted effort by the Secretary of State and the Minister to fudge the figures and to deflect attention away from the school funding cuts that they have presided over. To add insult to injury, we have had a one-off £400 million for “little extras”, when schools cannot even afford glue sticks at the moment, as we have heard. The fact is that, across the country, schools are having to write to parents to ask for money.
If funding per pupil had been maintained in value since 2015, there would be £1.7 billion more in the system now. That means that 91% of schools still face real-terms budget cuts per pupil. Those in this Chamber know all too well the impact on the ground already. The average shortfall in primary school budgets is more than £67,000, and more than £273,000 in secondary school budgets. Our schools have 137,000 more pupils but 5,400 fewer teachers, 2,800 fewer teaching assistants, 1,400 fewer support staff and 1,200 fewer auxiliary staff.
I have spent far too many hours in this Chamber and the main Chamber, trying with my shadow Front-Bench colleagues and Members from across the House to get the Government to face facts and act. It beggars belief that the Government have ignored the School Teachers Review Body’s pay recommendations—the first time that has happened in 28 years. To make matters worse, the Government expect schools to meet the cost of the first 1% of the pay award from existing budgets.
As a former primary school teacher, I know the difference that a good teacher can make, with the right support and resources, to a child’s attainment and aspiration. We go into teaching because we believe in the value of education, we believe in its power to create social mobility and we believe in its ability to create ambition for all. This is about our children’s future and that of our country.
I will close with the words of teachers and teaching assistants from across the country:
“Last year the school I work at had to lose many of its teaching assistants due to lack of money.”
“I have to buy equipment and supplies for my job.”
“We do not have budget for staff training, resources or opportunities for children.”
“I am a qualified teacher now working and being paid as a teaching assistant, but I am being used to cover classes as the school cannot afford to employ supply teachers.”
“The Minister’s claim that more money is going into schools than ever before is pure sophistry.”
James Frith
On a point of order, Sir Christopher. It was remiss of me not to mention that I am the founding director of a careers education company. In the interests of transparency, I share that with you now.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on her opening speech, which was very good indeed.
There have been several very good speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who pointed to rising standards in our schools. He is of course absolutely right: thanks in part to our reforms, the proportion of pupils in good or outstanding schools has increased from 66% in 2010 to 84% today. Our more rigorous primary school curriculum—on a par with the highest performing in the world—has been taught since September 2014. Since it was first tested in 2016, the proportion of primary school pupils reaching the expected standard in maths has risen from 70% to 76% in 2018, and in reading from 66% to 75%.
Our primary school children have achieved their highest ever scores on international reading tests. When we introduced a phonic check in 2012, just 58% of six-year-olds taking it reached the expected standard. That figure is now 82%. More children are now on track to read more effectively than when we came into office in 2010. The attainment gap in the primary phase between the most disadvantaged pupils and their peers, as measured by the attainment gap index, has narrowed by 13.2% since 2011. In secondary schools, our more rigorous academic curriculum and qualifications support social mobility by giving disadvantaged children the knowledge they need to have the same career and life opportunities as their peers. I thank the 452,000 teachers—10,000 more than in 2010—who have delivered these higher standards in our schools. I also thank the 263,000 teaching assistants, of which there are 49,000 more than in 2011, and the 263,000 support staff, of which there are 129,000 more than in 2011.
To support these improvements, the Government have prioritised school spending while having to take difficult decisions in other areas of public spending. We have been enabled to do that by our balanced approach to the public finances and to our stewardship of the economy, reducing the unsustainable annual deficit of £150 billion, which was 10% of GDP in 2010, but 2% in 2018. The economic stability that that provided has resulted in employment rising to a record 32.6 million and unemployment being at its lowest level since the 1970s, giving young people leaving school more opportunities to have jobs and start their careers.[Official Report, 21 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 10MC.]
That balanced approach allows us to invest in public services across Government. Core funding for schools and high needs will rise from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to £43.5 billion in 2019-20. That includes an extra £1.3 billion for schools and high needs, announced in 2017, that we invested across 2018-19 and 2019-20, over and above plans set out in the spending review.
Since 2010, 825,000 new school places have been created in our schools. One of the first decisions we took on coming to office in 2010 was to double basic-need capital spending, reversing the cuts of 100,000 school places that we saw under the last Labour Government.
Nick Gibb
Not right now, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I want to make sure that I respond to the points from as many hon. Members as I can.
Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that real-terms per-pupil funding for five to 16-year-olds in 2020 will be more than 50% higher than in 2000. We compare favourably with other countries. The UK spends as much per pupil on primary and secondary state education as any country in the G7 apart from America—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).
While more money is going into our schools than ever before, we recognise the budgeting challenges that schools face as we ask them to achieve more for children and to absorb cost increases, such as employer’s national insurance and higher pension contributions to teachers’ pension funds, that have arisen as a result of our determination to bear down on the unsustainable deficit. That means that it is essential to do all we can to help schools make the most of every pound.
In addition to providing additional funding for schools, we changed the way funding is distributed, to make the system fairer. Last April, we started to distribute funding through the national funding formula, with each area’s allocation taking into account the individual needs and characteristics of its schools. That replaced the unfair and outdated previous system, under which schools with similar characteristics received very different levels of funding, with little or no justification. These disparities existed for far too long, as my right hon. and hon. Friends from West Sussex pointed out, leaving some schools trying to achieve with fewer resources the same as other, better-funded schools in similar situations. That is why we committed to reform the system, and I am proud to say that our introduction of the national funding formula delivers that commitment.
Schools are already benefiting from the gains delivered by the national funding formula. Since 2017, we have given every local authority more money for every pupil in every school, while allocating the biggest increases to the schools that have been most underfunded. By 2019-20, all schools will attract an increase of at least 1% per pupil, compared with their 2017-18 baselines. The most underfunded schools will attract up to 6% more per pupil by 2019-20, compared with 2017-18.
The hon. Member for Blaydon will be aware that funding for schools in her constituency has risen from £52.6 million in 2017-18 to £54.9 million in 2019-20—a 4.5% increase in cash terms. In Blaydon, per-pupil funding has risen from £4,468 per pupil in 2017-18 to £4,635 in 2019-20, which is a 3.7% increase over that period.
The hon. Lady cited a figure from the School Cuts website, which incidentally has been criticised by the UK Statistics Authority. It said:
“We believe the headline statement”,
which the hon. Lady cited in this debate,
“that ‘91% of schools face funding cuts’ risks giving a misleading impression of future changes in school budgets. The method of calculation may also give a misleading impression of the scale of change for some particular schools.”
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made important points about the over-politicisation of this issue. I understand the points that he made about the historical inequities in school funding in West Sussex.
Nick Gibb
I will not give way for the moment. The inequities are precisely why we introduced the national funding formula. A similar point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). My hon. Friends will be aware that funding in West Sussex will increase from £425.8 million in 2017-18 to £459.3 million by 2019-20. That is an increase of £33.5 million or 7.9%. It is an increase of 4.9% per pupil. The argument is made that there are more pupils, but we are also increasing funding on a per-pupil basis.
Nick Gibb
I will not give way just now.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) should be aware that, in her constituency, funding has risen from £45.9 million in 2017-18 to £50.6 million in 2019-20. That is an increase of 10.3% overall and of 9.5% on a per-pupil basis. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor)—
Nick Gibb
I will not for the moment, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I want to respond to the very serious points made by hon. Members during the debate. If there is time at the end of that, I will of course give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who always has important issues to raise. I am always very cognisant of his expertise as a former teacher and as a member of the Select Committee on Education.
The hon. Member for Edmonton should be aware that funding for schools in her constituency has risen from £89.2 million in 2017-18 to £91.3 million. That is an increase of £2.2 million. It is an increase of 2.5% overall and of 3% on a per-pupil basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove asked about funding for the increase in the employer contribution to teachers’ pensions. That will rise to 23.6%, so 23.6% of the salary will be paid by the employer into the teacher pension scheme.[Official Report, 21 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 10MC.] We propose to provide funding to meet the additional teachers’ pension scheme pressures in 2019-20 for maintained schools, academies and FE colleges whose staff are part of the teachers’ pension scheme. That proposal includes centrally employed teachers and teachers at music education hubs. We have recently closed a public consultation on the proposal. We will now assess the replies and publish a formal response alongside announcing funding in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) made similar points about taking a serious approach to the debate. He would acknowledge that in Southampton, Itchen funding has increased from £60 million in 2017-18 to £62 million in 2019-20. That is an increase of 3.3%, and 2.3% on a per-pupil basis.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) should be aware that funding in her constituency has risen from £44.2 million in 2017-18 to £47.68 million in 2019-20. That is an increase of 7.6% and of 6.3% on a per-pupil basis. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) should be aware that funding in his constituency has risen from £61 million in 2017-18 to £64.8 million in 2019-20. That is an increase of £3.8 million or 6.2%, and of 4.7% on a per-pupil basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) will be aware of course—he always is on these issues—that, in his constituency, schools are being funded to the tune of £72.7 million in 2017-18 and that that is rising to £76.4 million. That is an increase of 5.1% and of 3.1% on a per-pupil basis. He raised the issue of FE —[Interruption.]
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. It is disgraceful that there are Members sitting in this Chamber who are not listening to the Minister. They have taken advantage of participating in a debate and they are setting a very bad example to people up and down the country who believe that this should be a democracy in which people are able to listen to the arguments. The Minister is on his feet, and I order people not to interrupt any more.
Nick Gibb
Thank you very much, Sir Christopher.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester raised the issue of FE funding. We have protected the base rate of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds until 2020 at £4,000 per pupil and we continue to provide extra funding to add to that base rate; an example is the £500 million of funding for T-levels.[Official Report, 21 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 10MC.] We plan to invest nearly £7 billion during the current academic year. However, we are aware of the financial pressures on school sixth forms and other providers of education for 16 to 19-year-olds and will continue to look carefully at funding for that age group in preparation for the spending review.
I point out to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) that in her constituency we are spending £82.3 million in 2017-18 and that is rising to £85.4 million in 2019-20. That is an increase of 3.8% and of 2.5% on a per-pupil basis. I could not miss out the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) of course. Funding in her constituency is rising from £42.9 million in 2017-18 to £46.2 million in 2019-20. That is an increase of 7.9% and of 4% on a per-pupil basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley raised the important issue of special needs education. When we state our commitment to supporting every child to succeed, it is important to be clear that that applies, without reservation, to children with special educational needs and disabilities. That is why we have reformed the funding system to take particular account of children and young people with additional needs, and introduced a new formula. We recognise the concerns that have been raised about the costs of making provision for children and young people with complex special educational needs. We have increased overall funding allocations to local authorities for high needs year on year. We have also recently announced that we will provide £250 million of additional funding for high needs across England over this financial year and the next. High-needs funding is now over £6 billion, having risen by £1 billion since 2013.
We have also announced other measures to do with capital: a £100 million top-up to the special provision capital fund for local authorities in 2019-20 for new places and improved facilities.
Of course, we recognise that schools have faced cost pressures in recent years. That is why we have announced a strategy setting out the support, current and planned, that we will provide to help schools to make savings on the £10 billion of non-staffing spend across England. It provides schools with practical advice about identifying potential savings that they can put back into teaching. That includes deals to help schools to save money on the products and services that they buy. Schools spend £75 million on advertising their vacancies, so we are also launching a free teacher vacancy listing website to help schools to recruit excellent teachers and drive down recruitment costs. We have created a benchmarking website for schools that allows them to compare their own spending with that of similar schools elsewhere in the country. That will help them to identify whether and where changes can be made to direct more resources into high-quality teaching.
To give the hon. Member for Blaydon time to wind up the debate, I will finally just thank hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. We are determined to have a world-class education system that allows every child to achieve their potential, regardless of who they are or where they live.
Liz Twist
I am not entirely sure what to say in the two minutes that remain. I am really disappointed with the Minister’s response, because he is saying to headteachers such as Mr Ramanandi and others that their experience is not valid. That is not what we are all finding. It is not just the headteachers; all of us in the Chamber, from every party, have made the point that we know that schools in our area need additional funding. The whole point of this debate was to ensure that that issue was raised, so I am sorry that the Minister appears not to have addressed it. I hope very much that he will think again, and I hope that he will have a day in the north-east, as I invited him to do, and visit Mr Ramanandi’s school and others in Gateshead, and perhaps visit Darlington at the same time, to see what is going on. Headteachers are telling us that they have real difficulty in making their budgets balance, and I for one understand where they are coming from. I hope that the Minister will think very hard and push for additional resources in the comprehensive spending review.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 232220 relating to school funding.
Written Statements
Workplace Harassment or Discrimination: Confidentiality Clauses
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The Government have today published a consultation on measures to tackle misuse of confidentiality clauses in situations of workplace harassment or discrimination. These proposals will boost understanding among workers and employers of their rights and legal responsibilities and is part of our modern industrial strategy to create a fairer workplace.
There is increasing evidence that confidentiality clauses are being abused by a minority of employers to intimidate victims and conceal harassment and discrimination in the workplace—including sexual assault, physical threats and racism. This is unacceptable. Today’s proposed reforms will help put an end to the unethical use of these agreements and encourage good practice from employers and lawyers. This includes:
Legislating that confidentiality clauses cannot prevent any disclosure to the police.
Requiring a clear description of the limits of confidentiality provisions within a written statement of employment particulars (in the case of confidentiality clauses in employment contracts) or within settlement agreements.
Extending the law that means a worker agreeing to a settlement agreement receives independent advice, by specifying that the advice must cover the limits of any confidentiality clauses in the settlement agreement.
Most businesses legitimately use non-disclosure agreement and confidentiality clauses in agreements to prevent the disclosure of confidential information. In addition, settlement agreements are often utilised to help resolve workplace disputes without the need to escalate matters further.
However, a minority abuse their power in the workplace to conceal victims of harassment or discrimination through NDAs or confidentiality clauses. For example, by suggesting that a worker cannot “blow the whistle”, despite the fact that no provision can remove a worker’s whistleblowing protections.
In addition, through an NDA or settlement agreement, employers could insist that a worker is unable to discuss an issue with other people or organisations, such as the police, a doctor or a therapist. This can leave victims afraid to report an incident or speak out about their experiences, leaving others exposed to similar situations, and putting customers and other businesses at risk. The proposals set out today will help end this unethical practice, through extending the requirement to receive independent advice to cover limits on confidentiality clauses, and by requiring that signatories must be provided with a clear overview of their rights.
Our modern industrial strategy is creating a fairer and more equal workplace, to boost productivity and earning power for all. Our proposals support this by helping to create a more level playing field between workers and employers, providing more understanding over rights and legal responsibilities.
The consultation period will run for eight weeks until 29 April 2019. The consultation can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/confidentiality-clauses-measures-to-prevent-misuse-in-situations-of-workplace-harassment-or-discrimination.
I am placing copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1373]
Homelessness and Rehousing
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
I have announced over £19.5 million in direct funding to 66 local authorities to provide support to those who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, to secure accommodation in the private rented sector.
Everybody deserves a stable, safe and secure place to call home. It is vital we give people facing homelessness a route out of it and a chance to rebuild their lives. The private rented sector has an important role to play in this. This announcement adds another powerful tool for local authorities to use to help prevent and relieve homelessness for thousands of households.
Through this funding local authorities will be able to provide financial support to help people access the private rental market and maintain their tenancies, through the payment of deposits or rent payments. It will enable authorities to provide support to tenants to help them overcome difficulties that might otherwise threaten their tenancies. It will also enable 35 authorities to purchase an insurance policy to cover the costs of landlords if tenants default on their rent or damage their rented property, enabling individuals to access parts of the private sector they could not previously access.
This funding complements existing Government action to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. It sits alongside our £1.2 billion funding programme to tackle homelessness, and the Homelessness Reduction Act, the most ambitious legislative reform in decades, to ensure more people receive the help they need, at an earlier stage. It also forms part of our wide-ranging reforms to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants, and deliver a fairer, more affordable, higher quality and more secure private rented sector, and ensures that vulnerable people receive the support they need to navigate housing options at a local level.
The full list of successful areas and allocations of funding can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/housing- minister-unlocks-private-rented-sector-for-most-vulnerable.
As part of this work to protect vulnerable people, I would like to stress the Government’s commitment to ensuring those who receive housing support are able to access the properties they need. Our latest figures show that around half of landlords said they would not be willing to let to tenants on Housing Benefit—ruling out thousands of vulnerable people and families. As the Prime Minister recently stated, we have already started working with Shelter following their campaign raising awareness of so-called ‘No DSS’ adverts. Over the coming months, Ministers will meet with industry representatives including mortgage providers, landlord associations, tenant groups and property websites to develop ways to stop the unfair exclusion of tenants in receipt of housing support. This will help us take steps to eradicate this practice and ensure people in receipt of housing support can access the homes they need.
Rapid rehousing pathway 2019-20 funding round
Separately, I have also announced that we are inviting local authorities to apply for the Rapid Rehousing Pathway 2019-20 funding round. This second round of funding invites local authorities to bid for all or any elements of the Rapid Rehousing Pathway which includes Somewhere Safe to Stay hubs, specialist Navigators, Local Lettings Agencies and Supported Lettings. This follows the announcement of a combined 53 ‘early adopter’ areas in December 2018 and February 2019. The link to the applications page can be found here:
http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-rehousing-pathway-2019-to-2020-funding.
Applications for the new funding round will be accepted up to 23:59 on 29 March 2019, and we intend to announce successful bids in the spring.
[HCWS1374]
Informal Trade Foreign Affairs Council
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
The informal EU Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) took place in Bucharest on 21 and 22 February 2019. The formal agenda covered the World Trade Organization (WTO) and EU-US trade. I represented the UK at the meeting. A summary of the discussions follows:
WTO modernisation
Commissioner Malmström highlighted that the risk to the multilateral system was real, but was not sufficiently appreciated by much of the WTO membership.
Discussion focused on the need to keep the US engaged and anchored within the multilateral system while addressing US concerns about the appellate body. I stressed the seriousness of the current situation. Commissioner Malmström mentioned the recent launch of e-commerce negotiations as a positive development.
US trade
Commissioner Malmström said the Commission was focused on delivering the outcomes of the July 2018 Juncker-Trump meeting. She did not know the contents of the US 232 report into cars and reiterated that €20 billion (£17.2 billion) of EU “rebalancing measures” had been prepared. She called on member states to endorse the mandates.
In discussion, the mandates were endorsed by an overwhelming majority of member states. I urged the importance of moving forward at pace, emphasising the significant UK interests. Discussion revolved around timing. The Commission highlighted their commitment to moving forward as quickly as possible. The presidency offered an extraordinary Council meeting if needed to facilitate this.
[HCWS1375]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on 19 December 2018.
Copyright law is largely harmonised internationally by a series of multilateral treaties, to which the UK and most other countries are party. Our membership of these treaties does not depend on our relationship with the EU and ensures that, in all scenarios after exit, UK copyright works will continue to receive protection around the world. Conversely, foreign works will continue to receive protection in the UK. However, there is a body of EU law on copyright that goes beyond the provisions of these international agreements. This has introduced EU-only rights—such as the sui generis database right, which provides EU-wide protection for EU database creators—and arrangements that facilitate the use of copyright content in cross-border services, such as the copyright country-of-origin principle, under which satellite broadcasters transmitting films and other copyright-protected works across the EU need permission from the copyright owner only for the state in which a broadcast originates, rather than in every state in which it is received.
A significant portion of UK copyright legislation derives from the EU copyright acquis and therefore includes references to the EU and member states. Without amendment, many of these references would become inappropriate after exit, either because they presuppose the UK’s membership of the EU and will not make sense once we are no longer a member state, or because they implement EU cross-border copyright mechanisms that, in a no-deal scenario, will become inoperable.
For those reasons we are introducing this instrument. In broad terms, it will preserve, where possible and appropriate, existing arrangements in UK copyright legislation by making minor, correcting amendments. The only exceptions to this principle of continuity arise in our implementation of some of the EU cross-border copyright mechanisms. It is unavoidable that the reciprocal element of these mechanisms between the EU and UK will become inoperable in a no-deal scenario, because they depend on reciprocal provisions that apply only between member states. This SI therefore amends our implementation of these mechanisms.
In some cases, it is appropriate to continue to extend a cross-border provision to the EU on a unilateral basis, because providing continuity in this way benefits UK consumers or businesses. This is the case for the country-of-origin principle in satellite broadcasting, where maintaining the effect of existing law will support UK consumers’ continued access to foreign television programming. For other mechanisms, providing continuity would be detrimental to those in the UK: for example, to continue to provide database rights for EU creators without reciprocal action by the EU would put UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage. This instrument will restrict those mechanisms to operate on a purely domestic basis, or bring them to an end, as appropriate.
We know that there are concerns over lack of consultation, and I would like to offer assurances that we engaged with affected stakeholders as far as possible within the constraints. There is no question that formal consultations are an important part of the process of engagement, but they are not the only part. We have regularly engaged with and listened to the concerns of stakeholders from across the creative and digital industries on an informal basis since the referendum. This engagement has given us a sound basis from which to prepare these regulations, and we are grateful to all those who have shared their views on copyright and EU exit.
In support of this instrument, we have published three impact assessments, each of which has been green-rated by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. Those correspond to three of the most significant cross-border mechanisms: sui generis database rights; the copyright country-of-origin principle; and cross-border portability of online content services, which allows EU consumers to access their online streaming or rental services as if they are at home when they visit another member state.
Both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the European Statutory Instruments Committee commented that those assessments did not provide sufficient detail on the impacts of no deal on UK stakeholders. The reason is the same in each case: impacts on UK consumers, rights holders and broadcasters will result from the UK being treated as a third country in a no-deal scenario—not from these regulations, which amend the UK’s implementation of the cross-border provisions and will primarily affect EU rights holders, consumers and broadcasters.
In line with the better regulation framework, the impact assessments consider the effects of this instrument, and not the impacts that arise from the legislation of other countries and which we cannot avoid in a no-deal situation. However, we recognise that these impacts exist and that UK stakeholders will need to be aware of them. That is why the Government published in November 2018 a long-term economic analysis of the impacts of leaving the EU, and detailed guidance on what a no-deal Brexit would mean for copyright and related rights. That gives consumers, rights holders, businesses and other organisations the information that they need, in plain English, to make informed preparations for all outcomes.
These regulations will provide certainty, clarity and, as far as possible, continuity for UK businesses, rights holders and consumers as we leave the EU. I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that this statutory instrument is being considered as an affirmative one, which is probably all my fault as I wrote to the relevant committee on 1 November setting out my interest in the subject and why I believed that it should be discussed. My interest dates back to having been an MEP and MP, and I spent time as a stagiaire in DG IV—as it then was—of the EU Commission, although I was concerned more with anti-trust at that time than intellectual property.
I would like to press the Minister on three separate issues, although he will be pleased to know that I am not against the statutory instrument in any shape or form. We are obviously helped by the findings of the two committees, for which I think that this Committee will be grateful. The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee mentions, as one reason why it was critical and thought that the House would benefit from such discussion, the assessment of the impact of the loss of the reciprocities. The Minister referred to that. As UK consumers while in another member state, we were going to lose the right to benefit from Netflix—if we only knew how to do it, of course—but visitors from another member state to this country would continue to benefit.
I understand the conclusion that the Government have drawn. However, given the extensive range of copyright issues covered in this instrument and that it seeks to establish reciprocity in relation to the loss of free access to portable online content services for consumers, how did the department reach that decision without having made an assessment of the impact of that loss on UK consumers?
We have heard from the Minister this afternoon that there has been a broad and general paper, from which I am sure that we will all benefit, but what was the basis for reaching the decision? Has he had any discussions with Ministers of other member states to see whether, having given up reciprocity, there is any way we might revert to it in future when we are negotiating a deal? Is that lost for ever, or is it only in the context of the no-deal statutory instrument before us today?
How wide an impact assessment has the department done in preparing for this statutory instrument? Do we know either how many UK-based broadcasters will be affected, how the loss of portability of online content may impact on UK consumers or how much the facility has been used in the past? From my experience, if you are visiting Brussels in the capacity of an MEP or as a lawyer, I frankly do not think that you would have much time to watch Netflix—I see that the shadow Minister disagrees. However, if you are there on holiday, it would obviously have a greater impact. The conclusion reached by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Sub-Committee B is that it would have been helpful to provide more information, if the department has it, on the potential impact of EU exit on both UK businesses and consumers in this area.
We are apparently seeking to preserve the UK’s compliance with the requirements of the Marrakesh treaty—where these treaties are drafted and signed seems ever more exotic. I understand that we are seeking to ratify the treaty in our own right. Does my noble friend have a proposed timetable for that? We have learnt from other departments that ratifications of treaties and deals are not quite as straightforward as we might believe. I should be grateful for a response to those questions as well as to my overall question as to whether we are seeking reciprocity in the long term through a deal.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has asked some very pertinent questions which I certainly want to reinforce, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response. This is a deceptively short SI, but it deals with a rather large number of important rights, both for business and for the consumer. Even though I agree with the committee that it would have been helpful to provide more information on the potential impact of EU exit on UK businesses and consumers in these areas, at least the impact assessment set out the general impact in broad terms. The Minister used the word “unavoidable”. Sadly, I do not think that there are any alternative solutions to the issues set out in the statutory instrument.
What does the Minister consider to be the actual impact? As with all the SI impact statements, the assessment for this one says that, pretty much, the only impacts are a result not of the SI but of leaving the EU, becoming a third country and so on. However, there are substantial impacts as a result of consumers not having such rights and broadcast businesses not having the rights under the cable and satellite directive. Indeed, business has a double whammy because, as was discussed on 6 February, under the AVMS directive—as my noble friend Lord Foster pointed out, it deals not so much with copyright as with regulation—broadcasters will have a real problem in terms of the country of origin and regulation. So it is not just copyright and clearance issues that will add to the burden of cost; it is the certainty of regulation. It is no wonder that, already, a large number of broadcasters that broadcast into the European Union and have relied on the country-of-origin principle are upping sticks and moving to places such as Amsterdam.
At least for the AVMS directive there is some consolation in the Council of Europe regulations, but for a more limited range of material. Unless the Minister can correct me, I do not believe that there are any consolations on copyright clearance for broadcasters. This really is damaging.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. We broadly accept the position of the department. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have touched on, a number of issues are staring at us, both in the impact assessment and in the SI itself. I will not go through all these, because most of the main points have been picked up. However, the Minister touched on the issue of no deal and the problems associated with it. Obviously, if we were to rule out a no-deal scenario, many of the issues would be dealt with and we would not be having these conversations.
Following on from the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, he will find that the answers are not within the impact assessment, especially on cost and finances. Page 2 of the first two of the three impact assessments, under the heading “Full Economic Assessment”, looks at both the costs and the benefits. In both, the first line states:
“It has not been possible to monetise the costs due to a lack of available data”.
Unfortunately, I do not think there will be detailed answers on the costs, whether to the consumers or to the industry, because of the lack of available data.
That feeds into the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s points, which, because the Minister obviously knew they were coming, I am addressing head-on. I do not think there has been a clear enough answer to them. The committee is of the view that it would have been helpful to provide more information on the potential impact of EU exit to UK businesses and consumers in these areas. That is an indictment not of the department, but of the work that has gone into finding out the impact of this.
Lord Clement-Jones
Does the noble Lord not agree that, if consultation had been carried out with the right people, we might have discovered what those costs are?
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
Well, my next point is on lack of consultation. The Minister touched on this because, again, he obviously saw this coming down the line. There was no detail in the statement about the stakeholders. In fact, there was a comment—unfortunately I have not written it down—on how consultation has been ongoing since the decision was taken on Brexit. That may well the case, but the specifics of the issues around this area are really important. It would have been nice, and still would be, to get a little more detail on who the consulted stakeholders are, when they were consulted and what that consultation looked like.
I will pick up on another of the Minister’s comments. To paraphrase, he said that the general public will know about this because we have this information about the loss of reciprocity on our website. Until picking up this SI and coming here to respond on behalf of the Opposition, I was not aware—which was obviously my fault—that reciprocity would be lost following no deal or the UK’s going into a third-country situation. The idea that it is widely known that individuals will lose access to online content—whether it be Netflix, iTunes or other aspects of it—is just not correct. If we are going to end up in this situation, some information from the department to the wider British public, whether through the businesses or the organisations, would be a good thing. It would make the public aware of what was coming down the line if we ended up with no deal.
I will not pick up on all the other issues; they were covered very well by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I am sure the Minister will pick up on the points about the Marrakesh treaty, so I will leave it there.
Lord Henley
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will start off with consultation. At the time we were developing these regulations, we were in the early stage of negotiations. Revealing our continuity of approach through a public consultation might have risked our negotiating position, so it was not possible to conduct that full formal public consultation of the sort one would normally like. Within those constraints, the Government engaged with stakeholders in the creative and digital industries as far as possible: in August last year, officials in the department held a whole series of industry round tables to discuss no-deal planning with publishers, collective management organisations, broadcasters, technology firms, museums, archives and educational establishments. I could undoubtedly write to noble Lords and give them greater detail—for example, on the alliance for IP and the British Copyright Council, both of which are representative bodies that cover a broad range of copyright needs. I believe we engaged as far as was right and proper.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, stressed, there is an impact from no deal. We did an impact assessment on these regulations and the impact is minimal, but the wider impact of leaving without a deal will be greater. We recognise that leaving the EU without a deal will lead to disruption in the field of intellectual property for the UK’s creative industries. However, in passing this instrument, we will provide continuity wherever possible and, where changes to existing arrangements are unavoidable, we will ensure that clear and appropriate legislation is in place. I believe that that will minimise, as far as possible, disruption to the creative and digital industries, whose work obviously depends on an effective intellectual property framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked what the Government were doing to support UK broadcasters facing the loss of the AVMSD and the copyright country-of-origin principle. I assure him that it is still the Government’s intention to secure an agreement with the EU on our future relationship, and we set that out in last year’s White Paper. We want any deal to involve the best possible arrangements for the broadcasting sector. If we leave without a deal, broadcasters might face disruption due to the EU copyright country-of-origin principle ceasing to apply to the UK. Therefore, again, we sought to give broadcasters and others as much information as possible about the implications of no deal by publishing technical notices and detailed guidance on what that would mean for copyright. However, I make it clear that we will continue to seek a deal.
I also make it clear to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we will continue to seek reciprocity. The political declaration provides a good basis on which to negotiate our future relationship with the EU on these matters. For copyright, this includes a commitment from both parties to maintain high levels of protection for database rights and artists’ resale rights. The specifics of our future relationship with the EU will obviously be the subject of those negotiations. However, as set out in the political declaration, our aim will be to make sure that the agreement continues to stimulate innovation, creativity and economic activity.
Further on reciprocity, the EU portability regulation works through reciprocal application of the cross-border rules. The regulations that we are dealing with today will not cover UK/EU travel in the event of no deal, and the UK obviously cannot replicate the effect of existing arrangements on a unilateral basis. However, keeping the portability regulation in UK law after exit would not have the same effect as an agreement on mutual cross-border portability. Instead, it would place unreciprocated and inappropriate obligations on service providers operating in the UK. Whether we can continue to agree reciprocal portability with the EU will have to be a matter for detailed negotiations. At this stage, I cannot go any further than that.
My noble friend also asked how the IPO came to this decision without an assessment of the loss of service in the UK. UK consumers of online content services might see changes in their services when they visit the EU after exit. This could range from being offered different content to having their access restricted. Ultimately, this will depend on the licences that their service providers have in place and the terms of service. That is a direct result of the UK being considered a third country under the portability regulation. Again, I stress that it is not something that we can deal with unilaterally.
My noble friend also asked about the effect on UK broadcasters. Without a deal, member states may cease to apply the country-of-origin principle to broadcasts from the UK, which will mean that UK broadcasters that transmit across the EU may need to renegotiate their licences to acquire rightholder permissions for every member state in which their broadcast is received. The issue arrives out of EU legislation; again, it is not something that we can address unilaterally.
I turn to the question which all three noble Lords asked about the ratification of the Marrakesh treaty. We are committed to making sure that people with disabilities continue to benefit from improved access to copyright-protected works. We are on track to ensure that we are able to ratify the Marrakesh treaty in our own right as soon as possible after exit. Our ratification will then need to be accepted by the World Intellectual Property Organization before we are once again considered a member of the treaty. While there is likely to be a delay between exit and the acceptance of our ratification in a no-deal scenario, we are working hard to ensure that this will be as short as possible.
There were a few more questions. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked for any further information from the department explaining no-deal issues. I go back to the October 2018 guidance, which sets out in pretty clear terms what no deal means for copyright. I have a little more detail about who we consulted, but I do not think it adds anything to what I said before. I assure noble Lords that this included representatives and trade bodies from commercial broadcasters, collective management organisations, libraries and archives, tech firms, publishers, authors and photographers. I do not think I need to write with any further points. I think that deals with most, if not all, of the points raised, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would like to come in.
Lord Clement-Jones
Could the Minister confirm that nobody at any level of the Government has any clue about the full cost of clearing with all those EU countries, which will now be necessary for those broadcasters?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give any figure of that sort to the noble Lord and I am not sure it will be possible to do so. If I can do better, I will certainly write to him,
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
On the consultation, the Minister helpfully outlined a number of organisations. Were the SI and the issues around intellectual property that we are discussing today discussed as part of that round table?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I stress—I think I made this clear—that I used the words “round table” in the plural. There were a number of round tables and I am sure matters of the sort that are coming up today were discussed. If they were not, I will certainly write to the noble Lord, but I cannot believe that they were not discussed.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
It would be helpful to know with which organisations intellectual property was discussed.
Lord Henley
I commit to writing to both noble Lords on that issue. I beg to move.
Designs and International Trademarks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Designs and International Trademarks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the Intellectual Property Office has been preparing for a range of outcomes to our negotiation with the EU. The regulations form part of that preparation and are intended to ensure that the system governing intellectual property rights in the UK continues to function in the event of no deal being agreed when we leave the EU on 29 March.
For designs, much of our existing domestic legislation derives from EU directives, which are implemented through the Registered Designs Act 1949. Under the EU design regulation, the appearance of a product can be protected under a registered community design, granted by the EU Intellectual Property Office. This system runs in parallel to our domestic system, so protection in the UK can currently be obtained by registration under either or both the EU or UK systems.
Shape and appearance can also be protected under the unregistered community design. This is automatically established when a design is first shown to the public and is particularly valued by design-intensive sectors such as the fashion industry. Like registered design, the UK provides a parallel domestic system. However, the terms of UK unregistered design are different from those of EU unregistered design. After exit, protection in the UK for existing registered and unregistered designs under the EU regulation will be lost. The draft instrument uses the powers provided by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to address deficiencies in UK design law that would arise upon exit and to ensure that such EU design rights are not lost.
In addition to the rights granted by the EU Intellectual Property Office, businesses can obtain EU-wide registered design and trademark protection through an international system administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization. This system enables businesses to protect their designs and trademarks in multiple territories via a single application, filed in one language. Both the EU and UK are contracting parties to this system. Like registered EU rights, international EU rights are protected through EU regulations, meaning that a failure to act will result in the protections afforded to these rights also being lost.
This instrument ensures that replacement rights will be provided to those who own registered EU designs on exit day in the form of a “re-registered” UK design. We will preserve UK protection through the “continuing unregistered design” for those who hold unregistered EU design rights at exit day. These new UK design rights will be fully independent of the corresponding EU right. However, they will retain the effective date of the EU design and, in the case of a reregistered design, any other relevant dates that were filed as part of the original EU application.
Because the terms of EU unregistered design right are broader than those provided by existing UK unregistered design, we are also introducing a new type of UK right called “supplementary unregistered design”. In doing so, we will ensure that the full range of design protection provided in the UK prior to exit day will remain available after we leave the EU. This new right will function alongside existing UK unregistered design. An EU unregistered design that exists before exit day will continue to provide protection in the UK through the continuing unregistered design, while those who disclose new designs in the UK after exit day will enjoy continued access to the characteristics of EU unregistered design through the new supplementary unregistered design right.
The instrument also ensures that registered designs and trademarks which are protected in the UK through EU designations under the Hague agreement and the Madrid protocol will continue to be protected in the UK after we leave the EU. For international designs that designate the EU, we will create comparable reregistered UK designs just as we are with EU designs registered at the EU Intellectual Property Office. For international trademarks designating the EU, we will create a comparable UK trademark, taking an approach similar to that set out in the EU trademarks exit SI, recently approved by both Houses.
As with reregistered designs and comparable trademarks being created from registered EU designs and trademarks, these new rights will be fully independent of the corresponding international designs and trademarks, but they will inherit their effective dates and will be treated as if applied for and registered under UK law.
The instrument further explains the approach that will be taken for registered community design applications and international design and trademark applications which are pending on exit day. Those with such a pending application will be able to file a new application in the UK, claiming the earlier filing date of the EU application. To claim the earlier filing date, the application must be submitted to the IPO within nine months of exit day.
The instrument also sets out provisions to accommodate other particulars of EU and international design and trademark protection, including deferment of design publication and the use of subsequent designations to create multiple EU protections under a single international trademark registration. As these new UK rights can be challenged, assigned, licensed and renewed in their own right, the instrument also contains provisions to accommodate those procedures.
Finally, there are miscellaneous amendments to existing UK trademark and design law to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be an EU member state or a member of the European Economic Area. Although this SI has not been subject to a formal consultation, the IPO has discussed options for preserving EU and international design and trademark rights with both UK stakeholders and the World Intellectual Property Organization. These regulations represent the culmination of those discussions. The IPO ensured that businesses and legal practitioners were made aware of these changes through technical notices published in September last year, and it will also provide full business guidance once the draft instruments are made.
The regulations are a small but vital part of ensuring that the intellectual property system continues to function if the no-deal outcome arises. I hope that noble Lords will support them and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out the scheme. I have just one or two questions so as to gain a greater understanding of the background.
The Explanatory Note, which forms part of the statutory instrument, states on page 69:
“An impact assessment has not been published for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, public and voluntary sectors is foreseen”.
The Explanatory Memorandum then sets out precisely what the costs are. If the department has not conducted an impact assessment, how can it be sure that no significant costs will arise? If a design is not reregistered, will it lapse? In the view of my noble friend and the department, is a deadline of nine months following exit day for reregistering a design sufficient, given the sheer volume of designs that I understand are in play? There seem to be different figures for the costings, and it would be helpful to know what those costings are.
Paragraph 7.10 on page 5 of the Explanatory Memo-randum, under the heading “Deferred publication”, says:
“Rights holders with a deferred design at EUIPO that request deferment in the UK will not be able to defer publication for more than 30 months overall”.
Therefore, there is a discrepancy, with one deadline being nine months and the other being 30 months. Does that mean that rights holders will have an extension between nine and 30 months? Presumably this would not be affected by something subsequently being negotiated in the event of a deal being agreed, as with earlier statutory instruments. Paragraph 7.10 goes on to say:
“As these designs will already be examined by the EUIPO, no formal examination … will take place at the UK IPO”.
That seems sensible indeed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as with the last SI, the noble Baroness has put her finger on a large number of issues. Although this SI does not compete with the 600-page one that is still to come, I am afraid that, even at 60 pages, its length demonstrates the number of rights that sadly are going to be lost and which are extremely valuable to designers, particularly fashion designers and particularly at events such as London Fashion Week.
I start by asking whether the Minister could expound the situation as far as the exhaustion of design rights of this nature is concerned. The situation was wonderfully simple for those who wished to exhibit new designs at London Fashion Week, for example, knowing that their designs would be protected on the continent—those who exhibited in Paris had them protected here, and those who exhibited on the catwalk here had them protected all over the EU. Perhaps the Minister will explain what the actual exhaustion situation will be, particularly with the new SUDRs.
The mechanisms are relatively straightforward. These are similar to those adopted for the equivalent of the EU trademark. As I read it, there is a level of automaticity about the registration of the new right. It would be churlish not to welcome the fact it will include the features that are characteristic of the European design right, in terms of lines, contours, colours, shapes, textures and so on. That is an extremely important aspect.
I assume that, although there is a level of automaticity—entirely as the noble Baroness said—the sting will come in the renewal at the end of the three years, or whenever it occurs. The Explanatory Memorandum talks about this costing a total of £500,000. It would be useful to know where that estimate derives from.
Again, we are told that relevant stakeholders were consulted. Can the Minister again unpack whatever round table it was that took place? It is rather like Colonel Mustard in the drawing room: where was the deed done on consultation? It is important that we know when examining these statutory instruments that the right people were consulted and are happy, as far as it is possible to be happy with a no-deal Brexit SI, with the proposals set out. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which have covered much of the ground that I was going to raise, so I shall not go back over it. As both of them have said, this is a complicated area. My feeling from the comments made is that it is likely to become more complicated after a no-deal exit, not least because of an additional design right.
On that point, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, it has taken this rather odd set of circumstances to persuade the Government that there is a problem with our whole range of design rights. We have raised in the House before the question of why there is such a focus in the UK on registered design rights, as against the very much larger number of unregistered design rights used in fast-moving industries such as fashion and why those industries do not use the registration system at all. Bringing in another model just to try to fill a gap seems to overcomplicate the whole structure, although it provides additional cover, as the noble Lord said, and I welcome that.
Does the Minister recognise that an issue is looming here? Do we need another in-depth look at this whole area to try to unbottle some of the problems that we have caused in the past few years by bringing in additional layers of legislation and regulation and consider whether we need a new approach, because the industry has moved away from the current regulatory structures?
Having said that, a number of points raised need answers, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say. I have only a couple to mention. The noble Baroness mentioned paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I have two points on that. At paragraph 12.11, there is a rather odd piece of typography. It states:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because [].”
There are just two square brackets, so we do not know why it was not prepared, although we can guess. Can the Minister confirm why we have not had an impact assessment and not leave us hanging? It is a bit like a missing third act.
I have a point about cost recovery, which was well argued by the noble Baroness. The resourcing issues of this are not small: they may be £500,000, they may be £375,000, but they are still substantial. On a cost-recovery model, who pays? Are we saying that designers currently registering designs—which is about 10% of the total design component of industry—are carrying the costs not only of the existing arrangements but the additional burden of having to produce another registered design system introduced because of the possibility of defects in the relationship of those registered on the European basis? It is all very well saying that this is a benefit to the designers, but it is at a cost. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm my reading of the situation.
I asked this question on the previous statutory instrument, but I did not get a full answer. We seem again to be engaging in asymmetry. There would be an argument for saying that if we have to have a no-deal exit, when that happens, the arrangements for design protection must be limited to the UK because no reciprocity is promised from the EU, yet here we are saying that we in the UK will continue to recognise the registration process which takes place in EU countries after we leave but are unable to offer that right to those who register designs with the UK, even with the additional right. Why are we doing that? Is that an asymmetric approach, or is there something we do not know about the arrangements that have been made for that? I am not against what has been going on. However, if I am right, I think the consequences are that, while overseas or European designers may benefit from having their designs copyrighted—the catwalk example is a good one, in that you can have a fashion show in Paris and be confident that your designs will be covered in Britain—in Britain, we will not be able to do that because there is no necessary reciprocity. That seems unreasonable and I would be grateful to know who benefits from it when we hear from the Minister.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will start with consultation and explain what we did. I will not repeat what I said on the previous SI, but the important thing is that, although we were not able to consult fully in the way one might have wished, the IPO has engaged with businesses on the implications of exit ever since the referendum result. We have sought to maximise continuity in the no-deal scenario and in the early stages of negotiation on the future partnership. As I said earlier, revealing the details of our continuity approach through public consultation might have risked that. The individuals who took part in the technical review did so in a personal capacity; we invited all sorts and I hope we had a representative group. They were chosen because of their past experience as representatives of various stakeholder bodies which usually engage in consultation with the IPO.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for giving way. We have been over this ground before and I do not want to prolong the debate. However, the essential difference that is now emerging across all the SIs that we have been considering is the question of whether consultation has been carried out under Cabinet Office rules or not. If it is done under Cabinet Office rules, there are procedures, processes and resulting consequences, including publication and the reporting of all evidence received. I think we all agree that this would probably have helped materially in the process of going through all these statutory instruments.
The second point is that the consultation has then got to be on an open and representative basis, rather than selecting people from organisations with which the department, quite rightly, has ongoing and continuing discussions. The problem with this approach is that it tends to give the impression that those who have been consulted are speaking in their official capacity, when the Minister is making the point quite clearly that that is not the case and that this is very much an informal, personal discussion, because the consultation is not happening under Cabinet Office rules. That is the point we are all making; I do not think we need to dwell on it, but we should accept that that is the situation so that we do not get mixed up between the two systems.
Lord Henley
I am glad that the noble Lord is prepared to accept that point. Obviously, we could not follow the Cabinet Office rules—I was trying to make that clear. They are not strict in that respect and there was no absolute necessity to follow them on this occasion. However, we wanted to make sure that we consulted enough and consulted appropriate people to make sure that we were not going into this blind—not that we would have been doing so even if we had not consulted.
I move on to the other hardy perennial—the impact assessment. We assessed the impact using the better regulation framework in line with the Treasury’s Green Book guidance. The impact was deemed to be less than £5 million so a full impact assessment was not required. Analysis is focused on the direct impact of the relevant SI compared with the current legislation, and analysis of the wider impacts of the UK’s exit from the EU has previously been published in the form of the long-term economic analysis, which was published in November 2018. My noble friend asked how we could be so sure of that. I want to make clear that our renewal fee estimates are based on the proportion of registered community designs currently held by UK businesses. That figure is 7% and the calculation was based on that.
My noble friend then gave the figure of 375,000 or roughly half a million and asked whether the fees would increase because of this. UK-registered design fees were subject to significant reductions in 2017. We have no plans to increase these fees to accommodate the cost of converting registered community designs. My noble friend also asked whether a design would be allowed to lapse if it were not reregistered. Creation of a reregistered design will be automatic—the holder will be granted the reregistered design if he or she holds a registered community design on exit day.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I understand that there is provision for reregistration—as the Minister describes it—for European designs that are in the pipeline.
Lord Henley
I think the noble Lord is correct. If I have got that wrong I will write to him. He also asked about designers being able to disclose their unregistered designs in the UK and whether they would be protected from copying in the EU. A registered design will need to be disclosed in the EU first to be protected there should we leave without a deal. The statutory instrument provisions allow us to negotiate reciprocal arrangements on first disclosure with third countries—which may be the EU, individual countries within it or wider—but that has to be a subject for a future agreement.
My noble friend also asked about the discrepancy between the nine months’ deadline for pending applications and 30 months for deferred publication. The UK will honour the EU deferment period. We will not allow designs to exceed 30 months in total. Applicants will be allowed to file an application claim for a 12-month UK deferment within the nine-month period. However, in some circumstances the full 30 months will fall short. Unless already subject to deferment, applicants will have only 21 months in total.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Does the Minister think it is clear from the instrument that there is the 21-month discrepancy? He said in moving and introducing the regulations that it was nine months. I picked up from reading the statutory instrument that it was 30 months. He has now said that it will be 21 months. I am concerned that if I were a designer and not au fait with these instruments I would be confused about the period.
Lord Henley
As I said, 21 months is 30 months less nine months. I was trying to make clear that the EU deferment period will not allow designs to exceed 30 months in total. Within the nine-month period, applicants will be allowed to file a UK application claim for a 12-month deferment. However, in some circumstances the full 30 months will fall short, unless already subject to deferment and then applicants will have only 21 months in total. I think it is clear—if not, I might have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on that matter.
I will move on to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the qualification for holding a UK unregistered design right. Currently, the UK law says that someone who lives in or carries on a business in a member state can claim UK unregistered design protection. That is because of Section 217 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which says that any qualifying person—someone who lives in or runs a business in the qualifying country, which is defined to include a member state—can claim a UK unregistered design right. If we did not make any change to this, after exit day people and businesses in the EU would be able to claim new UK unregistered design rights while people and businesses in the UK would lose their equivalent rights in the European Union. That would create an imbalance between the UK rights holders and the EU rights holders. The UK law is therefore being amended to limit the geographical criteria for a qualifying person to claim unregistered design protection. That means that, after the UK’s departure from the EU, a company based in a member state will not qualify for UK unregistered design.
Finally, I will address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about what would happen if one had a registered community design application which was still pending in the EU Intellectual Property Office on exit day. Businesses with applications which are still pending on exit day must file new UK-registered design applications to obtain continued protection in the UK after exit. However, where a new UK application is filed within nine months of exit day, it will retain the earlier filing date recorded against the corresponding EU application. That will ensure that those with pending registered community design applications will not lose any rights in the UK.
I go back to the point raised by my noble friend, to try to make it a bit clearer, on the nine months provided for pending trademark and design EU applications. The time period was established following informal consultations, and stakeholders who were consulted were content in the main with those nine months. I appreciate it was not the full consultation the noble Lord would have liked.
I think I have answered most of the questions—
Lord Clement-Jones
Before the Minister sits down, could he answer my question on exhaustion of rights?
Lord Henley
I apologise to the noble Lord. Would he be happy to allow me to write to him on exhaustion of rights? I think that might make life easier.
Lord Clement-Jones
I thank the Minister. It is of course a very important aspect for the fashion industry.
Lord Henley
I fully accept that and will certainly write to the noble Lord as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 7 February 2019.
The protection of consumers from unsafe products is at the heart of the legislation before us today. It has a single yet crucial objective—to ensure that, in the event of no deal, the UK continues to have a robust and highly effective product safety and legal metrology regime. It ensures continued protection for consumers across the UK and provides certainty and clarity for businesses.
The UK product safety and legal metrology regime is among the strongest in the world. It is vital that we continue to retain such a robust system, even if the UK leaves the EU without a deal in place. The legislation will not change the existing system or approach taken, which I know is supported by stakeholders. The changes are limited to those necessary to ensure that the 38 product safety and metrology laws it covers will still work effectively on exit.
Before I say more, I would like to explain the approach we have taken, because I appreciate that some noble Lords may have concerns that such a large instrument may be difficult to navigate.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is not the navigation but the strain on our hands.
Lord Henley
I make no comment.
I assure the Committee that this approach has been designed to increase understanding and reduce the number of similar instruments that would otherwise be needed. Many cross-cutting issues are the same for different products. These have similar definitions, obligations and requirements. As a result they require similar amendments, which it makes sense to group together into one instrument rather than to separate out into many different instruments. Another reason for the size of this instrument is the lengthy technical schedules. These are used widely by industry, and incorporating them here from retained EU law makes it easier for businesses to see and understand the legislation as a whole.
During development of this instrument, we have been mindful of the impact on business of changes to processes as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU. Where possible, we have given businesses time to adjust, including an 18-month transition period for importers for any labelling changes and a 90-day transition period for companies notifying key safety information for cosmetic products already on the market. We have also engaged with businesses on the drafting. Drafts of the schedules were shared with stakeholders and feedback obtained. Stakeholders, including trade associations, industry experts and enforcement agencies, took part and welcomed this approach. As a result we have a better understanding of the main requirements and concerns of stakeholders, including businesses, and have been able to reflect these in the legislation that is before us today. In addition, and given the importance of this area of law, we have completed and published a full impact assessment to ensure complete transparency—despite the impact being below the threshold at which an impact assessment is required.
On the detail of the instrument, it is important to repeat that it will not change the UK’s approach to product safety. It keeps important elements; for example, it retains the requirement for conformity assessment to ensure that products meet the essential requirements set out in the legislation, including the need for assessment by third-party organisations where that is currently required. It retains the use of standards that give rise to presumptions of conformity with the legislative requirements, making it easier for businesses to ensure that their products are safe by following a designated standard.
Taking action to protect consumers from unsafe products remains vital, and this legislation ensures that the UK’s market surveillance system will continue to work to limit the number of unsafe and non-compliant goods available to UK consumers and businesses. It also gives ongoing recognition of existing authorised representatives in the European Economic Area for any appointed before exit, while those after exit will need to be in the UK.
For cosmetic products, due to the risk they pose to human health, responsible persons—who play a key role in ensuring the safety of cosmetic products—will be required to be based in the UK from the point of exit. By addressing these issues we are able to give business certainty and—crucially—we will retain our ability to remove unsafe or non-compliant products from the market.
To conclude, I hope that the Committee will agree that maintaining a functioning product safety framework in the event of no deal is essential both for consumer safety and business confidence. Without this legislation in place, there would be major risks to the safety of consumers—the safety of the toys our children play with, the cosmetics we all use every day, and the electrical items which are found in abundance in our homes. Maintaining these protections is vital to people across the country. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for setting out the Government’s position on this SI. When I first lifted the SI, which I understand weighs 4.5 kilograms, my first thought—
Lord Henley
The figure that I have is 2.54 kilograms, but I am quite happy to be corrected.
Baroness Crawley
Oh, 2.54. I was told that it was 4.5 kilograms, so the figure has doubled. My first thought was: thank goodness for the Explanatory Memorandum. I tried reading the instrument without the Explanatory Memorandum just to torture myself, but I did not get very far without a stiff drink.
When I read the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s acknowledgement that the SI had to be corrected and relaid because of legal drafting errors in an earlier version, it did not fill me with great confidence. The scrutiny sub-committee voiced concern at the department’s decision to combine so many different legislative measures in a single statutory instrument, and I certainly agree with that concern. I come to this as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and as a guardian of hallmarking in the Birmingham Assay Office.
It is virtually impossible to scrutinise this instrument effectively with the crazily reduced time limit of 29 March. The scrutiny sub-committee expressed concern about uncertainty and the impact that leaving the EU’s produce safety regime in a no-deal scenario could have on UK consumers and businesses. In that context, I should like to put some questions to the Minister.
On the category of cosmetics, for instance, paragraph 7.19 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that,
“this instrument will make further amendments to ensure the continued protection of UK consumers after exit. In a ‘no deal’ scenario it is likely that the UK will no longer have access to the EU Cosmetics Products Notification Portal which provides essential information to National Poison Centres to protect public health. Work has already begun on a UK replacement database”.
Can the Minister guarantee that no British consumer of cosmetic products will be put at risk of being poisoned? The Explanatory Memorandum uses the phrase “Work has already begun”. Will that really reassure British women—the principal consumers of cosmetics—that all cosmetics made at home and abroad will be safe? What will a functioning statute book actually look like in the cosmetics sector, and could rogue cosmetics firms set themselves up with the precise purpose of circumnavigating loose consumer protection in this area and making fast bucks from an overly trusting shopping sector, especially online? Is this the kind of no-deal consequence that we are facing in this sector? Also, what is the timescale for the completion of the UK’s replacement cosmetics product portal?
Perhaps I may also ask the Minister a few questions about consultation. Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Department did not undertake a public consultation”.
At least that has the virtue of honesty and brevity. But further down the page we read, at paragraph 10.3:
“Informal consultation has taken place with a good cross-representation of stakeholders, including trade associations and other industry representative bodies across the product areas covered by this instrument”.
Can the Minister give us his definition of “informal” and “good”, as in,
“good cross-representation of stakeholders”?
How many meetings took place with the stakeholders? Did the cross-representation of stakeholders have the Explanatory Memorandum available when they looked at this SI? If they did not, I admire their superpowers. Did the informal consultation involve, say, trading standards, the Scottish Government or the CBI in all its regional forums, and were the meetings in situ or just a set of emails and phone calls? If we leave the EU without a deal, is this a good time to be “informal” about commercial regulation?
I have a few final questions. On the impact of this SI, paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The impact on business has been looked at in an Impact Assessment … for this instrument”,
and has been assessed as de minimis. That is all right, then. However, later in the Explanatory Memorandum there is a reference to how much this whole procedure will cost businesses, and it does not seem like small beer. Paragraph 12.3 informs us that some of the 241,000 businesses that are to be affected will try to familiarise themselves with the new inventory of regulations. The cost estimate is put at £19.6 million, which is a substantial sum in itself, on the assumption that the average business leader will need only three hours to build total operational familiarity with these new rules. That is ludicrously optimistic. To take the example of a managing director of a company in Birmingham—a city I know well—which trades across Europe and indeed the world, she can get to work on a Monday morning and will have absorbed the consequences for her business of a no-deal Brexit by lunchtime that day. Is that the Government’s professional opinion? I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, because we overlapped for at least five years as Members of the European Parliament. The noble Baroness referred to cosmetics; I think we will both remember the fevered exchange we had with constituents on animal testing. I echo her remarks.
I am sure my noble friend will be only too aware of the criticism that has been levelled at his department, and I feel for him most deeply, because this epic package is the surest cure for insomnia that any Minister could wish for. Could he put our minds at rest, and those of the members of the sub-committee? I am mindful of the problems we have already heard: this instrument had to be reissued because there were minor drafting errors in the original script, plus the fact that the impact assessment was published subsequently, which meant that the scrutiny committee was not able to perform its function because it did not have that document in front of it.
I do not detract from the fact that this is a very necessary piece of legislation, but I hope that this will not be the way forward. There will be instances where regulations fall naturally together, but the very number of pages here, and the fact that this has had to be repeated and that the impact assessment could not be packaged together with it, must surely be a cause of concern for the department. I do not want to go down this path again.
I have a number of questions. The sub-committee noted that there is considerable uncertainty, for reasons that have been well rehearsed, about the possible impact on UK consumers and businesses of leaving the EU’s product safety regime. Does the Minister share the concern of the scrutiny committee’s Sub-Committee B about the impact that the loss of access to EU product safety databases could have on UK consumers? Even at this late date, might the department be able to provide that information in writing to the committee before the SI transfers from here to the Chamber? That concerns me, given that it relates to offshore installations, other major industries and explosives as well.
I want to share one anecdote with my noble friend. In a previous ministry—it was the Department of Trade and Industry, under a Conservative Government, I think—it was decreed that second-hand toys could no longer be sold in charity shops because of the danger that the eyes and other pieces might be displaced and be a great safety risk to small children. What I was not prepared for was the amount of correspondence—in those days, they were hard-copy letters; people printed out a standard letter and we received multiples of it because we had thousands of constituents. That was an unintended consequence of the toy safety directive as it was implemented in UK law at that time. One might say that it was gold-plating, so it would be nice to know that nothing is being gold-plated here and that we are just transferring what is already in UK law. If my understanding is correct and we lose access to EU product safety databases, it must surely set alarm bells ringing.
With so many regulations or schedules to regulations bundled together here—and following on from what was itemised by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley—is my noble friend convinced that we are not missing a matter of public policy here? This is our one opportunity to discuss it before we pass the regulations in the Committee and subsequently in the House.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the statutory instruments Sub-Committee B, along with my noble friend Lord Rooker, who is in his place. I want first to thank the Minister for arranging the briefing meeting that took place last week. It is quite an unusual event for a full-scale briefing invitation to go to all Peers. I think it was at the request of the sub-committee, but it is recognition that this is quite an unusual statutory instrument.
I shall not go over the points raised about the sub-committee’s comments. My only question is in reference to the Health and Safety Executive, which is referred to in paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum as one of the organisations that has given technical input. I commented at the briefing and repeat today that this is not the first statutory instrument for which extra resources will be required by the Health and Safety Executive. It should be noted officially that it will be under some strain in completing its responsibilities in this area, particularly as I understand that it has been without a chief executive for at least six months. Can the Minister assure us that some inquiries will be made about why that is and that somebody will be in post as soon as possible?
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, I am a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The other interest I declare—as it is pertinent to the remarks I want to make—is my chairmanship of the government-appointed national accreditation body, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, or UKAS. In that role, I welcome the work that has gone into this statutory instrument in respect to the transposition of the EU regulation on accreditation. I also welcome the consultative approach taken by BEIS and the Office for Product Safety and Standards with UKAS and other relevant stakeholders and the engagement surrounding that consultation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I thank the Minister and his officials for the briefing we were offered on this statutory instrument.
I recognise that transposing EU regulations to make them operable under UK law necessitates some changes. None the less, the reassurance that there has been no change to government policy is important. Therefore, UKAS is generally supportive of the way that the accreditation regulations have been transposed. We are reassured by the Government’s continuing commitment to maintaining the United Kingdom’s regulatory standards for product safety and the conformity assessment activities required for demonstrating compliance. We welcome the fact that UKAS’s position as the sole national accreditation body has been retained.
However, there are one or two potentially negative impacts from the amendments to EU Regulation 765/2008, the accreditation and market surveillance regulation amendment. My one question today relates to what measures are in place to prevent a competitive and possibly profit-driven rather than a not-for-profit accreditation market developing for United Kingdom-based conformity assessment bodies. Have the Government considered what else they might do to safeguard UKAS’s position as a not-for-profit national accreditation body and to prevent other accreditation bodies offering accreditation in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for conducting a consultation on this “minor” piece of legislation last week and for his explanatory letter to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which has been passed on to me. However, after the meeting last week I have rather more questions now than I had in the first place.
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, this SI creates a new independent regime for checking product conformity, initially mirroring EU product-safety standards. The Government have combined 38 measures into one, creating a piece of legislation over 600 pages long. The concerns that I outlined at the meeting—which were subsequently outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, as well—regarding the breadth of industries and the number of sectors covered by this instrument remain. It makes it difficult for Parliament to read and scrutinise let alone those organisations to which it actually applies. Any company, small or otherwise, looking at this piece of legislation would be daunted, and I do not accept the argument that the repetition over all the different sectors covered will be reassuring and ensure consistency of treatment between different areas, as was mentioned at the meeting last week.
I also do not think that the 241,000 businesses which will be covered by this instrument will thank the Government for making them wade through so much paperwork to find what they need. Surely one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society is that people should be able to know what the law is and easily understand how it applies to them. Today’s SI has the potential to undermine that principle.
We know that there is a premium on time before 29 March, and we certainly have plenty of SIs to get through, but the Government could have laid each of the measures separately and then grouped them together in smaller debates. Companies, and consumers, will not thank them for this tombstone of an SI.
At the meeting last week, I also raised the costs of implementation, which have been calculated at a total of £25 million. The analysis and evidence summary talks of a corporate manager or director taking an average of three hours to familiarise themselves with the new legislation. The £25 million is supposed to cover an estimated £54 billion-worth of GVA and £63 billion-worth of goods from our exporters to other EU countries, with about £104 billion imported from EU countries.
The impact assessment does not include the wider impact caused by the separation of the UK and EU product safety regimes. It is surely here where the biggest costs to businesses of a damaging no-deal Brexit would lie. No assessment that I can see is made of the cost of relabelling products—removing the old CE marker and substituting the new UKCA one. The manufacturers’ organisation Make UK told the BBC that,
“thousands of companies are going to have to spend millions of pounds collectively on changing all their markings to comply with the new mark”.
It does not include the cost to British exporters of having to seek approval from two notifying bodies: one based in the UK and one based on the EU.
My first question is: what assessment have the Government made of those costs to UK businesses and what knock-on effect will they have on consumer prices? Is this not another reason why the UK would be foolish to leave on 29 March without a deal? That is a rhetorical question: the Minister and I both know the answer to it.
My second question, to which I would appreciate an answer, regards the impact of a no-deal Brexit on our 176 notified bodies operating in the UK which provide more than 4,000 jobs between them. If the EU does not allow UKCA-marked products to be sold in the EU, there will be no incentive for foreign manufacturers to have their products certified in the UK. They will go to an EU-notified body to receive the CE mark and then import the products into the UK. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? In the light of it, are the Government seeking assurances from the European Commission that it would accept UKCA products in a no-deal scenario?
On the subject of the CE mark, I should like to ask a question on behalf of the charity Electrical Safety First. It is concerned that although the UK Government have created their own mark, it will not be a consumer mark widely recognised by the public. What plans do the Government have to raise awareness of the new mark among consumers? What are the timings and what transition plans are there? Electrical Safety First would like the Government to work with it and industry to raise awareness of the UKCA. That sounds like a fair offer to me. How does the Minister respond?
Next, I should appreciate some clarification on the expiry of the CE mark. The Government have decided that they will continue to allow products imported from the EU that bear the CE mark to be sold on the UK market and that this will happen unilaterally, regardless of whether the EU agrees to allow UKCA-marked products to be sold to the EU. At the meeting with the Minister, he referred to a transition period of 18 months using the existing marks for importers, and to one of 90 days for cosmetic product imports. We discussed that earlier today. But there appears to be no sunset clause on the SI. I presume the Government will have to change the law to ban CE marked-products from being sold in the UK should they ever wish to do so. Can the Minister clarify whether that is correct?
Finally, I will mention market surveillance. The UK will lose access to RAPEX—the EU’s rapid alert system—and ICSMS, the Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance, which we will replace with our own databases for market surveillance and public protection to help remove unsafe or non-compliant products from the UK market. The charity Electrical Safety First is unsurprisingly exercised about counterfeit goods as well, particularly those sold online. What plans are there to prevent more counterfeit and substandard electrical goods from being sold, particularly online, after Brexit?
I am sorry for the length of my remarks and promise to make it up to the Minister in the next SI, but this is, as I have mentioned, an inordinately long one. I appreciate that I have asked a lot of questions, so will the Minister undertake to write to me on any he may not manage to answer today?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for organising the meeting held last week on this SI—as has been said, it was very useful in covering a lot of the ground that otherwise would have needed to be raised today. It is interesting to have had the experience of going through such an extraordinarily large tome with so many details; it took me into areas of public policy where I did not think I would ever have to go. I particularly enjoyed, and of course immediately read first, the intoxicating liquor order 1988, which was closely followed by the strawberry regulations. Both were of immense interest and, for those who have not yet managed to get that far through the document, worth the journey.
I will not raise many of the points which have been made, but I will come back to a point raised during the meeting which has not yet been properly answered. There is substantial additional work implicit in the change in regulations, which has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy, for the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and the Health and Safety Executive. It is not yet clear that the additional resources that may be required will be funded and that support will be offered. Could the Minister confirm that that will be the case? Additional work will clearly be required; it may be of a short-term and temporary nature, but I suspect that it will be continuing. Assurances need to be given that the additional work will be properly covered, or we will lose.
On that same theme, the Minister said as he introduced this that it was really all about consumer confidence and product safety. Of course, that will be only as good as the body and individuals which have to police it. That will largely fall to trading standards—we have already discussed some of the issues that are raised in this. I asked at the meeting, and ask again: what will the financial arrangement be for this? Clearly we want good product safety and consumer confidence, but will get them only if we pay for them. In the past it has been assumed that the additional work can be picked up by those responsible for trading standards, which are largely local authorities. When primary legislation has gone through this House in the past, we have also asked these questions and had assurances that substantive new additional work applying from primary legislation—such as the recent Bills going through this House—would be funded. Indeed, mechanisms for that have already been described and put in place. Can we again have some confirmation that the additionality implied in these regulations will also be funded?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I forget who it was who said, “Never apologise, never explain”, but I will start with an apology for the sheer size of this SI, which has received some comment—not just at this meeting, but at the meeting I held last week. I am grateful for the comments made by all those who came to that meeting and more widely by others, particularly the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, sit. I also discussed that with the chairman of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. I know he has also had correspondence with my honourable friend Kelly Tolhurst, who has ministerial responsibility for these matters within the department, and with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Baroness Crawley
Will the Minister be kind enough to send me the list of organisations, businesses, market surveillance authorisations and consumer organisations involved in the consultation?
Lord Henley
I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on that and I hope that we can give further and better particulars, as they say in the law. She will then know exactly whom we have spoken to and I hope that she will feel content that we have gone out largely to the right people.
The impact on business was raised by a number of noble Lords. I explained what was behind the impact assessment, which was published on GOV.UK. We found the impacts as being de minimis; they are largely costs of familiarisation. I dare say that, because we are trying to replicate what already exists, familiarisation should not be too much of a problem. As is always right and proper, the impact assessment was shared with the Regulatory Policy Committee. I hope that the smooth arrangements we have put in place will help businesses in understanding that some of the new administrative requirements will make life easier and ease the impact of exiting the EU.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, asked about the cosmetics database and whether I could guarantee that no consumer would be put at risk. She is right to emphasise the importance of this, because cosmetics can have a detrimental effect if not properly policed and supervised in the right way. The SI includes a requirement that all cosmetic products must be safe for human health. Each cosmetic product has a responsible person to ensure that it is safe before it is placed on the market. I assure her that preparations for the UK database are well advanced and trading standards has the power to take action against unsafe products.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
Can I take the Minister back to the costs of labelling and of having to register with two separate bodies? Has any assessment been made of the cost of that? It is an issue that was raised by others who know a lot more about this than I do.
Lord Henley
That is not a direct cost of the SI; it is a cost of leaving the EU. That is why it was not part of the impact assessment. I will, as I am planning to do for one or two other questions she raised, write to the noble Baroness on what the extra costs are likely to be for registering both here and in the EU.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the uncertainty of the loss of access to the product safety database and what effect it will have on consumers. The new product safety database will be available to all market surveillance scientists from exit day. The new service will give the UK national capability to collate information on unsafe and non-compliant products, share information and rapidly alert market surveillance authorities. In addition—as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, who talked about RAPEX—the UK will retain access to any publicly available information on RAPEX.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
RAPEX is very similar to the food alert, which I think is called RASFF—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, knows it by heart. My noble friend just mentioned information that will be publicly available, but it sounds as though we are not going to be part of it. This raises the question: if there was a rapid alert about a product in this country which we wished to share, would we have a reciprocal arrangement? Will that be part of the deal we hope to negotiate?
Lord Henley
That will be a matter for the deal. I was talking about what was publicly available from RAPEX. What we will make available and other such matters go beyond what we are debating at the moment, as we are discussing no deal, but they are matters which we should consider as part of the deal.
I move on to trading standard resources; the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked whether they were sufficient. I have to make it clear that I believe there are no new duties placed on trading standards. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has been working with trading standards to ensure that it has the capability to discharge its responsibilities, including working with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute on EU exit plans. She asked about the appointment of the new chief executive of the HSE. I am afraid I do not have any information on that, but I will add that to the many letters I will be sending out and will write to her.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay asked about the position of UKAS and whether it might be undermined by profit-seeking bodies coming in to take over its job. I make it absolutely clear that there will continue to be just one national accreditation body and that body only will be able to issue accreditation certificates demonstrating that organisations meet the approved requirements. We have it on the record now, but if my noble friend would like me to write to UKAS, I would be more than happy to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asked about the cost of changing to the UKCA mark and the new notified body. The SI means that most manufacturing companies will not have to use the UKCA mark. If a business needs to change to an EU body as a result of the EU’s position on the no-deal scenario, that will be a result of the EU’s position and it is something that would be part of any future negotiations. I also give her an assurance that we will need further legislation should we want to end CE marking recognition, so that will not come through as a result of this.
The noble Baroness asked about Electrical Safety First. Again, I will have to write to her on that. My noble friend asked for an assurance that we were not gold-plating, just as there were accusations when we were taking these things on board the other way many years ago. No gold-plating is going on here; we do not have the powers to gold-plate under the EU withdrawal Act. I hope all we are doing is providing a degree of certainty to the industries concerned and the public that things will continue as before.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on 28 January 2019. Their purpose is to increase the national living wage and all the national minimum wage rates from 1 April 2019. The regulations also include an increase in the accommodation offset rate, which is the only benefit in kind that counts towards minimum wage pay.
The national living wage has had a positive impact on the earnings of the lowest-paid. Between April 2015 and April 2018, those at the fifth percentile of the earnings distribution saw their wages grow by almost 8% above inflation. That is faster than at any other point in the earnings distribution.
The labour market has continued to perform well. The employment rate is at a record high of 75.8% and the unemployment rate is at 4%, the lowest since the 1970s. Increasing the minimum wage is one more way in which the Government’s industrial strategy is boosting people’s earnings power and seeking to raise productivity throughout the UK.
From April, the national living wage for those aged 25 and over will increase by 38p to £8.21, which is a 4.9% increase. The 38p increase in April will mean that a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their pay increase by more than £690 over the year. The national living wage is on course to reach the Government’s target of 60% of median earnings in 2020. The annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker will have increased by more than £2,750 since the introduction of the national living wage in April 2016.
The 21 to 24 year-old rate will increase by 32p, meaning that those in that age group will be entitled to a minimum of £7.70, an annual increase of 4.3%. Those aged between 18 and 20 will be entitled to a minimum of £6.15, an annual increase of 4.2%. Those aged 16 and 17 will be entitled to a minimum of £4.35, an annual increase of 3.6%. Finally, apprentices aged under 19, or those aged 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship, will be entitled to £3.90. This is a 5.4% increase and is the largest increase of all the rates that we are debating today. All these above-inflation increases represent real pay rises for the lowest-paid workers in the UK.
The Government’s green-rated impact assessment estimates that more than 2.1 million people will benefit directly from the regulations. All the rates in the regulations have been recommended by the independent and expert Low Pay Commission. The LPC brings together employer and worker representatives to reach a consensus when making its recommendations. The Government asked the Low Pay Commission to recommend the rate of the national living wage such that it reaches 60% of median earnings in 2020, subject to sustained economic growth.
For the national minimum wage, the LPC has recommended rates that increase the earnings of the lowest-paid young workers without damaging their employment prospects by setting it too high. I thank the LPC for the extensive research and consultation that has informed these rates recommendations, all of which is set out in its 2018 report published in November. At Budget 2019, the Chancellor will announce the LPC’s remit in the years after 2020. The Government have an aspiration to end low pay. This year, we will engage with the LPC, workers and businesses to balance this ambition with the need to protect employment for lower-paid workers.
The Government recognise that as the minimum wage rises, there is a higher risk of non-compliance as a larger share of the workforce is covered by the minimum wage. The Government are committed to cracking down on employers who fail to pay the national minimum wage, and we are clear that anyone entitled to be paid the minimum wage should receive it. Consequently, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has almost doubled the budget for enforcing the national minimum wage and national living wage. Funding reached £26.3 million this year, up from £13.2 million in 2015-16.
HMRC follows up on every complaint it receives, even those which are anonymous; these include those made to the ACAS helpline, via the online complaint form or from other sources. Increasing the budget allows HMRC to focus on tackling the most serious cases of wilful non-compliance. It also increases the number of compliance officers available to investigate national minimum wage complaints and conduct risk-based enforcement in sectors where non-compliance is most likely. In 2017-18, HMRC recovered pay arrears in excess of £15.6 million for over 200,000 workers.
Sustainable increases in minimum wage rates depend on strong economic fundamentals—and those of the UK are strong. The economy has now grown for 24 quarters in a row—the longest streak in the G7. Evidence has also long told us that investment in human capital is crucial for the long-term productivity of the workforce. The industrial strategy sets out our long-term vision for increasing productivity, including through raising the minimum wage, and so boosting the earnings power of the lowest-paid workers. Through these regulations, the Government are building an economy that works for everyone. I commend them to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this statutory instrument and the increases outlined by the Minister. As he knows, next month will be the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the national minimum wage, and I had the honour of being one of the founding members of the Low Pay Commission at the time. The recommendations we made impacted on and benefited 1 million women—and, incidentally, the world did not come to an end, which some forecasts had said would happen.
I am pleased that successive Governments have upheld the principles laid down by the original committee, and I hope that that will continue. Obviously, this was before the national living wage was introduced. However, one omission from our very first report in 1998, before the implementation, was the issue of accommodation offset. We were asked as a committee to look at that again, because we had not seen the significance of it.
I well remember being taken with the committee down to a convent in the middle of the Devon countryside to be gently lobbied by the Mother Superior and a number of nuns about the importance of having an accommodation offset. The Minister will know that it might have been gentle lobbying, but, my goodness, we were in absolutely no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling involved. The experience we had on the committee is a memory I will take with me for a long time. We were conscious that we were creating history, and I am very glad indeed that this is still here for us to admire.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will fulfil the promise I made to the Minister on the previous statutory instrument and be brief. It is also a great relief from Brexit to be discussing something that is current and not contingent on anything else happening.
The statutory instrument talks about the national minimum wage amendment regulations, but the table refers to the national living wage. It does not take much to confuse me. I just want to explore that difference for a minute or two. The uplift of 4.9% for over-25s to £8.21 is very welcome and I accept and welcome the comments from the Minister on the progress that the Government are making to get to 60% of median earnings by 2020.
The concept of the national living wage was introduced by the Government in 2015. I appreciate the Minister’s comments on how the amount has increased but my understanding is that it is not a national living wage because it is not based on actual living costs. The Living Wage Foundation currently calculates it—although presumably it is due for an uplift as well—at £9 per hour and £10.55 in London. It says that the living wage is what people need to earn to live. Citizens UK says that there is a moral imperative on employers to pay that if they can and 4,700 businesses and 104 local authorities do.
We know that 20% of all low-paid workers are in the public sector. Can the Minister say what percentage of public sector workers are in receipt of the living wage? It was very good to hear the Minister’s comments on enforcement. Can he tell me how many companies have been found to be paying below the minimum wage and how many of these have actually been prosecuted?
In conclusion, I hope that we will be moving towards the living wage very soon. It is proven to be good for business because it improves staff morale and retention. It is good for society and for the Government’s coffers too, because 35% of those earnings will go to the Treasury.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of my children is an apprentice aged over 19. He is in the first year of the apprenticeship and so would benefit from the figures that we have in front of us today. I have not discussed it with him but I am sure he will be delighted to hear that there is more money on its way.
My noble friend Lady Donaghy’s comments were well made and it is astonishing that we are 20 years into what was seen at the time as quite a revolutionary policy and which is now, in the words of the Minister who introduced the order, settled between all parties as a feature of our working environment. It is a good thing as it works for all sections of society, particularly those at the lower end of the pay spectrum.
This is the fourth consecutive year that I have been reviewing this order, so I took the change of looking back to last year’s Statement, when the Minister was also responding, although that was only his first time. I will repeat some of the things that were said then because I think that the issues are still relevant. There are two important points to put on record. The document in front of us is an excellent piece of work. Again, I congratulate the team responsible for it. It reads very well indeed. It is a bit scary to go back to what we learned at university about the economics of wage policy and the impact of living and national wages but, nevertheless, it is important to see it all there. The document itself is good but also it plays back to the work done by the Low Pay Commission, in place for 20 years now, but doing fantastic work. It is very good to see its ability to move from the national minimum wage conditions when it was set up in 1998 to now, with the national living wage, which progressively moves the lower paid on full rates up to 60% of the median wage. The commission has adapted and continues to do its work in a way that is important and effective for society as whole.
Three points were made last year which I think have been picked up in the current document. One concerned whether the approach that has been taken to calculate the impact of the national minimum wage has stood the test of time. It was good that the department decided to take external advice from an expert body, and it is good to read the report and evaluation, which goes some way to answer some of the points I raised last time. That gives us a good basis on which to go forward.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I join both the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in offering my thanks to the Low Pay Commission. I had not realised that the noble Baroness was a founder member of it 20 years ago, and I offer congratulations on its 20th anniversary. Unlike her, I have never been lobbied by a Mother Superior from a Devon convent, but one looks forward to all new experiences in life. I will just say that I can imagine what it is like.
We are very grateful to the Low Pay Commission for the work it does. It is a good body that understands that it has to make difficult decisions in trying to come to the right figure for the different rates, representing the interests of those in work, those out of work, employers and the effect on employment. We are grateful to it for its advice.
The Government, as noble Lords will note, set an annual remit for it asking it to recommend the highest possible national minimum wage rates such that it does not increase unemployment. Again, we have that target, referred to in my opening marks and by the noble Lord, of getting to 60% of median earnings by 2020, subject to sustained economic growth. I hope we can do that; we are on track for it at the moment. As I made clear, my right honourable friend the Chancellor will set out further guidance in the Budget Statement for life beyond 2020. The duty of the Low Pay Commission is to advise us. It is then for the Government to produce a figure and put it into the regulations. That is what we are debating today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asked about the difference between the national minimum wage and the national living wage. The latter is just another phrase for the statutory minimum wage that applies to those aged 25 or over. It was brought in in 2016 and we are aiming to get that statutory minimum wage to that 60%. She asked why we could not follow what the Living Wage Foundation suggested. It is possibly better to follow the advice of the body that we have sought advice from—the Low Pay Commission—rather than another external body. I believe that setting the national living wage too high or increasing it too quickly could in the end lead to higher unemployment and harm the very people whom the policy is intended to help. That is why we look to the Low Pay Commission to set those rates; it will draw on economic, labour market and pay analysis, independent research and stakeholder evidence, as well as its own experience from trade unionists, business representatives and economists. I commend the work of the Living Wage Foundation, but the key distinction of the rates recommended by the LPC is that that body has to consider the impact on business.
The noble Baroness also asked about levels of non-compliance and about how many were underpaying. In 2017, 1,000 businesses were found by HMRC to have underpaid the national minimum wage. The cases resulted in £15 million of pay arrears being identified for more than 200,000 workers. There have been 14 successful prosecutions since 2007, but the important thing is to identify the businesses that are non-compliant and get them to comply. She also asked about the percentages of public sector workers receiving the living wage. I will write to her with any exact figures on that.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the large increase in the accommodation off-set. The LPC seeks to raise the accommodation off-set to reach the level of the 21 to 24 year-old rate. A high rate for the off-set better reflects the cost of provision and enables investment in higher standards of accommodation by business. I hope that that deals with that point.
I think that that covers all the points that have been raised. I beg to move.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Modifications and Repeals and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Modifications and Repeals and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today to discuss these regulations. They are part of the Government’s wider programme of secondary legislation before exit day to ensure that the UK’s legal system continues to function effectively when we leave the European Union.
This instrument is being made using the consequential and correcting powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The changes proposed are of a technical nature and do not represent substantive policy changes. They are part of the ongoing work of my department in laying the groundwork for the UK’s withdrawal.
The regulations were initially laid in draft before the sifting committees as a proposed negative instrument. Indeed, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House agreed with my department’s assessment that the negative procedure was appropriate in this case. However, the European Statutory Instruments Committee in the other place recommended that the regulations should be debated under the affirmative procedure. It concluded that,
“the cumulative impact of the amendments is such that the additional safeguard of affirmative resolution is appropriate”.
As is usual, my department was content to accept the recommendation of the committee, and accordingly we are gathered here today to debate the regulations under the affirmative procedure.
These draft regulations have three primary objectives. The first is to make provision for how certain cross-references in UK law to European Union legislation are to be read following exit day. The regulations also make consequential amendments to domestic interpretation legislation to ensure that the rules and definitions within them apply, as appropriate, to the new category of law that will be created on exit day—namely, retained EU law. Finally, they repeal and revoke various pieces of primary and secondary legislation which were made to enable the UK to fulfil its EU obligations. These will become redundant on exit day as a result of the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 and the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I shall now give noble Lords more detail on these three objectives.
First, I shall address the provisions on cross-references to EU legislation. This is quite a technical area, so I will take a moment to go through it carefully and in detail. UK legislation which implements EU law, and EU instruments which will become part of retained EU law, contain many cross-references to EU instruments. There are two types of cross-references to EU instruments: ambulatory and non-ambulatory.
An ambulatory reference is a reference to an EU instrument as amended from time to time, which means that the reference will automatically update when the EU instrument is amended. The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 sets out what happens with existing ambulatory references after exit. A non-ambulatory reference is a reference to the EU instrument in the form that it was in when the reference was made. It does not automatically update when the legislation to which it refers is amended and therefore it would need to be manually updated later.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does not make provision for how non-ambulatory references to EU legislation made up to the point immediately before exit day are to be read. This is being done through these regulations. This issue is quite technical and the regulations need to cover several different scenarios. For example, they need to make sure that references to EU instruments that will be onshored on exit day are read as the domestic version where appropriate. However, this is only if they are up to date. If the reference is not up to date on exit day, it will remain a reference to the version of the EU instrument that was in place when the reference was originally made. It would therefore not reflect amendments made by the EU since the reference was made.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his very careful introduction to the background of the regulations. I should make clear that I have no criticism of the detail of the regulations themselves; I fully understand the reason for them and the explanation he has given has reassured me on all those points.
I have, however, two points on the provisions relating to Scotland. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, here, because she will recall our discussions relating to what is now Section 8 of the Act, when I argued that consent of the Scottish Parliament should be required in the exercise of powers relating to Scotland in any way. As I recall it, she gave me an assurance that the Scottish Government would be consulted on any such amendments and, in the end, I was content with that. It is not in the legislation itself but, rather like the Sewel convention, it is part of the background to the exercise of the power to make regulations under the Act.
My first question is short and technical and relates to the provision in Part 1 of the schedule to which the Minister referred—the reference to the Scotland Act 1998 and the repeal of paragraph 28 of Schedule 8. The reason I refer to it is that it is laid down in Section 8(7) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that regulations under Section 8 may not do various things, among which is to,
“amend or repeal the Scotland Act”.
What is happening here is an amendment to the Scotland Act. That provision is qualified by stating that it does not apply if,
“the regulations are made by virtue of paragraph 21(b) of Schedule 7 to this Act”.
I notice that in the preamble to the regulations, reference is made to that paragraph.
My point is very short. I seek confirmation from the Minister that what we see in Part 1 of the schedule is an exercise of the power under paragraph 21(b) of the schedule and not under Section 8, because if it is under Section 8 standing alone, it would seem to be contrary to the prohibition in subsection (7). I think that is a relatively straightforward point, and I do not imagine that it will cause the Minister any concern.
The second point relates to Part 3 of these regulations which, as the noble Lord has pointed out, amends the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. At first sight, it seems very odd that a UK Minister should be amending an Act of the Scottish Parliament; this very important Act was drafted with great care in Edinburgh. There is no doubt whatever that power to do this was given to Scottish Ministers under Schedule 2 of the withdrawal Act, because this is a devolved matter and there is no inhibition on their powers to deal with devolved legislation as they think fit. It seems that the Scottish Parliament is the natural place to make these amendments. One can understand that the position in Northern Ireland is different, because the Assembly is not sitting; it is obviously necessary to make provision by legislative means and this would seem the appropriate way to do it.
That is really a preamble to what we find set out in paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:
“We have consulted the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Civil Service”.
It is the next sentence which troubles me. It says:
“In particular, we have consulted them on the amendments to the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 and the ILRA 2010; these amendments are made in Part 3 and 4 respectively of the instrument”.
That sentence is wrong, because the amendment in Part 3 is nothing to do with the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 or the IRLA 201; it is an amendment to the interpretation Act made by the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, that sentence does not make sense. The last sentence deals with something different: consultation relating to the technical and consequential repeals to the Scotland Act, which is what we saw in Part 1 of Schedule 2. My question really is this: what is the position in relation to the amendment of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 which we find in Part 3?
Following our long debates on the whole structure of the withdrawal Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will understand my concern that the Scottish Parliament should be properly consulted on matters of this kind. I have to say that paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum does not make it clear. The second sentence is plainly incorrect and there is a gap, because it does not mention that Part 3 is an amendment of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. I ask the Minister for clarification as to what exactly is going on here and whether the consultation, which is fundamental to the exercise of the powers in relation to Scotland, has been properly carried out.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, unlike the distinguished noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I am not a lawyer and am unable to go into the detail that he has. I look forward to hearing the answers to his excellent questions. However, I have three simple questions that I would like to address to the Minister.
The first question is about impact. When this instrument was referred to us for debate, making it an affirmative instrument, the ESIC commented on the cumulative impact, saying that this meant that it should be debated here. As a consequence, we are all here today. There is no impact assessment and there is a statement from the Government saying that there is no need for one. Given the scale of the changes and the consequential effects, it seems that there could well be more than £5 million-worth of work for all the professional services and from companies in all four countries of the UK. I would be interested to hear more on that.
I also make the comment that, after EU exit, it will be much more difficult to find out what is going on in the EU, which is a problem when we are continuing to take European Union changes on board. We cannot even send representatives to the Committee of the Regions any longer, let alone the Council.
How will we keep business and citizens informed of what is going on in the EU? This is an issue which I hope the EU Select Committee, which I serve on, will look at as part of its report on the future bilateral institutional arrangements with the EU 27. This troubles me a bit because I am looking forward to post Brexit and how we will work alongside our friends in the EU 27, allow our citizens to continue to visit them, and our businesses to continue to operate.
My second question is a simple one. There has been no consultation except with the devolved Administrations. How do we know that the quite extensive changes that are being made in this Order are safe?
Finally, as my noble friend knows, I strongly support the Government’s approach to providing a new legal base for the post-Brexit world and for doing that in the orderly way he is pursuing. However, I would be interested in an update on the gaps that there may be on Brexit day, particularly in the not very likely event of no deal. It seems that this Order helps to deal with some of the gaps, but I would be interested to know how many more there may be that we should be worrying about.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend for bringing this statutory instrument before us today. I associate myself entirely with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, particularly on Part 3. I am minded to ask whether adopting this is not really the preserve of the Scottish Parliament. I remember only too well the long hours we spent discussing Section 8 and I hope that that is not something that will be repeated in later statutory instruments when it should be the preserve of the devolved Parliaments. The noble and learned Lord entirely concentrated his comments on the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting, and I wonder whether that is an issue which it is appropriate to bring before the Committee.
Page 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to “non-ambulatory references”, a rather curious expression repeated by the Minister which I do not recall from the Act itself. They are references which are not automatically updated. The memorandum goes on to state in paragraph 2.5:
“These repeals and revocations are needed to remove redundant provisions of domestic legislation”.
This was identified when it was discussed in the equivalent Committee in the other place by our honourable friend Chris Heaton-Harris, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who responded to questions raised by Matthew Pennycook from the Opposition Benches. The second question asked why no references are in fact made to non-ambulatory references in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act itself or indeed in the debate. What my honourable friend Chris Heaton-Harris, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, said in reply was quite astounding. I should like to quote him:
“I honestly do not know what my Department might have been thinking at that time. However, I believe that we have tried to go through this process in the best possible way, so I guess we are heading towards the second of the hon. Gentleman’s suggested answers to his own question, rather than the first. We have gone through a quite legitimate tidying-up exercise”. ”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 21/2/19; col. 6.]
The question to my noble friend the Minister is: was “non-ambulatory references” omitted from the debate by accident or by design? Can he assure the House that this will not recur, that we might not expect any other omissions in the short time available before Brexit day?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I do not know if it was the Minister’s own expression or whether “we are gathered together” was written for him, but I was expecting something a little more exciting after that. I congratulate him for getting through yet another speech, given that his voice is not quite back to its normal timbre. He is also employing what for me is another new phrase, “onshored”. Maybe the people behind him can give us a little clue afterwards about the difference between retained, repatriated and onshored and whether there are any more new expressions coming.
Like other noble Lords, I thank the Minister for trying to make sense of something quite complicated but I am afraid that I have a few questions nevertheless. First, the 2018 Act ends the supremacy of EU law over on UK law on exit day. It was there by virtue of the 1972 Act—as paragraph 6.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum reminds us. It ends because of the repeal of, I think, Clause 1 of the 1972 Act. However, assuming that we get a deal, and that this includes a transition period, some of this supremacy might have to continue through the transition period as we will continue to abide by EU rules then. How and when will the 2018 Act be amended to allow for this?
Secondly, paragraph 7.19 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the regulations amending Section 6 of the 1993 Act—to which the Minister referred—the provisions as to who is eligible to participate in the Committee of the Regions. Can the Minister let me know whether that is the only statutory change that will be required for us no longer to be on the committee? I have not noticed any reference to the committee elsewhere and as this refers only to eligibility and not, for example, selection, role, time limits or anything else about our membership, in domestic law or anywhere else. Can the Minister confirm whether anything else needs amending to make sure nothing else is left that would send people to that committee? Although not mentioned in these regulations, can the Minister also let us know whether any legislative changes about appointment, eligibility or anything else are needed with regard to our membership of what in my day was called the Economic and Social Committee, but which I know has a different name now?
My third question concerns the fact that the regulations now make good the absence, as we have just heard, from the 2018 Act of consideration of non-ambulatory EU regulations. This question may fall to the Minister’s noble friend Lady Goldie, because I think she dealt with this when we took the Bill through. There was quite a discussion about clinical trials at one point. We were concerned that, while the EU rules about clinical trials have been changed, they will not be operative—I think that is the word—on exit day. We were very worried, therefore, that because we would be taking over what was in operation on exit day, these new rules would apply across the rest of the EU after exit day but we would be stuck with the old ones, with enormous implications for whether we could participate in clinical trials that particularly affect orphan drugs and childhood illnesses. That lack of carryover was of concern. I am worried, although I think that particular issue got sorted by some clever intervention, about whether the introduction of these regulations covering non-ambulatory regulations addresses issues where things change over time and are different after exit day in the way we would want them to. Certainly the feeling was that we wanted to stay absolutely in line with EU regulations. I could not quite understand the difference between ambulatory and non-ambulatory sufficiently to know the answer to that.
My fourth question was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and is about what happened when these regulations were dealt with in the Commons, where the Under-Secretary of State admitted that he did not know what his department might have been thinking. He has a good excuse: he did not do the Bill, because he was not there at the time, but this Minister, of course, did, so he might have a little more knowledge and has had advance notice since 21 February about why such references were overlooked. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked whether it was by accident or design, and it would be useful to know. If it was by accident, we understand that, but it would be good to know whether there are similar examples. If it was by design, it would be interesting to know why it did not happen at the time.
Finally, I have a question which is not specifically on these regulations. To date we note that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson, instead of saying, “We will leave on 29 March” said only, “We want to leave on that day and we will work to try to achieve that”. Of course, as we know, the Prime Minister confirmed last week that, should MPs mandate her to seek an extension to Article 50 next week, legislation will be brought forward to amend the EU withdrawal Act’s definition of exit day. Any such regulation to amend exit day would be subject to an affirmative procedure and therefore require pretty swift consideration in both Houses. Can the Minister give us a little advance notice, as I am sure they are already preparing for that, about when an instrument would be laid, given the requirement on the length of time between being laid and being debated? Since it is already 4 March, I think he will understand why I pose this question.
Lord Callanan
First, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I shall deal first with the last question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and commend her for her ingenuity in bringing the subject up in this Committee. As she knows, under the EU withdrawal Act there is a provision for the Government to amend exit day by use of secondary legislation powers. There has been no decision to do that yet. We await details of the various votes that will happen next week, but we remain confident that we will be able to deliver a withdrawal agreement that the House of Commons can vote for with enthusiasm and therefore we will not need to table any references or any further secondary legislation, but if it is required, the ability is there. That is set out in the EU withdrawal Act. That is as far as I want to go with that at the moment in this forum.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am grateful to the Minister. Has he answered both of my points? I had a question about Part 1 of the Schedule, which he has indeed answered, but my other point was on what in Part 3 of the regulations themselves relates to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. I was pointing out a defect in Paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. From what the Minister has said so far, I am not clear whether he accepts that there is a defect in the wording of that paragraph. However, if there is, would the Minister accept that it should be more clearly worded, to make it clear that the Act referred to in Part 3 was the subject of express consultation as well? Furthermore, although I think one cannot now alter the Explanatory Memorandum, could he undertake, when this measure is introduced to the House, to make it absolutely plain that that particular step was taken, just so that we do not have to go over this ground again in the House itself?
Lord Callanan
The noble and learned Lord makes a valid point. It could have been clearer. I will look at it again with lawyers and officials, and we will come back to it in the House. On the Scotland interpretation legislation, some amendments were made in the EU withdrawal Act; these regulations make the consequential provision that the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act. This includes further amendments to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, drafted together with the Scottish Government. But I take his point about the Explanatory Memorandum; we will have a look at it, and perhaps I can write to him and come back to it when we consider it further in the House.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the comments by my honourable friend Chris Heaton-Harris, and the question of why we do not deal with the non-ambulatory references and/or retrospective deficiencies in the devolved interpretation legislation. The principal purpose of the Act is to provide a functioning statute book. However, the Government and Parliament recognised at the time that it would not be possible to make all the necessary legislative changes in a single piece of legislation. That is why the Act conferred on Ministers temporary powers to make secondary legislation to enable corrections to be made to laws which would otherwise no longer operate appropriately once the UK has left, so that the domestic legal system would continue to function correctly outside the EU. I remember at the time we had extensive discussions about it. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, in particular was exercised about ambulatory references. There was discussion about the issue at the time.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
No one is arguing that ambulatory provisions were referenced. The whole thrust of the debate this afternoon is that non-ambulatory provisions were not discussed. This was the sole purpose of the discussion in the other place and is what we would like to understand. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has already indicated that the Explanatory Memorandum is deficient in relation to Scotland, and I would argue that it is deficient in another regard. In paragraph 2.5, it says that we are repealing, revoking and removing redundant provisions. That is not the case; the department is actually adding in an omission. Non-ambulatory provisions were simply not referred to in the debate or the original Act. That is an omission. To correct the record, it was an omission which is quite rightly being addressed. We would like to know whether it was by accident. I know my noble friend is reading a prepared speech, but we have now raised the issue this afternoon of non-ambulatory provisions. Was it by omission? Was it meant to be omitted? Between now and our leaving the European Union, can we expect any other omissions that need to be tidied up?
Lord Callanan
I am not sure that I accept my noble friend’s statement that there was an omission. However, as this is quite a technical matter, perhaps it would be better if we went away and looked at it in detail, and I will write to her about it.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked me about the total figures for statutory instruments so far. The laying of SIs allows Parliament to fulfil its essential scrutiny role and to go through the various steps required. We remain confident that the necessary legislation to fulfil a functioning statute book will be passed by exit day. The current totals are as follows. More than 470 EU exit SIs have been laid to date. They account for over 75% of the SIs that we anticipate will be required by exit day, and over 260 of them have now gone through the various processes and have been made. Good progress has been made and we remain confident that the required SIs will be laid in time for exit day. I think that I have dealt with all the queries that were raised.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am very grateful for the helpful reply that my noble friend gave on the subject of the Joint Committee and the institutional arrangements. It is good news that thought is being given to how to make these work well after exit day. Perhaps, at leisure, he could look at the questions that I asked about consultation and impact assessments. I do not think that he quite replied to them and it would be helpful to know where the Government stand.
Lord Callanan
I shall of course be very happy to do that. I know that my noble friend, quite rightly, takes a close interest in these matters, so I shall be very happy to look at that further and to write to her about it.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Bhattacharyya
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, on 1 March. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Specialist Domestic Abuse Services
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to provide sustainable funding for specialist domestic abuse services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, in January, the Government published their landmark domestic abuse Bill in draft form and a package of non-legislative measures to tackle this issue. These include commitments to fund a range of specialist domestic abuse services. Since 2014 my department will have invested £55.5 million in accommodation-based services to support victims of domestic abuse, including refuges. My department is also conducting a review of how these services are commissioned and funded across England.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
Although I welcome the draft domestic abuse Bill, I share the concern of charities, local authorities and the Home Affairs Select Committee that without secure, long-term and sustainable funding of refuges and specialist services, the desired outcomes cannot be adequately met. Many victims of domestic violence also have complex needs relating, for example, to drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues. Specialist services must also be made available to underpin the strategy. How will the Government ensure that these providers are adequately funded?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and her interest in this area, which I know is considerable. On specialist services, she will be aware that Women’s Aid has said that a good job is being done, but that is not to say that more could not be done. Ensuring that we fund adequate bed space is an issue. She will be aware that we are reviewing how that is provided to ensure a balance between accommodation-based services and provision for those who may wish to stay at home, of whom there are some.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the briefing I have been given suggests that the situation is rather less positive. It states that services of particular national importance such as those for BME women or disabled women have felt the impact of funding cuts most acutely. Given that, as my noble friend has asked, what will the Government do to ensure that these services, which are absolutely vital to the welcome domestic abuse strategy, are adequately and sustainably funded?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I pay tribute again to the noble Baroness, who I know has long taken an interest in this area; indeed, she has helped with legislation recently. She cites disabled victims of domestic abuse, and money is going in to provide a helpline. However, she is absolutely right—we need to ensure that adequate resources are provided. As the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, indicated, a broad range of government departments are involved and hopefully, we can bring all that together during the passage of the Bill to ensure adequate focus and, indeed, adequate resources.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I think it must be clear to everyone that the local authority model of funding services for victims of domestic abuse is not working. By the Government’s own admission, this is a £66 billion problem, and that funding is provided by financially hard-pressed councils that have been subject to 40% budget cuts since 2010. Organisations such as Refuge and Women’s Aid have a hand-to-mouth existence at best. This is not the way to serve abused women and their children. Will the Government consider introducing a sustainable funding model as part of the domestic abuse Bill?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first of all I pay tribute to the people who work in this area. This Friday is International Women’s Day, and it is important that we acknowledge the great work done across the sector. I have had the opportunity of visiting a lot of local authority provision, and it is very good. The noble Baroness is right, in that it is important that we take care of specialist services and take account of the fact that many victims will not want to have care in their immediate area but to escape it. That is why we are having this review, which will inform the way we provide the service in future. I share with the noble Baroness a desire to look at this in the round—perhaps during the passage of the legislation, which is about to go through its draft Bill stage—to make sure it is properly resourced.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister may be aware, in recent years the reported incidence of all types of domestic abuse has increased by over 90% for people aged over 65, compared with 60% for those aged under 65. Can the Minister reassure me that elder abuse will also be tackled, along the lines of the programme run by the Metropolitan Police on the abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults in London?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right about the particular issues that apply to elderly victims. Again, we are funding a helpline, but she is right to focus attention on this issue. The Bill, which is now going through its draft stages, will be the opportunity to broaden the scope of the domestic abuse covered. As she will know, for example, coercive control is in the draft Bill. There is evidence that people are more readily reporting domestic abuse, which is one reason for the increased numbers the noble Baroness refers to. Nevertheless, she is absolutely right that, in the round, we have to make sure this is properly resourced.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Can my noble friend pay particular attention to women who live in very rural, isolated parts of this country? Having represented 600 square miles of rural Devon, I know that women who live in farmhouses isolated from other buildings often find it difficult even to leave the property, let alone receive a visitor, without it being noticed. They often suffer without knowing where they can turn or having access to a wider community. Interestingly, the annual day on which they were allowed to go to the local country fair was the one opportunity some of them had to speak to somebody about the problem at home.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend highlights a very real problem and in doing so, indicates just how broad this issue is. As we have heard around the Chamber, there are many different instances and different victims of domestic abuse, indicating the need to really grapple with this issue. We should all welcome the opportunity the Bill gives to look at it in the round. My noble friend is absolutely right about the needs of victims in rural areas.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, domestic abuse is an appalling, disgusting crime committed behind closed doors. I have raised before the issue of some GPs charging up to £175 for a letter confirming that a victim has been assaulted, so that they can get access to other services. Can the Minister update the House on the progress that has been made in banning this outrageous practice?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I recall the noble Lord rightly raising this issue. The new contract is being revised and considered, and is part of that discussion. I do not have any progress to report at the moment but as soon as I do, I will be happy to write to the noble Lord, if I may, and share that information with the House.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome all that the Government are trying to do to ensure that organisations working in the domestic abuse arena are funded well. Does the Minister accept that organisations such as Women’s Aid can only function well and provide the fullest of services if all the surrounding organisations are available to support women once they leave or before they leave? Will the Government consider ring fencing the funding for domestic violence with local authorities?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right about the importance of resources and the need to ensure that we properly fund our partners such as Women’s Aid, Imkaan and Refuge, which do excellent work. We will have the opportunity to look at this issue as the Bill proceeds. The noble Baroness makes a valuable point.
Brexit: Museums and Galleries
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the impact of Brexit on national museums and galleries.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as the chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, DCMS is working with our world-leading national museums and galleries in England to evaluate the potential impacts of Brexit and supporting them as they develop and implement their plans. Due to the ongoing uncertainty, some national museums and galleries have implemented elements of their plans for Brexit, particularly around the movement of objects in March and April.
Lord Lee of Trafford
Is the Minister aware of the sickening abuse suffered by some front-of-house EU nationals at a number of our great cultural institutions, making many reluctant to wear name badges? That aside, there are three areas of particular concern: the ability to recruit and retain staff, particularly those with language skills; the worry that overseas visitors may give the UK a miss this year, until Brexit issues are clarified; and, importantly, whether DCMS and the Treasury will replace the EU culture funds vital to many building projects and exchange programmes.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first point about staff being abused, we were aware of that, particularly after the result of the referendum was announced, but we are not aware of it recently. I should make it absolutely clear that it is deplorable, unacceptable and should not happen and that we welcome foreign nationals working in and visiting our museums. It is possible that tourism may go down, but we are optimistic. In fact, VisitBritain forecasts that visits will grow by 3.3% this year, which is similar to the average rate.
Turning to European cultural funds, for the museum and gallery sector these are remarkably small. One or two individual museums have had European funding and we will guarantee to support funding until the end of the multiannual financial framework. However, to put it into perspective, all public funding for museums and galleries is about £844 million a year. The biggest European fund, Horizon 2020, has given €14 million in the entire seven-year multiannual framework.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many of the greatest exhibitions in London and the provinces depend on loans from kindred institutions in Europe and elsewhere. Will he give an assurance that this will be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking? If some of these wonderful exhibitions ceased to be, scholarship would suffer, our museums and galleries would suffer, and we would suffer.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree with my noble friend and this has been one of the issues that we have discussed with the museums and galleries. In fact, some of the contingency plans I mentioned are about exactly that: the movement of objects. Museums are using a different route, not taking the short cross-channel crossings, and are allowing more time for that.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, further to the point about the disincentive for people coming to the United Kingdom to work in the industry, whether in galleries, museums or the hospitality sector, £1 spent in a remote community can generate a further £7. However, that requires people to be available to work in hotels, shops and galleries. There is a clear disincentive for them to come. It is six weeks until Easter and the hospitality industry is gearing up for the next season, but it is already saying that it is unable to recruit the young people who make up the backbone of the industry. What will the Government do about that, especially if there is the supposed 3.3% increase in inbound tourism? People will not come back if they do not get good service.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree, and that is why, as I said in an Answer on tourism last week, the tourism sector deal concentrates on skills, recruitment and avoiding a high turnover in jobs. It is trying to make those jobs more long-term to provide the service that visitors rightly expect. The third-quarter figures were down, particularly for short-haul visitors, but they have rebounded. The Office for National Statistics reported a 4% increase in October.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, given last week’s finding of the employment tribunal regarding the National Gallery 27, which supported their legal claim to worker status—having been denied it for decades—does the Minister regret that precious resource from a DCMS body was spent in legal action to justify shoddy work practices? Will he ensure that their claim is settled soon and that the National Gallery is held to account for it? What advice are the Government now giving to other bodies using taxpayers’ money to apply the worst practices of the gig economy?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness’s representation is completely correct. The case, as I understand it, was about workers and the employment tribunal has made a ruling. We expect all our arm’s-length bodies to obey the law. If there is a dispute over that, that is what employment tribunals are for. They are called arm’s-length bodies because their trustees have to arrange and run their organisations in accordance with the law. The Government should not get involved.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I am a former trustee of National Museums Liverpool; I believe the Museum of Liverpool is still the only national museum outside London. I thank my noble friend for reassuring us on the replacement of European Union funding, but can he also reassure us on the issuing of visas for experts, researchers and students, who make so much of our museum opportunities?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am not sure that the Museum of Liverpool is the only national museum outside London; there are the Science Museum Group, the Royal Armouries and the V&A that has just opened in Dundee. I have probably missed one. The point about visas is important, which is why the Government have allowed people to come for three months on a tourist visa. If they want to stay and work in the UK, they will be able to do so for 36 months, subject to security and identity checks.
Women’s Rights: SheDecides Day
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty's Government, following the second global SheDecides Day, what action they are taking to uphold women's rights around the world.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I refer to my interests as published in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s development, diplomatic and defence work promotes our values of gender equality and secures women’s rights around the world. Upholding women’s rights is fundamental to lasting poverty reduction, and to building prosperous, resilient economies and peaceful, stable societies.
Lord Oates
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Will he join me in congratulating the SheDecides movement, on its second anniversary, on championing the rights of women and girls to take decisions about their own bodies and lives?
In view of the UK’s strong record of supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights around the world, will the Government join countries as diverse as Afghanistan, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Senegal and South Africa by appointing a Minister as a global champion of the principles of SheDecides?
Lord Bates
I am very happy to pay tribute to the work of SheDecides. Its launch was attended by a UK Minister, Rory Stewart. It is directing a lot of funding towards the United Nations Population Fund, the UNFPA, of which the UK is a major supporter.
As for appointing a Minister, I cannot think of anyone better than our current Secretary of State, who is not only Secretary of State for International Development but Minister for Women and Equalities.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the sad fact is that when Harriett Baldwin replied to a similar Question she was unable to acknowledge that the organisation exists. I hope the Minister will take the suggestion seriously, because the good thing about this organisation is that it is about empowering women and its diverse nature enables politicians from Africa and Europe to work together to address this fundamental issue. I hope that the Government will take this seriously, not necessarily by appointing a Minister but by ensuring that we have people across government who are able to give support to this organisation in its ongoing work.
Lord Bates
I am very happy to do that. The noble Lord and I are aware that it is a leading ambition of the global goals. Afghanistan and everywhere else have signed up to implementing global goal 5 by 2030. I am very happy to give an undertaking that we will seek to do that. The Secretary of State will make a major speech this week in the lead-up to the UN commission on women next week. On International Women’s Day, which is on Friday, we will set out more of our strategy in this area.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has confirmed that the UK is one of the most generous donors in family planning and sexual and reproductive health for women and girls. The family planning summit last year put the UK at the centre of all this. Will my noble friend confirm that every programme DfID funds will have this at the heart and soul of its work?
Lord Bates
I am very happy to make that commitment. We also have our gender equality strategy, which was published in March last year, which influences every programme we undertake. Some 17 million people have had access to safe methods of family planning since 2015. We want that record to be built upon in future.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that while spending on family planning is good, it falls far short of the SheDecides goals? For women and girls to be truly able to choose for themselves, the neglected areas of safe abortion, adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights, gender-based violence and infertility must all be addressed. Surely our Government see the need to step forward and commit money and a SheDecides UK champion to meet that essential UN SDG.
Lord Bates
This is an area that we have been at the forefront of for some time, even going back to the coalition and the work done by the noble Baroness’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, to raise this issue up the agenda when she was at the department. Violence against women and girls is something we have taken a lead on. My noble friend Lord Hague was at the forefront of raising the issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict. These are areas in which we have a proud tradition, but the need and the cases are still so widespread that we need to take action.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Istanbul convention will have a real impact on women’s lives in Europe, but what is the current status of progress reports, and what will be the status of the convention vis-à-vis Brexit?
Lord Bates
The convention at the World Humanitarian Summit set out a number of ambitions in this area. We have incorporated those into our global strategy for our work with our intentional partners, which is unaffected by the events of Brexit.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that, in upholding women’s rights globally, we have fundamentally failed the women of Syria, of whom 8,000 are being raped and tortured in unlawful detention? As well as the great work of SheDecides and Plan International, is he aware of the Conscience Movement’s work, and will he ensure that it is supported in its endeavours to release the women detained unlawfully in Syria?
Lord Bates
I am very happy to give a commitment to look at that. We have been at the forefront of work with our partners on the UN Security Council to document what has been happening in Syria to women and girls who have been subject to appalling violence to ensure that those crimes are thoroughly investigated and those who are responsible are brought to justice.
Cannabis: Medicinal Use
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that patients in need of medicinal cannabis are able to access such treatment on prescription.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, government officials have been working with colleagues across healthcare and the wider system to ensure that patients can access medicinal cannabis where appropriate. Clinical guidance has been issued by the Royal College of Physicians, the British Paediatric Neurology Association and the Association of British Neurologists. Specialist doctors will consider this before prescribing, but we are clear that the decision to prescribe should be for individual clinicians to make in partnership with patients and their families.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that only about four people have received a prescription for medical cannabis since it became legal on 1 November last year. Doctors have had no training in prescribing cannabis. They need to know the contents, dosages, side-effects and everything else about medical cannabis products. The pressure on doctors with desperate patients whose standard medications are not working or are causing unacceptable side-effects is intense. Doctors urgently need government help. Will the Minister ensure that the medical director of the NHS makes specialist doctors aware of the new guidelines to be launched later this month by the Medical Cannabis Clinicians’ Society, and of the 12-module online training course already available from the Academy of Medical Cannabis?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. This is a challenging area, and the evidence base is still developing. However, the Government are working hard to ensure that awareness is increasing, which is why we have asked NICE to develop guidance to be released later this year and have asked HEE to develop a training package to increase knowledge and awareness among health professionals. It is also why officials are working closely with suppliers and importers to ensure that prescriptions are filled when they are given. We understand that there is work to do on this issue and will continue to do so.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
Will the Minister comment on the issues illustrated in the predicament of a person who has been prescribed the cannabinoid dronabinol, branded as Bedrocan, which is the only medication that has proved effective for her following the failure of 35 different medications previously prescribed to relieve her chronic pain from cervical and lumbar spondylosis? Given that the Chief Medical Officer stated last summer that there is conclusive evidence that cannabis-based products are effective for certain medical conditions, why is this patient still forced to travel to Holland every three months to obtain the medication that her consultant considers essential for her, and why does confusion still reign over licensing procedures? Will the Minister meet me and the person I have mentioned to see if she can introduce some more sense into these arrangements?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am very sorry to hear about the situation he raises and will be very happy to meet him. As far as I can see, there should be no reason for the situation he has outlined. It is up to clinicians to prescribe as they see fit under the guidelines that have been issued.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, when the Chief Medical Officer recommended that cannabis medicines be rescheduled, she produced a report showing that the most rigorous regulatory authorities in the world—those in the US, Australia and Ireland, as well as the World Health Organization—had strong evidence of the benefits of cannabis-based medicines for people with epilepsy. In light of that, it is completely unacceptable that only four licences have been granted. Why are UK patients being deprived of these safe and effective medicines which have fewer side-effects than some licensed pharmaceuticals, such as sodium valproate?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I do not accept the characterisation that the noble Baroness has just given. UK patients are not being denied access to these medications; they are able to access medication via prescription from a doctor who is on the specialist medical register. The Government have acted fast on the review of the best clinical evidence and we are going further with forthcoming NICE guidelines and a Health Education England training package to raise even more awareness.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
What troubles me about the Minister’s answer is that NHS England’s guidance says that medical cannabis can be provided only where all,
“other treatment options have been exhausted”,
and where there is, “published evidence of benefit”. We have heard lots of evidence of the benefit this afternoon but we are right to be worried about the research that is allowing that to happen. Why is it not happening quickly enough? Can the Minister describe what level of opiate addiction and which severe side-effects of other medication can be tolerated before medical cannabis is prescribed?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The evidence base for the quality and effectiveness of these products is limited; it is developing. This is why the Government have asked the MHRA to call for a proposal to enhance our knowledge of these medications. However, we have not waited for this; we have introduced a route via unlicensed medications which allows for doctors who are on the specialist register to prescribe for patients. This is the right route; these are the doctors who will understand the conditions mostly likely to benefit from prescription and who are able to make a judgment about the safety and efficacy of medicinal cannabis. It is the route usually used for unlicensed medications and already set up by the MHRA. We want to see more licensed products in this route, however; we call upon industry to invest in more trials and publish the results and full underpinning data to build our knowledge so that more patients are able to benefit.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
The majority of those guilty of violent terrorist crimes in this country are found to be heavy users of cannabis. When one looks at violent crime outside of terrorism, it seems again—although I do not know the details—that very often the people involved are heavy users of skunk—not the kind of cannabis that we are talking about but the liquid stuff. Are the Government looking at the relationship between the use of these really strong types of cannabis and violent crime, to see whether anything should be done about it?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The medicines we are speaking about are not skunk. The noble Lord is right that all medicines carry risk, but they can also be beneficial. That is why we have introduced a route to allow medicinal cannabis to be used for those conditions where it will be beneficial. The change in the law allows strict access by specialist doctors who, in making the decisions to prescribe, can ensure that the benefit outweighs the harm to the patient and that the restrictions are line with advice from the ACMD. Any further concerns around the kinds of drugs that the noble Lord is talking about are still strictly controlled by the Home Office and by policing.
Parking (Code of Practice) Bill
Monday 4th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 View all Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 146-I Notice for Committee (PDF) - (25 Feb 2019)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that she, having been informed of the purport of the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for bringing the Bill to this stage with his customary aplomb and expertise. It is not a flashy Bill but a necessary and welcome one, providing for uniformity and consistency in private parking practice. I also thank the honourable Member for East Yorkshire, Sir Greg Knight, for introducing the Bill and progressing it through the other place. I think the whole House—indeed, the whole country—should be grateful for this small but necessary measure.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the honourable Member for East Yorkshire, Sir Greg Knight. I agree entirely with the comments that he has made.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson for their kind words. I pay tribute to Sir Greg Knight for his initiative in bringing forward a Bill that will be widely welcomed. The only additional congratulations that I would like to give are to the Bill team, the clerks and all those who have helped to give the Bill smooth passage through this place, as well as through the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Offensive Weapons Bill
Monday 4th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Offensive Weapons Act 2019 View all Offensive Weapons Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 160-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (28 Feb 2019)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“(aa) the seller is not a trusted trader of bladed products, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create a trusted trader status for those selling bladed products.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 74 and 77 in my name seek to establish a “trusted trader” scheme to enable bladed products to be delivered to home addresses. This is an issue that I raised in Committee. The Bill as drafted prohibits the delivery of bladed objects to residential properties, and there are serious concerns among small and medium-sized knife manufacturers and retailers that this will have a detrimental impact on their businesses.
As more sales move online, consumers expect to be able to receive deliveries directly to their home. I fully support the aims of the Bill but I think this is a legislative sledgehammer that will affect small and medium-sized businesses based in the UK while having little impact on knife crime. There is no evidence that these high-quality knives sold online are being bought with criminal intent; if there were any evidence, it would have already been presented. I think we all accept that if you bought a knife online with criminal intent, you would be creating a very easy evidence trail for the police to follow.
We all want to achieve the objective of the Bill, which is to reduce knife crime, but at the same time we do not want to destroy UK-based businesses. There is a need for greater enforcement of existing legislation prohibiting the sale of knives to under-18s and the carrying of a knife without good reason, and these amendments would enable a trusted trader scheme to come into force. All that I am seeking to achieve is protection for British businesses, whether with the scheme in these amendments, with the scheme suggested last week by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or with some other form of approved deliverer scheme, which we discussed when we had a very positive meeting last week with the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Trafford and Lady Barran, and representatives of the business community from Sheffield—who, in my opinion, put a very convincing case to the Minister—along with the honourable Members for Sheffield Central and Sheffield South East.
I am aware that a trusted trader scheme has been ruled out by the Home Office, which claims that it would add more bureaucracy and would cost businesses to establish, but I point out that the scheme is being suggested by the very businesses that would be affected. I make clear that I am not fixed on any scheme; I just want to find a solution for what I think the Minister accepts is a real issue that could have damaging consequences for British businesses. I know that is not the Government’s intention—in fact, I support their actual intentions—but we have a problem here. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that this legislation is seriously to the detriment of UK companies versus overseas companies, in that if you order a bladed instrument or knife from an overseas company or website it can be delivered to your home, but if you order one from a UK company it cannot. However, I am not sure the trusted trader scheme that he has outlined in the amendments is the answer. Obviously, overseas companies would not have to be members of a trusted trader scheme and therefore the bureaucracy, expense, fees payable and so forth would still disadvantage UK companies.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning that I have already suggested a solution to this problem: to extend to UK companies the age-verification scheme at handover on the doorstep, which the Government have set out in the legislation and which currently applies only to overseas companies. I believe that is the solution to this problem, rather than the trusted trader scheme that the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I add to this unanimity of voice. I entirely agree with what both noble Lords have said. The scheme that the Bill sets out enables people to buy knives from foreign websites. A lot of the time you will not know that it is foreign website as it will appear to be in the UK and it will deal in sterling; it is just posted from France, the Netherlands or wherever it might be. It comes through the post in an unmarked packet and is delivered to whoever ordered it. We apparently think this is a reasonable thing to do and that people should be allowed to do this. This is a way in which your average 16 year-old can obtain a knife quite legally under the Bill.
We are imposing much more stringent arrangements on our own internet traders, which will appear exactly the same to customers. All it means is that we will be disadvantaging our own traders to the advantage of overseas traders and we are not achieving anything in terms of safety. I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said. I support the aims of the Bill. We want to prevent knives getting into the hands of people under 18. Let us have an effective way of doing it that does not disadvantage our own people. Several alternatives have been offered. I very much hope my noble friend will indicate that she is prepared to pick up one of them.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I support everything the three noble Lords have said. I completely concur with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. He is absolutely on the nail.
Just for fun, today I put on a tie that shows a mouse eating a chunk of cheese. I do not know whether noble Lords remember that there was a book some time ago called Who Moved My Cheese?, in which mice run around a maze and get to eat cheese at the end. One day the cheese was moved. One mouse explored and found where the new cheese had been moved to and therefore survived. The other one kept revisiting the old place and died. I recommend this book to the Home Office. The world has changed—the cheese has moved—yet we are legislating as if we did not have an online world and methods of verifying age, and as if people did not have smartphones that they can link to biometrics. We are living in the past. I cannot believe we are passing a piece of legislation such as this. I concur with everything that has been said. I do not mind what scheme is done so long as it is more sensible than the one proposed in the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for these amendments. I am particularly grateful to him and the Sheffield knife manufacturers for coming to meet me the other week for what I thought was a very helpful and constructive meeting.
We are returning to something we debated in Committee: whether trusted traders should be exempt from the prohibition in the Bill of arranging delivery of bladed products to residential premises or a locker. When we considered these amendments previously, I said that test purchases continue to show that a significant number of online sellers fail to undertake adequate checks to ensure that knives are not sold to under-18s. The most recent test purchases of online retailers, conducted in late 2018, showed that 42% of the retailers sampled failed the test and sold knives to persons under 18.
As the noble Lord has explained, his amendments seek to address this problem by saying that where we know someone is a responsible retailer they should be able to continue to send their products to a person’s home address or a locker. This would apply only to the dispatch of bladed products under Clause 18 and not to the sending of corrosive products to a residential premise under Clause 3—presumably on the basis that the noble Lord is content that corrosives should not be sent to a person’s home.
These amendments would transfer the responsibility for complying with the legislation, and for ensuring that all sales are handled properly, from the seller to the Government. They would do this by requiring the Government to set out the details of the proposed trusted trader scheme, which would then allow for the delivery of bladed products to residential premises. A trusted trader scheme would require sellers to demonstrate that their age-verification systems and procedures, from the point when they receive the order to the point that their designated delivery company hands the item over, are robust and that they can guarantee that the knife will not be handed over to a person under 18.
The Government are not persuaded, in the light of the results of recent test purchase operations, that sellers can provide such reassurance in a systematic and consistent way. Only by requiring age verification at the point where the item is physically handed to a person at a dedicated collection point is it possible to guarantee that a bladed product will not be handed over to a person under 18. Setting up, administering and overseeing a trusted trader scheme would create a further burden on the Government or local authorities, with inevitable cost implications. Simply being part of a scheme, or being in possession of a seal of approval as a trusted trader, does not guarantee compliance with the conditions of the scheme. Many of us know this to our cost, having hired a plumber or builder accredited by a trusted trader scheme. Such a scheme would impose regulatory burdens on participating businesses. In addition, it would need to be administered by an independent regulatory body or by local authorities, albeit with the expectation that participating businesses would be required to meet the cost of running it.
I hope that I have provided a clear explanation of why the Government do not consider that the noble Lord’s amendments would provide the necessary assurance that young people under 18 cannot get hold of knives using online sellers. In coming to this view, I have reflected on the recent helpful meeting with Sheffield knife retailers—which I am very grateful to the noble Lord for arranging—in which something was said about Amazon’s view on the issues this amendment raises. He knows that I cannot promise anything, and we are yet to have a definitive statement on it, but I hope that this being the case, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
Before the noble Baroness sits down, could she just qualify what she said about the test purchase results? Was this a failure in age verification at the point of purchase or at the point of handover?
The noble Baroness also talked about a burden on the Government to design an age verification scheme, but is that not exactly what this Bill does with knives that are bought overseas and that are handed over at residential premises?
Thirdly, could the Minister again tell me why age verification at handover point is likely to be better than age verification on the doorstep?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Such a scheme would impose an additional burden. The noble Lord talks about other burdens; I am not denying that there will be burdens on various people from the introduction of whatever scheme comes in, but this would very much pass on that burden to local government.
As I understand it, the failures in online test purchases have lain at the point of sale.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I put this provision forward, but I am not stuck on this or any other particular scheme, and I hope I made that clear in my remarks. I am generally very grateful to the Minister for the way she met with the traders—they were very impressed with the interest she took.
All I want to do is to stop us putting on the statute book something which harms British business—nothing else. The Minister has confirmed that discussions are still going on, so will she allow me to bring the issue back at Third Reading? If so, I would be very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I cannot commit to bringing it back at Third Reading, but I know the noble Lord will bring it back at Third Reading. By then, I hope that I will have further information for him.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Just to clarify, is the Minister happy for me to bring it back at Third Reading? I do not want any disputes with the clerks afterwards about this situation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think there will be any disputes with the clerks.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, in that case, that is all clear and correct. I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Montrose
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a seller to deliver bladed agricultural or forestry equipment to residential premises.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move this amendment and speak to others standing in my name—namely, Amendments 80, 83, 84 and 85. For those of us who have not had the good fortune to spend our days looking at the wording of the various Acts introduced since 1953 to control unruly public behaviour, I must express my gratitude to Mark Wilcox for giving general access to the Keeling schedule he produced following our amendments in Committee. I am sure this was aimed at Members of your Lordships’ House who are much more familiar with these documents than I am, but it provided some enlightening weekend reading for me, such as what is currently defined as a public place and how this legislation will affect sharply pointed articles—it explained that this is limited to those,
“made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person”,
as stated in Section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
There are other provisions which might answer some of my concerns as well, but I wish to enlarge on the problem which my amendments focus on; this looks at what we have just been discussing from the other end—the purchases end. As I have mentioned before, I approach this legislation as someone who has had to carry on a variety of businesses in a rural context, where many sharp instruments and corrosive substances are involved—an area which has been subject to immense changes, both in its purpose and in how it is envisaged. A current complication arises in that there are fewer and fewer people available and there is less access to public transport and other essential services. The strong message we get is that the Government expect us to carry on most of our business digitally and online. As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, pointed out, it appears that this has not been thought through from the point of view that this Bill could limit the effect of that.
I again declare my remaining interest as the recent president of the National Sheep Association.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, on this issue but again suggest that the answer is to have a system of age verification at handover, as there is for overseas sellers.
On the issue of whether a business is carried out at a residential address, the Government accept that overseas companies cannot be expected to know whether that is the case. Again, UK companies are being disadvantaged compared with overseas companies.
I do not know whether the noble Duke can explain why Amendment 75 talks about a product that,
“is for an agricultural or forestry management purpose”,
Amendment 80,
“exclusively designed for an agricultural or forestry management purpose”,
Amendment 83,
“specifically to be used for agricultural or forestry management purposes”,
and if those differences are deliberate and explicable.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, as he raises valid points. Again, we do not want anything in the Bill that disadvantages UK business.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments as well. A lot of effort is going into preserving hill farming and small farming. There is a lot of focus on that area, yet along comes the Home Office, without consulting Defra, Natural England or anyone else, and it could wipe out all the good that has been done elsewhere. We need to start looking at this approach.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which runs through the whole thing, this is about disadvantaging UK against foreign business. There is no logical reason to do that. I say to the Minister that, just because this amendment is aimed at knives because it is in this part of the Bill, that does not mean you would not logically continue that through to corrosive liquids. I cannot think how to describe the argument that says that it does not cover that as well, when we have moved on to this part of the Bill. The intransigence of the Home Office has been evident throughout this, and I do not think that is a good argument against sensible amendments later.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendments, which return us to the proposed prohibition on the dispatch of bladed products to residential premises and lockers.
I hope I can quickly provide my noble friend with some reassurance on the point he has raised but, before I do so, I would like to answer the point he raised on Report, on 26 February, about the definition of “pointed articles” and whether it includes things like screws carried in someone’s pocket. Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence to possess in public,
“any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed”,
without,
“good reason or lawful authority”.
Section 141A of the same Act prohibits the sale to under-18s of articles with a sharp point that are,
“made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person”.
The wording “sharply pointed” is used in various parts of the Bill, including Clauses 15 to 17 and Clause 31.
The new offence of arranging delivery to residential premises or a locker is limited to “bladed products”—that is an article which is, or has, a blade and which is capable of causing serious injury by cutting the skin, so does not include pointed articles. It will be for the courts to decide whether an article is sharply pointed, or has a sharp point, in each specific case, but the legislation was clearly never intended to include screws, which are not generally considered to be offensive weapons and which have not been made or adapted for the purposes of causing injury. We are not aware that the definition of pointed articles has caused any problems with the operation of existing offences over the past 30 years.
The amendments in this group would enable bladed products that are used for agricultural or forestry management purposes to be sent by the seller to a solely residential premise. Some agricultural and forestry management items will be caught by the definition of bladed product, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that they will no longer be able to be sent to solely residential premises or a locker. However, the definition of residential premise is limited to those premises that are used solely for residential purposes. My noble friend eloquently set out a number of ways that one could demonstrate whether something was also a business address. It will be a matter for the seller of a bladed product to satisfy themselves that the delivery address is not used solely for residential purposes.
This means that bladed products will still be able to be sent to business premises and this includes, importantly, where a business is run from a residential premise. Therefore, bladed products could be sent to a farm, an agricultural supplier or a forestry centre. They could be sent to the home of a person who runs a self-employed forestry business from their home. We have been clear from the outset that deliveries to farms will not be prohibited under the Bill and, in most cases, agricultural and forestry tools will be related to business activities and should not be affected.
Clause 19 also includes a regulation-making power which will enable further defences to be added by secondary legislation if it becomes clear that the prohibition on home delivery is having a particularly negative impact on certain types of business or not-for-profit activities. A defence for agricultural and forestry equipment could therefore be provided if it becomes clear that there is a detrimental impact on this type of trade or activity. However, for the reasons I have set out, we do not currently think that this is necessary.
I hope I have given my noble friend sufficient reassurance that the deliveries of agricultural and forestry equipment should be largely unaffected by the measures in the Bill. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all her efforts in answering the questions which I have raised from time to time. What she has said has been much more reassuring. It sounds as if a letter to your supplier is critical to whether or not you have a registered business. It does not have to be certified in any way; you can just say to your supplier: “This is my business address”. Maybe that situation is adequate, though there are obviously loopholes.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an interesting point. The amendments were attached to different parts of the Bill. I thought the wording was a little more appropriate in each case, but I would not stand by it terribly much.
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. We are in a happier position, for those who require blades and pointed instruments, than we were when it started. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Lucas
( ) The Secretary of State must, before the coming into force of sections 18 and 19, publish guidance as to how the definition in subsection (1) may be interpreted.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, following the Minister's remarks at Committee stage (28 January, HL Deb, col 160GC), is intended to ensure that guidance will be issued, so that those responsible for designing and carrying out sales and dispatch procedures will be able to judge whether a particular item (for instance, a food processor) falls under it.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for substituting for me in my absence on the first day on Report. She obtained for me a very useful answer to the question that underlies this amendment, which is: how is someone going to know? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would make it clear that the Government understand how important it is to get this guidance clear. Big retailers are going to have to decide whether something is a bladed product or not: they need to be able to take that decision with certainty. A reputable UK retailer does not want to find itself on the wrong side of this legislation. It will have to make these decisions every day in relation to items of kitchen equipment which they might ship, and they need to do it properly. It is really up to the Government to get this right. I would be grateful for an assurance that the Government understand this and will use the provisions in Amendment 106 to achieve that effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, is not really possible to substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I was happy to introduce some of his amendments, as my noble friend did, on our first day on Report. We have Amendments 82 and 86 in this group. Amendment 86 also requests guidance on articles that are not bladed products for the purposes of the Bill—in other words, a negative approach. Amendment 82 would provide that the term does not,
“include a product intended for domestic use which incorporates a blade if the product does not function without the blade”.
I could go off down a separate avenue about the range of experiences that we draw on in this Chamber: I could not have begun to talk about sheep shearing; the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, might want to talk about food processors—I do not know. Clause 20 defines “bladed product” for the purpose of the clauses dealing with delivery to residential premises. Of course, I am not taking issue with the overall approach of my noble friend, but, as the Government have been resisting, this is to look at the detail.
The definition excludes all sorts of things, some of which I have never heard of: flick-knives, gravity knives, knuckle-dusters, death stars and other weapons whose sale and importation is already prohibited, as well as items excluded from the prohibition on the sale of bladed articles to those under 18. I think it is appropriate to pause here, while thanking the Government for providing Keeling schedules, to say that it is really not immediately obvious what is within Clause 18—in other words, what products it will be an offence to deliver to residential premises. There was a degree of confusion when this was debated in the Public Bill Committee in the Commons. We have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the distinction between a pointed article and an article with a cutting edge, but it seems to me that that must depend on how the items are used. Surely, with something that is pointed, if you pull it down against somebody’s skin it is likely to cut the skin.
In our view, it ought to be clear which items make delivery to residential premises an offence. Apart from its substance, the clause’s complexity and its dependence on orders made under other legislation—more accurately, the exclusion of items that are the subject of such orders—is not in the tradition of well-written Acts of Parliament. One cannot employ the defence of reasonable precautions and all due diligence when there is an issue with the definition.
I have occasionally bought art materials online for delivery at home. Go on to any art materials website and you will find a range of palette knives and craft knives, some of which would fall foul of the definition. Not everyone paints, does craft work or shears sheep—but everybody eats, which is why I picked domestic kitchen items. They are relevant to many people’s lives, as they buy them either for themselves or for others, for instance from a wedding gift list.
Other noble Lords may have received a letter from John Lewis representatives—whom the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I met a couple of weeks ago—who expressed concern that the definition would prohibit them selling and delivering to a residential address a wide range of everyday kitchen products containing blades, such as food processors and scissors. They described to us the careful age-verification steps they take in respect of sales in store, but said:
“Online sales at John Lewis and partners are a key part of our business strategy and account for over 40% of our total sales … Around 50% of these online sales are delivered direct to customers’ homes. Any restriction on our ability to continue to sell and deliver products, such as food processors, online would negatively … impact our business. We do not believe this is the intention of the Government”—
nor do I—
“and nor do we believe that this would do anything to help address the issue of knife crime”.
We agree. This amendment is not intended as a plug for John Lewis; rather, it seeks clarity and a common-sense outcome in which businesses do not regard more items than is necessary as outlawed from home delivery.
The British Retail Consortium supports the three amendments in this group. In Committee and earlier on Report, we sought to address the issue through the amendments to which my noble friend referred. I appreciate that Amendment 82 only scrapes the surface of the issue, but I wanted to highlight the point.
As we know, under government amendment 106, the Secretary of State “may”—that is the term used—issue guidance. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, says “must”; Amendment 86, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick, says “shall”. No doubt we will be told that “may” means “will”, or other close synonyms, but guidance cannot override legislation, so it is essential to get that right. Of course, guidance will be produced by the Executive without parliamentary approval and it can be changed without approval. So at least we should hear from the Dispatch Box—I look forward to the Minister’s explanation—what consultation on the guidance the Government intend to undertake. Clearly, it should be thorough. I suspect that the Government have also had a bit of difficulty in pinning down a definition—otherwise we would have one. That simply demonstrates how important this issue is.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, we having been discussing this issue in the Digital Policy Alliance’s age verification and internet safety working group. Being clear on definitions is absolutely essential.
The Minister said in the previous debate about pointed items that it will be up to the courts to decide. Who can afford that? How can people afford to go that far? That is the trouble. The natural reaction of business will be to be overly cautious. That will close down entire avenues of business and inhibit normal people’s ability to carry on with their normal lives. A lack of clarity will cause so much trouble and you will get an awful lot of flak in the papers. I suggest that this group of amendments be taken together so that we can sort something out and produce absolutely clear guidance. We are trying to legislate for only a few outrageous incidents. The trouble is that regulations never prevent what they seek to prohibit. You cannot stop all of this by regulation. Let us make reasonable regulations, which allow normal people to continue with their normal lives. Given that, clarity in the definitions is absolutely essential.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised the question of pointed articles possibly being used by troubled people to cause injury. I should like further confirmation of my reading of the Keeling schedule that we were offered. I took great comfort from that. The part of the 1988 Act to do with supplying knives and blades to people aged under 18 refers to,
“a blade which is sharply pointed and which is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person”.
That, to my mind, rules out an ordinary pointed article. You would have to prove that it had been used or adapted to cause injury.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for these amendments. My noble friend has been clever about weaving back into last week’s debate on statutory guidance and the one that we have just had on the trusted trader scheme.
I can see that Amendments 81 and 82 attempt to provide further clarity for manufacturers and suppliers of kitchen utensils and to limit the impact of Clause 18 on such companies. As noble Lords will know, I met representatives of some knife manufacturers in Sheffield and I heard at first hand their concerns about this provision. Amendment 81 seeks to assist manufacturers, retailers and others by providing for statutory guidance on which items are covered by the definition of a bladed product. Amendment 82 clearly goes further and excludes from that definition any product “intended for domestic use” that requires a blade to function. As I understand it, the intention is that items such as food processors, and perhaps bread knives and steak knives, could be sent to residential premises if they have been sold remotely. Food processors and similar items are clearly not the sort of things that can be used as offensive weapons and it is not intended that they will be covered by the prohibition on arranging delivery to a residential premises or a locker. Products such as table knives are also excluded from the definition of bladed products because they are not capable of causing serious injury by cutting a person’s skin.
I turn to the wording of Amendment 82. The term “intended for domestic use” perhaps lacks clarity. Although most people would accept that kitchen knives are intended for domestic use, there may be some doubt as to whether hobby knives, camping knives and DIY tools can also be said to be intended for domestic use. I worry that amending the definition in this way could lead to sellers of fairly nasty knives marketing them as purely for domestic use to get around the delivery prohibition. That said, if a prosecution was brought for this offence, it would be for the seller to show that the product did not fall within the scope of the offence as it was intended for domestic use. The approach in Amendment 82 is therefore not without risks and there may be issues around defining what is meant by “domestic purposes”. However, I agree with my noble friend that this is certainly an area where guidance for retailers and others will be beneficial and it is our intention to provide such guidance, exercising the power conferred by Amendment 106, which we debated last week.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Why is it thought that guidance is less likely to lead people to seek to evade the purposes of this legislation than putting a definition in the scope of the Bill itself?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
If I understand the noble Lord’s question, he is asking whether guidance is less likely to make people abide by the law and why we do not just put it in the Bill. I am struggling to answer that question.
Lord Pannick
The Minister has expressed concern—she may well be right—that, if the Bill were amended to make clear what is and is not covered, there is a risk that sellers would seek to use that definition to try to get around the contents of the Bill. Given that she says that these matters will be dealt with by guidance, is there not the same risk? Would it not be better to define in the Bill what the Bill covers and does not cover, not least because guidance will not bind the courts? It is for the courts to interpret. The problems of uncertainty will inevitably arise if the Government rely purely on guidance. That is the point.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I stick by the point that people will use the list in the Bill to try to get around the law, and therefore guidance is helpful. It is helpful both to the retailers who will be selling items but also to the courts in interpreting the legislation. Of course, the difficulty in this legislation is that knives have myriad uses, which in many ways is why this has been quite a difficult Bill to take through.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, given the problems with the Bill itself, I make a point so that at least Hansard is accurate on this. The Minister talked about using terminology such as I have used to allow retailers to sell knives online and deliver them to domestic premises—she talked about bread knives and steak knives. This wording would require the product to function only with a blade. That clearly would not apply to a bread knife; if it does, every knife can function only with a blade. I am not suggesting that the precise detail of this amendment be included in the Bill, but this all goes to show that if we resist being specific here, we risk causing more problems, not fewer. If I did not say so before, nothing I have said seeks to undermine in any way what my noble friend Lord Paddick said about his overarching approach, which we should be following.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It comes back to the noble Baroness’s point about consultation. In developing the guidance, we must and will engage with business and organisations such as the BRC. The intention is that it will be developed with them. We could have a circular argument here about whether things should be directly specified in the Bill or how helpful the guidance will be in helping retailers and the criminal justice system, but guidance generally will help the Government keep pace with developments.
Amendment 86 is similar to Amendment 81 and again seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance. We have already debated government Amendment 106, which will enable the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Justice Department to issue statutory guidance on certain parts of the Bill, including those dealing with offences of remote sale and delivery of knives. We intend that there should be guidance to retailers on what items are prohibited from dispatch to residential premises or a locker under Clause 18. I think the government amendment is adequate to cover this.
Lord Paddick
I apologise for persisting but the Minister referred to table knives being excluded from this prohibition. The table knife that I was given to eat my roast beef with in a restaurant yesterday could cause serious harm to an individual by cutting. Is it or is it not therefore a table knife? This will inevitably lead to a decision by major retailers such as John Lewis not to deliver any knife of any description to residential premises for fear, as the Minister said, that if there is a prosecution the supplier will have to provide a defence in court to the offence. Not many suppliers will be prepared to take that risk.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think that John Lewis currently delivers table knives or any type of bladed products to residential premises. As it stands, John Lewis does not deliver knives; people have to pick them up or buy them in the shop.
I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about table knives. That is why this legislation is difficult. In many ways it will be for the courts to determine in what context the knife is being used. I am not denying what the noble Lord says.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
When this discussion is over I invite the Minister to read Hansard and to reflect on the debate—it is distressing. We are talking about table knives, steak knives and knives to shear sheep and so on when we have a serious problem on our hands in this country with knife crime. This Bill completely misses the point. People have been murdered over the weekend and it is frustrating that this legislation completely misses the point.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we are not missing the point: we are trying to get a balance between people selling products which can be used for perfectly legitimate purposes and those seeking to abuse these products in order to do harm to people. One of the attacks at the weekend took place round the corner from me. I fully have in mind the danger that knives can cause but we are trying to get the balance right.
Lord Lucas
I appreciate the difficulties the Government are having in trying to get this clause right. I go back to the first amendment we debated today and the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I that we are disadvantaging British sellers relative to overseas sellers for no advantage to the peace of the realm. If someone wants to get a knife, all they have to do is order it from Holland and then it can be delivered to their house. It really matters whether we focus this prohibition on British sellers widely or narrowly, and the way the clause is drawn at the moment is capable of wide interpretation.
The guidance will have to be good and clear. I agree that it will not have the force of the law but it will have an effect on police officers, I hope, in deciding whether to launch a complaint or a prosecution. It will have an effect on the CPS, and it will certainly have an effect if it is reported in a newspaper that there has been a prosecution. It will be the prosecution that is laughed at, rather than the retailer condemned, if the guidance makes it clear that something should be allowed. It matters in relation to large items such as food processors; if they and all the rest of one’s wedding gifts cannot be delivered to one’s home address, people will go somewhere else, which would be abroad. It is a big enough item to make such a decision about and it is not obvious why it should be prohibited, whereas we can all accept that we should have to jump through a few hoops when obtaining a knife because they are dangerous and we must behave ourselves. I hope that the Government will draft the guidance with the interests of British traders at heart.
I am grateful for my noble friend’s reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Powers to confiscate bladed articles
If bladed articles are detected in transit from overseas to a UK residential address, other than under arrangements as described in section 21(1)(c), and without the requirement for age verification on delivery being clearly evident on the outside of the packaging, they may be handed in to the police for destruction without compensation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to address issues discussed in Committee as to how to deal with bladed articles coming in from abroad, using generic carriers such as Royal Mail, without arrangements as described in 21(1)(c).
Lord Lucas
My Lords, if we are going to have this arrangement whereby overseas sellers are advantaged, at least we need to make it effective. At the moment, if I was to go on to a foreign website and order a flick knife that was then dropped into the post, it could come straight to me. Such a prohibited weapon could come to me if I was 14 years old. Nothing in the process would allow it to be intercepted. There is an arrangement in the Bill for overseas sellers who choose to use a contracted delivery arrangement in the UK, which would presumably apply to Amazon fulfilment or a similar arrangement, whereby age verification would take place on the doorstep. However, we are allowing an enormous hole to appear: if someone uses a common carrier such as the Post Office, there is nothing to stop a product ordered overseas being delivered straight to a minor at a residential address. If there is to be this enormous disadvantage on British businesses, let us at least have effective controls on overseas websites.
When goods come into this country, they are, by and large, inspected. We are concerned about people shipping pistols into this country and keep an eye out for such packages. The same techniques will be effective against bladed products. However, if someone involved in that process discovers a bladed product in a standard, unmarked pack, it is currently unclear whether they have a right to do anything about it. If we are to allow knives to arrive in unmarked standard postal packages, it would defeat the whole purpose of a great chunk of the Bill. To stop that happening it should be clear that when something is identified as a bladed product, and the arrangements for making sure that it will be signed for by an adult on delivery have not been complied with, the authorities must be able to confiscate that product, or the Bill does not work. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I support the amendment, which is eminently sensible. Why should one have something that does not work? This should be part of the armoury to stop bladed products getting into the wrong hands and I cannot see how else it could be done.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for returning us to this difficult issue about what we do in relation to overseas sellers of knives. Noble Lords will recall that the issue is that while we can place requirements, such as those under Clause 18, on remote sellers based in the UK, we cannot do the same in relation to overseas sellers. This is because we cannot practically take extraterritorial jurisdiction over sellers based abroad. We have tried to address this through the provisions in Clause 21. These provisions make it an offence for delivery companies in the UK, which are operating under specific arrangements to deliver bladed articles on behalf of overseas sellers, to deliver those articles into the hands of a person under the age of 18.
We accept that this is not the complete answer to the problem because overseas sellers can simply send the items unmarked through the international mail. This is exactly the situation that my noble friend’s amendment seeks to address. It would provide a power to confiscate bladed articles that are sent from overseas to a UK residential address and which are, first, not subject to specific arrangements between the delivery company in the UK and the overseas seller and, secondly, not labelled to show that age must be verified on delivery.
Although it is not clear from the amendment, the power is presumably to be exercised by Border Force because the amendments refer to detecting the articles in transit from overseas. The amendment would mean, in effect, that only bladed articles sold overseas which are subject to specific delivery arrangements in the UK would be allowed. I can therefore sympathise with the intention behind this amendment.
However, there are a number of problems with the amendment. At present, Border Force can seize two types of bladed articles. It can seize weapons prohibited under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, such as zombie knives and death stars, and Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which covers flick knives and gravity knives, because the importation of these weapons is banned. It can also seize any weapon which it believes is evidence in relation to a criminal offence.
This amendment would mean that Border Force would have a power to seize items which are not prohibited by law and where they are not evidence in relation to a criminal offence. This would mean that a wide range of items which are going to a residential address in the UK from overseas could be seized and handed to the police to be destroyed. The amendment is not limited to overseas sales, so it would mean that bladed articles sent from a relative overseas to someone in the UK could also be seized. It would mean that someone bringing back a bladed article from their holiday, such as a souvenir, could have it seized or that a fencer returning from a competition overseas with their swords could have them confiscated by Border Force. It would mean that articles which have been legally sold overseas and legally bought by someone in the UK could be seized.
Secondly, the amendment assumes that there is some way of detecting such articles. Not all items coming into the UK are scanned, so unless Border Force happens to come across bladed articles as part of routine searches, they are unlikely to be detected. Even if such items were detected, Border Force would need to ascertain whether they were being sent to a residential address. For example, it would need to decide whether 12 High Street is a residential or business address. Finally, it would need to establish whether they were subject to specific arrangements between a delivery company and the overseas seller. It would then have to have arrangements for handing the articles to the police for destruction. This would all have significant resource implications for Border Force. It is for all these reasons that I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment. I hope that in these circumstances he will withdraw it.
Lord Paddick
Before the Minister sits down, will she explain why the Government cannot exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreign websites when they are doing exactly that when it comes to online pornography on overseas websites? In that case the BBFC, acting on behalf of the Government, gets in touch with the online pornography website and threatens them that unless and until they have approved age verification on their sites, BBFC will instruct UK internet service providers to block access to those websites from the UK. Why cannot a similar system be used to block overseas companies which are known to be selling prohibited weapons to the UK?
The Earl of Erroll
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is absolutely correct, as Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act provides. In her response, the Minister said that the sender would not know whether they were sending to a residential address. A UK business has exactly the same problem, yet she was using this to justify blocking UK sales. I do not see how she can apply one rule to UK companies and another to foreign companies. We need to be even-handed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in an ideal world, we would have the same systems for overseas and domestic sales. We cannot exercise ETJ—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I understand it, we cannot. We have had the example of pornography. The system I am referring to relates to online sales. Am I right in thinking that the system referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, relates to streaming? He will correct me if I am wrong.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. These are paid-for websites. People are paying for a service—there is an exchange. There is another option—I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me. Most financial transactions involving foreign websites are processed by UK credit card companies and so forth. The other way of ensuring that these transactions do not take place even though the company is beyond the UK’s jurisdiction is to ask UK card companies not to process payments to those particular companies. That is the second string to the BBFC bow in order to stop under-18s in the UK from, effectively, buying pornography from overseas websites. Similarly, the Government could put pressure on UK card companies to not process payments to overseas companies which are selling prohibited weapons to under-18s in the UK.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will agree that not all their sales would be of prohibited items.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, surely that is not an answer. We want to stop the whole thing.
The Earl of Erroll
I will try to help the Minister. The Government or the regulator would be deciding whether a foreign supplier was breaching the terms before informing the credit card agency. You would not go and inform the credit card companies about a foreign supplier that was not selling weapons to underage buyers. It would be triggered by the Government deciding whether a foreign supplier was breaching the rules.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, that would require a global trawl of every company in the world selling knives, prohibited or otherwise.
The Earl of Erroll
This has been covered widely in the pornography provisions of the Digital Economy Act, which the good online suppliers of adult content are helping to police. All the systems for online age verification and everything else are in there. Some co-operation and consultation with DCMS and BBFC could be very helpful to the Home Office, because there is an exact parallel. You could almost translate the whole thing over to offensive weapons, which is why we are discussing how this could be done in external groups.
Lord Pannick
I suggest to the Minister that the point is not about a trawl of all foreign sellers. If I understand the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the point is that, if the Home Office realises that specific overseas sellers are breaching the principles in the Bill, the Secretary of State ought to enjoy some power to take action to prevent such a company continuing to supply into this country. Using the methods adopted in relation to pornography, either to prevent the website communicating or through the payment methods, seems a real possibility. Will the Minister and the Home Office give further thought to this important matter before Third Reading to see whether some progress can be made?
Lord Paddick
To assist the Minister further, I can assure her that there are more websites worldwide providing pornography than there are providing offensive weapons, yet that has not prevented the Government taking action.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his intervention. I was not making a glib comment about a trawl; regarding the examples of card companies and delivery companies, we are taking action where we can, but I acknowledge, as I have all the way through the Bill, that we are trying to find the right balance. It is not absolutely perfect, but we are using everything in our armoury to help us guard against the sale of knives to those aged under 18.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I entirely accept the strictures that the Minister has discussed concerning the wording and theme of my amendment but, as has been shown in this discussion, its substance remains. If we allow the Bill through as it is, it will quickly become known that there are one or two sites, not far away, across a little bit of water, to which anyone with criminal intent can go in complete safety, buy any knife they want, and have it delivered to them at home. Therefore, anyone intent on getting a knife for criminal purposes will be able to do so with total disregard for the rest of the Bill. All we will have succeeded in doing is disadvantaging British sellers; the Bill will have no other effect.
We do not need to achieve perfection; we just need to make dangerous the process of illegally ordering a knife overseas, or of ordering a knife overseas and having it delivered to someone underage. We need to make it something that might well go wrong: either the knife might be confiscated, or the people involved in selling it—who presumably have a lot of legitimate business as well as supplying to criminals—might lose everything through being put on the Home Office blacklist. As has been suggested by several noble Lords, this is proving an effective system in pornography. Those we allow to dominate the market in the UK, because they do proper age-verification, want to keep others out, so they become an effective police force that we do not have to pay for. There are other routes to getting there, which make the whole business of buying from an overseas supplier more difficult and chancy.
If we want an effective Bill—I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in saying that we absolutely do—we must urge the Government to use the time between Report and Third Reading to talk to their colleagues in DCMS and look again at whether this is a loophole they can close. Without that, we will have a Bill that is much less effective at achieving what we want it to achieve. But I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“(8) It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of that person relating to a weapon to which this section applies—(a) with an offence under subsection (1) or (1A), or(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (improper importation),to show that the conduct was only for the purposes of functions carried out on behalf of the Crown or of a visiting force.(9) In this section “visiting force” means any body, contingent or detachment of the forces of a country—(a) mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of section 1 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, or(b) designated for the purposes of any provision of that Act by Order in Council under subsection (2) of that section,which is present in the United Kingdom (including United Kingdom territorial waters) or in any place to which subsection (10) below applies on the invitation of Her Majesty’s Government.(10) This subsection applies to any place on, under or above an installation in a designated area within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 or any waters within 500 metres of such an installation.(11) It shall be a defence for a person charged in respect of conduct of that person relating to a weapon to which this section applies—(a) with an offence under subsection (1) or (1A) above, or(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,to show that the conduct was only for the purposes of functions carried out as the operator of, or as a person acting for, a specialist licensed armoury company holding an authority to possess prohibited weapons granted by the Secretary of State under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 for one or more of the purposes specified in subsection (12) and subject to all the conditions in subsection (13).(12) Those purposes are—(a) the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances,(b) the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – see section 5B of that Act),(c) the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 – see section 405(1) of that Act).(13) Those conditions are—(a) the weapon is accompanied by a supervising armourer or handler in attendance throughout the production,(b) disposal of the weapon by sale or gift is only permitted to another similar specialist licensed armoury company or a museum or by export to another state or country where the laws of that state or country permit import of the weapon.(14) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (1A) to show that the weapon in question is antique.(15) For the purposes of subsection (14) a weapon is an antique if it was manufactured in or before 1945.(16) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (3), (4), (5), (8), (11) or (14) if— (a) sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a series of defences in respect of activities (1) of non-public museums operated by the Ministry of Defence or police forces, (2) of visiting forces, (3) of the film, theatre and television industries and (4) in relation to antiques.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment 90. I am very grateful to the Home Office for bringing a large and intelligent team to listen to representations concerning in particular the use of weapons in film and antique weapons. I am grateful for the time that we were given. I have not received any feedback since those meetings so I have tabled these amendments as a way of receiving that feedback.
There are three sections here. The first concerns an exemption for the Crown Forces. The Government have said they do not think it is required, but as a matter of routine overseas forces issue their personnel with gravity knives and flick-knives and it is said that our own Special Forces use them from time to time. Some members of our Armed Forces are being picked up and persecuted for crimes when they thought that they were acting in the line of duty, and we should not expose them to attack for having a weapon that was required and legal at the time. We should give them some protection.
Secondly, there is the question of film. We make a lot of money out of making films in this country. By and large, film directors want their close-up shots to be authentic in terms of the look, sound and heft of real weapons. Clearly, these things have to be used in secure conditions, but we allow heavy machine guns, assault rifles and similar items to be used in films made in this country under conditions of strict control. There are licensed armourers who supply such weapons for dramatic performances and films. It does not seem to me that people who are trusted with such weapons should not be trusted with the weapons prohibited under the Bill. To have a film of “Mack the Knife” without a flick-knife would seem a bit odd. I cannot see that by allowing an exemption for film and performance, we are doing anything more dangerous than we allow for other weapons at the moment. This is a direction in which we should feel comfortable about moving.
Thirdly, the same applies to antique weapons. At least in this House, many of our parents were heavily involved in the Second World War. There are many items used in that war that were issued to members of civil defence or captured from German troops that are very properly considered collectible and part of our national history, but are not so unique that the British Museum would want to end up with a large collection of them. We ought to allow these items, as we allow other weapons, to be part of collections. We allow old swords and other very dangerous weapons to be collected. Why not the weapons that we are prohibiting under the Bill, as long as they are antique?
I think 1945 is a convenient time to end the definition of “antique”, mostly because shortly thereafter steel became contaminated with radioactive elements from the aerial atom bomb tests, so you can distinguish old steel from new. Also, designs changed a good deal after the war, and there was a long period when some countries did not produce. So 1945 is a convenient cut-off: you can tell what is pre-1945 and what is later, and that is also where the intense history ends. It would be sensible to allow us all to possess the mementos from the last great war and to prohibit weapons produced after it. Apart from anything else, these antique weapons go for a considerable price and are very unlikely to be bought by someone who just wants to use them in a crime and then throw them away.
I very much hope that my noble friends will be bearing me at least a semblance of an olive branch on this amendment, and that we will be able to look in a constructive way at these three potential exemptions. I am not holding out for any of the detailed wording in the amendments, but I hope this is an area that my noble friends will feel able to smile on. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran
I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Lucas, for these amendments. As he mentioned, we had a very useful discussion on the issues covered by them on 13 February that went through in detail the concerns of collectors and theatrical suppliers.
These amendments would create new defences for the supply and possession of weapons covered by Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, namely flick-knives and gravity knives. The amendments would provide defences for Crown functions and visiting armed forces, for theatrical, film and television production purposes, and for flick-knives and gravity knives made before 1945. As I set out in Committee, Section 1 of the 1959 Act makes it a criminal offence to manufacture, sell, hire or lend a flick-knife or gravity knife and prohibits their importation. Clause 23 extends that prohibition to cover the possession of flick-knives and gravity knives.
I turn first to the proposed defence for Crown functions and visiting armed forces. I am afraid we are not persuaded that a defence is needed in this area. The supply, including importation, of flick-knives and gravity knives has been prohibited for a long time and the Ministry of Defence has advised that there is no need to provide defences for this purpose. We are also not aware of any Crown function that would use flick-knives or gravity knives, unlike under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act where curved swords may be an issue. In any event, the general principle in law is that statutes do not bind the Crown unless by express provision or necessary implication. Where acting as agents or servants of the Crown, the military will benefit from the Crown exemption. The Government are therefore not persuaded that any defence for the Crown or visiting armed forces is needed.
On a defence for the purpose of theatrical performance or filming, it was clear at the meeting that the supply of flick-knives and gravity knives for such purposes has not been an issue in the past 60 years, despite their supply being banned. The supplier at the meeting suggested that most of the items used for these purposes are blunt, so it is doubtful they meet the knife definition in the 1959 Act. Given this, again, we are not persuaded that any defence is needed for flick-knives and gravity knives for theatre and film purposes.
I have more sympathy for the proposed defence for flick-knives and gravity knives made before 1945. We are aware that there are collectors of these weapons and we also know that families sometimes inherit them from relatives who fought in the war. Possession of the weapons will be banned under the Bill, so collectors and families will need to surrender any weapons they own and claim compensation, or gift them to a museum where they are of historic importance.
Our concern in accepting a defence for pre-1945 weapons is that it will be difficult to operate on the ground. In contrast to what my noble friend suggested, the police will not know with any certainty which knives had been made before 1945 and which are more modern. I appreciate this is not the answer that my noble friend would like to hear, but given that the supply of the weapons has been banned in this country since 1959 we remain of the view that there is no good reason why anyone should possess them.
The Duke of Montrose
Can the noble Baroness reassure me on a question that I raised at Second Reading? Does the Royal Company of Archers, the Queen’s bodyguard in Scotland, qualify for the Crown’s exemption on weapons? I also asked about a rather shady area, which the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is probably more familiar with than I am. Are the Atholl Highlanders taken to be doing historical re-enactments, or are they likely at some point to take up weapons as a legal army?
The Earl of Erroll
Given that they are the only private army, but are sanctioned by Her Majesty, after Queen Victoria, I find it a very interesting question.
Baroness Barran
I can reassure the noble Lord on both questions, and I will write to him to clarify the details.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, naturally I am very saddened to hear my noble friend’s answers, but I see no point in trying to pursue this further, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Kirpans
(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) After section 141A, insert—“141B KirpansFor the purposes of section 139, 139A, 141 or 141A it shall be lawful for a person to possess a Kirpan for religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Kirpan, a mandatory article of faith for a Sikh, possessed for religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons is exempt from provisions relating to the possession of offensive weapons under the relevant sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 91, tabled in my name and with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seeks to place on the face of the Bill a provision to exempt the kirpan from the provisions relating to the possession of offences weapons under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I raised this issue in Committee, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for meeting me and a number of other noble Lords from all sides of the House, along with representatives of the Sikh community, including the noble Lord, Lord Singh. It was very much appreciated by everybody present.
There is no question but that the Sikh community is fully behind the intention of the Bill to tighten the law on offensive weapons. We are all appalled by the toll that knife crime is taking on young lives; even today we are seeing more tragic events on the news. The Government have responded to the very reasonable requests of the Sikh community on an issue in the Commons, but my intention with this amendment is to go further. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, raised the issue at Second Reading, and I supported him. It came up again in Committee, and many noble Lords spoke then.
For practising Sikhs, observance of their faith requires adherence to the “five Ks”, one of which is to wear a kirpan. Larger kirpans are used on many religious occasions, such as Sikh wedding ceremonies. I think it is fair to say that noble Lords in all parties, and on the Cross Benches, would be concerned if restrictions in this Bill had unintended consequences for the Sikh community as they observe and practise their faith, or caused upset or concern when a member of the community used a kirpan for ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons. The status quo is not adequate, as it provides a defence of religious reasons only if a person is charged with a criminal offence. It does not cover other reasons such as ceremonial, historical or sporting events, where kirpans are offered as gifts to dignitaries.
The status quo provides a defence only if a person is charged. My amendment will provide an exemption for the possession of a kirpan. It will provide a specific reference in the law, which Sikhs have been calling for. Sikhs are members of a law-abiding community that makes a wonderful contribution to the United Kingdom. The community still faces difficulties in workplaces, education and leisure with the issue of kirpans. This amendment will provide great assistance to Sikhs and will educate all of us about the kirpan. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which I fully support. One of the Minister’s main arguments against granting exemption to the Sikh community was that the Government could not single out one particular community—the Sikhs—for an exemption. In that case, I ask the Minister: what other communities have made representations to the Home Office for exemption under the Act?
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, Sikhs are asking for nothing more than respect for their religious and cultural practices and requirements. The main majority of the community is catered for in this Bill—regarding sporting activities, films, television, historical enactments and so on.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, the description of the kirpan given by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was absolutely correct: it is a religious requirement which has been known to British Governments and the British people since the two World Wars. In the Army, there was a Sikh batch of religious people who used to have a ceremonial sword in front of the holy book. There is nothing wrong with that; it is used purely for religious purposes and I think would be good if this amendment were accepted.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment. It deals with an issue which we discussed at length in Committee and which was the subject of a very productive round table on 13 February, attended by members of the Sikh community, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Paddick and Lord Singh, and my noble friend Lord Suri. I was also grateful to have a separate discussion with my noble friend Lady Verma. I have provided a fact sheet to noble Lords, setting out the current position under the offensive weapons legislation in relation to kirpans, and I would happily place a copy in the Library of the House.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to ensure that Sikhs are not prosecuted for possessing a kirpan and to allow the gifting of large kirpans by Sikhs to non-Sikhs. The amendment would therefore exempt kirpans from the offences of possessing a bladed or sharply pointed article in a public place or school and further education premises, and from the offence of possessing an offensive weapon under Section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I believe that the intention is also to exempt kirpans from the offence of supplying an offensive weapon under Section 141 of the 1988 Act—albeit the current amendment only references possession. The exemption would apply where the kirpan is possessed for,
“religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons”.
My main issue with the amendment is that it refers to kirpans but does not define them. Kirpans vary considerably in size and shape, the only common factor being their association with the Sikh faith. This is why the existing defences of possession and supply for “religious reasons” work so well—they define by reference to purpose. It would not be workable to have an exemption for kirpans without saying what they are, otherwise everyone caught in possession of a knife or sword could claim that it was a kirpan and that they possessed it for,
“religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons”.
The police and the CPS would have to prove otherwise, in effect having to prove that the item was not a kirpan, the person was not a Sikh, or that the person was not possessing it for sporting, ceremonial or other reasons, rather than the defendant proving or showing that they have a defence for possessing the weapon.
I appreciate that the intent behind the amendment is to deal with the issue of the gifting of kirpans, because there is already a defence for religious reasons under Sections 139, 139A, 141 and 141A of the 1988 Act, and there is already a defence for sporting purposes under Sections 141 and 141A of that Act. The Government are sympathetic to the need to find a solution to the issue of the Sikh cultural practice of gifting a kirpan. Within government, we are continuing to look actively at this issue and to meet the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and others to make sure that we come to the right solution. I am very hopeful that something can be done in this area and that it will be possible to bring forward a suitable government-drafted amendment at Third Reading.
I also note that as drafted, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, does not render the supply of a kirpan—that is, the act of gifting—lawful; it exempts only possession. This is one issue which we will need to consider further, ahead of the next stage. In the usual way, noble Lords will understand that I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee that the Government will be able to support a more targeted amendment at Third Reading. However, we will make our intentions clear in advance so that, if necessary, the noble Lord can bring back this amendment or some variant of it. But on the basis—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
May I just finish before the noble Lord comes in? On the basis that we want to work with noble Lords to find an equitable solution, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment at this stage. The answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about what other communities came forward, is: none.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
My Lords, much is being made of the definition of a kirpan. It was said in a meeting with Home Office people that a kirpan is simply a Punjabi word for a sword, and that there is no other need for a definition as it is nothing very different. This has been said again and again, yet the definition is being used as a reason for delay and further consideration, which completely confuses me.
The Duke of Montrose
Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, can she give us any examples of how the current legislation allowing for religious reasons has worked out? Have there been cases where it has been cited, and was it effective?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, following exactly from that point, the Minister has relied on the wording “for religious reasons”, which would be substituted in the Bill by “in religious ceremonies”. By saying that the Government will continue to work on this, is she in fact suggesting that that is inadequate? While I understand the concerns, it seems to me that there is a lot in support of what she has been saying about the use of that phrase.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am trying to say that we are trying to come to a workable solution, particularly for the Sikh community. On the question of other legislation, what immediately springs to my mind is that there was of course the exemption for Sikhs on mopeds who were wearing a turban. So we are, I hope, trying to reach a solution that will work for the Sikh community.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that response. All through this debate, she has always engaged positively with all sides of the House and with the Sikh community, whose members I know are very grateful for that. I am delighted at this stage to withdraw the amendment and I look forward to the solution which I hope will be brought back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a surplus word from Clause 28(11)(b).
Baroness Barran
My Lords, Clauses 28 and 37 to 39 make provision for payments to be made to owners of offensive weapons, firearms, bump stocks and ancillary equipment, who will be required to surrender these items to the police by virtue of them being prohibited by the Bill. The purpose of Amendments 93, 98, 100 and 102 is to widen the regulation-making powers as drafted in these clauses so as to allow the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice, as the case may be, to set the amount of compensation that will be paid to each claimant. This will be necessary for claims to be settled, given that the amount paid out will be based on the evidence of the value of the weapon provided by the claimant.
We believe that this is the right approach, given that the value of individual surrendered items will vary greatly and it would not, therefore, be equitable to the owners or in the interests of the public purse for the regulations to specify a fixed amount of compensation for each type of item made unlawful by the Bill. I remind noble Lords that the compensation regulations, which we have published in draft, are subject to the affirmative procedure. Accordingly, they will need to be debated and approved by both Houses before they can come into force. Amendments 92, 97, 99 and 101 are minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am sorry to prolong this a little. As the Minister said, the amendments allow for discretion, both as to whether to make a payment and as to the amount under the provisions relating to the surrender of weapons. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland must make regulations and may make regulations restricting eligibility and the procedure to be followed, which is understandable. So we have an overall mandatory context but a discretion both as to whether to make a payment and its amount. How can that operate justly and fairly?
The Minister said that the arrangements must be equitable, and I agree, but the draft regulations include provisions about eligibility for compensation and determining the amount of compensation,
“taking account of the valuation evidence supplied”.
They also provide for no compensation if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that, under the regulations, compensation is payable. Is what I have just quoted a discretion? It does not seem so to me. The term “discretion” in the amendments suggests there is a distinction for people who surrender weapons in an arbitrary fashion. I cannot believe that is what the Government intend but, given that we already have provision for valuing the weapons, why is discretion needed on top of secondary legislation that provides for the valuation?
Baroness Barran
If I have followed the noble Baroness’s question correctly, there are two elements to this. First, there is an element of discretion around the need for the individual who is surrendering weapons to show documentary evidence that they are the legal owner, and that the weapons have been lawfully acquired. Secondly, there is a range of valuations that could be provided, including from an auction house or for insurance. My understanding is that there is an element of discretion in judging the validity of those.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I understand why the Secretary of State or whoever has the final say in that, but I do not think that that is the same as discretion. I will not pursue the matter any further now.
Baroness Barran
“(c) provision enabling a person to exercise a discretion in determining—(i) whether to make a payment in response to a claim, and(ii) the amount of such a payment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confirm that regulations under Clause 28 providing for compensation for surrendered offensive weapons may allow a person determining an amount of compensation to exercise a discretion in doing so.
Lord Paddick
“Penalty for affray
(1) Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.(2) Insert at the beginning of subsection (7) “Subject to subsection 8,”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(8) A person guilty of affray in which a corrosive substance or a bladed article has been used is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment achieves the same end as the Government's approach by adding provisions relating to corrosives and bladed articles to the existing offence of affray.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, we return to the argument that the Bill is full of unnecessary new legislation that has clearly not been thought through and which is already adequately covered by existing legislation. The Bill is being used simply to send a message that the Government are taking the issues of knife crime and corrosive liquids seriously, instead of investing in those things that really make a difference, such as youth services and community policing.
In Committee I raised the fact that the offence of affray was almost identical to the proposed changes to the existing offences of threatening with an article with a blade, a pointed article or an offensive weapon. Section 1A(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 states that:
“A person is guilty of an offence if that person … has an offensive weapon with him or her in a public place … unlawfully and intentionally threatens another person with the weapon, and … does so in such a way that there is an immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person”.
Subsection (2) says:
“For the purposes of this section physical harm is serious if it amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861”.
Section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states:
“A person is guilty of an offence if that person … has an article to which this section applies with him or her in a public place or on school premises … unlawfully and intentionally threatens another person with the article, and … does so in such a way that there is an immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person”.
Again, serious physical harm means grievous bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
The main differences proposed by the Bill concern the nature of the risk, which is changed from,
“immediate risk of serious physical harm”—
GBH—
to the person threatened, to a much wider definition of,
“a reasonable person (“B”) who was exposed to the same threat as A”,
that is, the person being threatened,
“would think that there was an immediate risk of physical harm to B”,
that is, the reasonable person.
So we go from an immediate risk of GBH to the person being threatened to a much vaguer concept of a reasonable person—is that a reasonable martial arts expert or a reasonable old-age pensioner—thinking that there was an immediate risk of physical harm. Does that mean common assault, ABH or GBH?
In Committee, the Minister and I engaged in an intellectual and legalistic argument over the technical differences between the offence of affray—in Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986—and the proposed new offences. That section states:
“A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety”.
So in affray we have,
“uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another”,
instead of,
“unlawfully and intentionally threatens another person”.
In affray we have,
“his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety”,
instead of,
“a reasonable person (“B”) who was exposed to the same threat as A would think there was an immediate risk of physical harm to B”.
Can the Minister really tell the House that there is a practical difference between a “person of reasonable firmness” fearing for their personal safety and a “reasonable person” thinking there was an immediate risk of physical harm? I would be grateful for an example. Indeed, the affray definition does not rely on the extremely vague concept of a “reasonable person” but instead refers to,
“a person of reasonable firmness”—
not a reasonable martial arts expert or a reasonable old-age pensioner but what we are really talking about: a person of reasonable firmness.
This legislation also adds further education premises to school premises in the 1988 offence, but affray can be committed in private as well as in public, so all premises are covered. Therefore, the only substantive difference between affray and the new offences is the maximum sentence on indictment: three years for affray and four years for the 1988 offence. This amendment addresses the one outstanding issue by increasing the maximum penalty for affray to four years for an offence in which a corrosive substance or bladed article has been used. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran
My Lords, this amendment returns, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, just said, to an issue that he raised in Committee about the differences between the revised offence of threatening with an offensive weapon in public in Clause 29 of the Bill and the offence of affray under Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986. I wrote to him on this matter on 21 February. I will try to clarify the difference to your Lordships’ satisfaction and give an example of how it will work in practice. The difference between the two offences is not simply a matter of different maximum penalties, as Amendment 94 implies.
The offence of affray deals with circumstances where a bystander observes someone threatening another person and where the bystander feels threatened. The offences of threatening with an offensive weapon in public under Section 1A of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and of threatening with an article with a blade or point or offensive weapons under Section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 deal with circumstances where a person is themselves being threatened. Indeed, in practice it is possible to commit both offences at the same time, as the noble Lord will be aware and as the CPS charging advice sets out. An example would be where someone is holding person A by the throat in the road, screaming and shouting, but also waving a knife around in the air so that person B thinks that the defendant might also come for them—that would be an offence of affray—or someone might start a fight in a pub in such a way that people nearby think that the person might also start on them, as opposed to cases where there is not that perception that a bystander would be affected. Case law examples include driving a car at another occupied vehicle or setting dogs on the police with the words, “Go on! Go on!”—only in case law does such language get used.
Therefore, affray concerns a reasonable bystander who witnesses someone else being threatened and fears for their own personal safety. This is a different test from that under the offences amended by the Bill, which ask whether a reasonable person exposed to the same threat as the victim would think that there is an immediate risk of physical harm to that victim. Under the offences in the Bill it is therefore what a reasonable person in the victim’s shoes would be likely to feel when threatened, rather than whether a person witnessing a threat against someone else also feels threatened. Amendment 94 therefore fails to address the fact that these offences deal with different things. As I have indicated, it is not just about penalties, although I fully accept that I highlighted this as a key difference in Committee. Affray is a public order offence and therefore focuses on the weapon and the threat to the wider public, rather than the impact on the victim. The offences of threatening in public deal with the victim being threatened.
I hope, in the light of this further explanation, that the noble Lord is persuaded that we are not creating unnecessary duplication in the criminal law and, on that basis, will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I do not think that it does away with my general comments about the legislation as a whole but on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Prohibition of certain firearms etc: England and Wales and Scotland
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) In section 5 (weapons subject to general prohibition), in subsection (1), after paragraph (af) insert—“(ag) any rifle from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than 13,600 joules at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged;(ah) any rifle with a chamber from which empty cartridge cases are extracted using—(i) energy from propellant gas, or (ii) energy imparted to a spring or other energy storage device by propellant gas, other than a rifle which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges;”.(3) In section 5(1), for the “and” at the end of paragraph (b) substitute—“(ba) any device (commonly known as a bump stock) which is designed or adapted so that—(i) it is capable of forming part of or being added to a self loading lethal barrelled weapon (as defined in section 57(1B) and (2A)), and(ii) if it forms part of or is added to such a weapon, it increases the rate of fire of the weapon by using the recoil from the weapon to generate repeated pressure on the trigger; and”.(4) In section 5(2), after “including,” insert “in the case of weapons, any devices falling within subsection (1)(ba) of this section and,”.(5) In section 5(2A)(a), after “weapon” insert “, device”.(6) In section 51A(1)(a) (minimum sentences for certain offences under section 5), in each of sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii), after “(af)” insert “, (ag), (ah), (ba)”.(7) In Schedule 6 (prosecution and punishment of offences), in Part 1 (table of punishments)—(a) in the entry for section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae), (af) or (c), in the first column, after “(af)” insert “, (ag), (ah), (ba)”,(b) in the entry for section 19, in the third column, for “or (af)” substitute “, (af), (ag), (ah) or (ba)”, and(c) in the entry for section 20(1), in the third column, for “or (af)” substitute “, (af), (ag), (ah) or (ba)”.(8) The amendments made by subsection (6) apply only in relation to—(a) an offence under section 5(1)(ag), (ah) or (ba) of the Firearms Act 1968 which is committed after the coming into force of subsection (6), and(b) an offence under a provision listed in section 51A(1A) of that Act in respect of a firearm specified in section 5(1)(ag), (ah) or (ba) of that Act which is committed after the coming into force of subsection (6).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would return the prohibition of high-powered firearms in England, Scotland and Wales to the Bill, which was removed during the Bill's passage through the Commons.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, in my nine years in your Lordships’ House, I have never had to come to the Dispatch Box and speak to two amendments that were originally in the government Bill. I am proposing a government clause here. I suppose we all have to do new things at some point, but it is a strange situation when the opposition spokesperson moves to add two clauses on these matters that were in the Bill in the other place.
I shall read out a couple of quotes that may interest the House. First:
“There is concern about the availability of .50 calibre and rapid-fire Manually Actuated Release System (MARS) rifles being available to some civilian firearms licence holders. The range and penetrative power of .50 calibre rifles makes them more dangerous than other common firearms and were they to be used in criminal or terrorist activities would present a serious threat to the public and would be uniquely difficult for the police to control. Due to the rate of discharge MARS rifles pose a comparable risk to the public and police as other self-loading weapons already banned in the UK. The Government need to intervene to ensure the purchase, ownership or possession is illegal”.
That is the opening statement of the Government’s impact assessment.
Moving on, at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State said:
“We based those measures on evidence that we received from intelligence sources, police and other security experts … According to the information that we have, weapons of this type have, sadly, been used in the troubles in Northern Ireland, and, according to intelligence provided by police and security services, have been possessed by criminals who have clearly intended to use them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/18; cols. 918-19.]
What happened? What persuaded the Government to do a complete about-turn by Third Reading? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. Apparently, these weapons can immobilise a truck or hit a person over a mile away. I am surprised by the about-turn between Second Reading and Third Reading. We raised this issue in Grand Committee and have still had no explanation. I seek to put two government clauses back into the Bill. I look forward to the debate and I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for returning us to the issue of high muzzle energy—HME—rifles with an explanation of his amendment. I want to point out that I have never opposed the proposed ban on MARS or lever-release rifles, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, although I have eased back on my opposition to the compensation arrangements for them.
Amendments 103A, 103B, 107A, 107B, 108A, 110A, 113A, 116 and 117 in this group are in my name. The first two are substantive; the rest are consequential. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Lucas and I suggested that we did not need to put these high muzzle energy, .50 calibre target rifles in Section 5 and thus prohibit them from general use. However, we need to make certain that they cannot fall into the wrong hands. We can achieve that by requiring the same levels of security currently applied to Section 5 firearms—those with no legitimate civilian use, such as self-loading rifles and automatic weapons, among others. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned level 3 security in his amendment while mine sought to give an order-making power to the Secretary of State to achieve much the same. In addition, my amendment provided for transport conditions.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I think we are all agreed that this is an important issue which needs to be debated. As my noble friend said, he is simply moving in his amendment what the Government put in their original legislation, so one would have thought that it would be uncontroversial. My noble friend has read out what the Home Secretary said in the debate at Second Reading in the other place. I think it is legitimate for us to ask the question and be given an answer as to why the Home Secretary has chosen to ignore the advice of the agencies concerned when he withdrew the amendment to the Bill. However, having said that, the Government have promised a consultation on this matter, which is an important statement on their part, and therefore it would be wise not to press the amendment to a vote today.
In the consultation that is to take place, I expect that the agencies quoted by the Home Secretary will want to tell Members of both Houses what their view is of the dangers of these weapons. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has outlined, officials have given a view about these pretty dreadful weapons. A .50 calibre rifle sounds almost innocuous, but they are basically sniper rifles that can take out a vehicle and human beings at a mile’s distance. These are formidable weapons in war. They are highly prized and valued in conflict given their accuracy and lethality.
I recall as Defence Secretary going to Bosnia and watching Operation Harvest involving members of the Royal Highland Fusiliers in Banja Luka. One of them, with a broad Glasgow accent, came back from one of the houses in the village with a sniper rifle. Since he did not have an interpreter with him, I wondered how he had managed to persuade the individual in the house to hand over such a prized instrument of the conflict. I think it was the nature of his accent that persuaded the inhabitant of the house that he was not a friendly force and they should therefore hand it over. It was regarded as enormously significant that day that he had managed to persuade them to hand over what was regarded as one of the key instruments of the conflict there.
It is quite legitimate for Members of the House to listen to the words of the Home Secretary read out by my noble friend. The Home Secretary said that he based these measures on,
“evidence that we received from intelligence sources, police and other security experts”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/18; col. 918.]
That is pretty all-embracing. This is not just a handful of individuals putting this forward. We are talking here about representatives of 43 police forces in the United Kingdom, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service, GCHQ and the National Crime Agency. Their distilled view and wisdom was that if these weapons were to fall into the hands of criminals or others with malign intent, they would have particularly dangerous effects. The Home Secretary did not underestimate it. He said:
“According to the information that we have, weapons of this type have, sadly, been used in the troubles in Northern Ireland”—
the noble Earl said they had never been used in the United Kingdom, but we are told by the Home Secretary that they have—
“and, according to intelligence provided by police and security services, have been possessed by criminals who have clearly intended to use them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/18; col. 919.]
We have had a discussion about knife crime, a huge issue affecting us at present. One can only imagine what would happen if the Home Secretary were right and criminal elements got their hands on .50 calibre rifles, and what damage they could do.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, poured scorn on advice given by officials. I was a Secretary of State and had officials who gave me advice in NATO as well. It is the role of Ministers to listen to advice and to make decisions, but the Home Secretary presumably would not come to Parliament not having given careful attention to the advice offered to him on that occasion. There must have been something pretty radical to change his mind—not just the assembled Members of Parliament who argued vociferously against it.
I went through the great debate about handguns in 1997-98, and I have heard all the arguments before. Yes, they will be safe if we have safeguards and the police are satisfied. I remember the number of people who had these handguns, some of them large numbers of handguns, and being assured that they were all safe—yet we saw the two major incidents in Hungerford and Dunblane caused by the private ownership of handguns.
I am not reassured by some of the statements that have been made. I would prefer to follow the course of action laid down by the Home Secretary in his opening speech at Second Reading. I hope that during the consultation we will be able to make that case and that the Home Secretary will return to his original view.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I understand why the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, are saying what they say. I am not as surprised as the noble Lords, in that my experience is that Governments argue until they are blue in the face that they could not possibly adopt an opposition amendment, only to adopt it at the next stage. Such a change of view is not without precedent when it comes to these matters.
I am more warmly disposed to the calls of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for a compromise, if you will, of increased security. However, I hope to be even more convinced by the Minister that the right way forward is further consultation.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I join this debate for a couple of reasons, having listened to it in Grand Committee in the Moses Room. I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, did not try to copy the accent of the HLI Jock. Your Lordships would have understood why the rifle was handed over.
I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will solve an argument that I had at the weekend about how easy it is to modify a rifle that is constructed above 13,600 joules to below 13,600 joules. If that could be on the record it would be helpful. Also, could he not introduce the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Attlee under Section 63 of the 1968 Act?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl’s question about the energy of the rifle is that there is a huge gap between the next lowest powered rifle and the .50 calibre rifle.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, people have spoken to me about this and, from what I understand, these weapons are only used now in international competition. If I am right, it would be sad if we were to lose our ability to take part in them. I cannot see what the problem is, given that these weapons have not been used in terrorist incidents. I also understand that it is hard to get hold of armour-piercing and dangerous ammunition, which is not used in international target competition. You have to find a terrorist source, effectively, to get that; a casual thief would not be able to handle it. The additional security proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would be satisfactory and enable Britain to take part in international competition.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has indicated, Amendments 95 and 96 would restore the prohibition on civilian access to high muzzle energy rifles, which was a feature of the Bill on its first introduction in the House of Commons. These rifles are currently available for civilian use or ownership under general firearms licensing arrangements administered by the police.
We discussed these amendments in Grand Committee, and the question of whether these particular rifles should be prohibited also received much scrutiny in the House of Commons. I hope therefore it will not be necessary for me to repeat all that I said in Grand Committee but, in the light of the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, it may assist your Lordships if I briefly reiterate the Government’s position.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for his contribution. This has been an interesting debate. I am proposing the position the Government took only a few months ago in the other place. They are now opposing that position. I suppose we live in interesting times.
I was very clear at Second Reading that I fully support the Home Secretary. I am just disappointed that the Government have changed their mind. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his amendments. They go some way towards allaying my fears. I am very pleased to learn from the Minister that the Government will support them. That is progress, and I thank the noble Lord for tabling the amendments today.
I also welcome the government consultation. I hope everyone involved and interested will contribute to it. My concern is that we will have the consultation and get the results many months after this Bill has passed into law. If the Government decide to ban these weapons, I will be asking how they are going do so and when there will be legislation. That has happened before. Noble Lords know that I am going to mention the rogue landlords database in the dreaded Housing and Planning Act. We wanted it to be made public, but the Government opposed us all the way. We won at least two votes, but the Government would not have it, so the public cannot access the database. The Government have now changed their mind, but when I ask about it, they say, “You’re absolutely right, Lord Kennedy, but we cannot find a bit of legislation to make it public yet”. That is the frustration with these consultations. The Government look at things, change their mind, but we cannot get changes.
I am not going to test the opinion of the House. I am tempted to see whether the Government vote against their original position, but I shall not do that today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas
My Lords, in Grand Committee my noble friend and I had a discussion on this subject and he said that he would do his best to find me the evidence that the Government were working on that rifles that are targeted in this part of the Bill are capable of a higher rate of fire than ordinary target rifles. I have not received, as far as I can find out, anything from my noble friend.
My amendment is not intended to look at the process. After all, targeting only where the energy source is the gas from the firing of the previous cartridge leaves the possibility that a similar mechanism might be powered by electricity or clockwork. I think that the Government are saying that they do not want in common use rifles that are capable of a higher rate of fire than a standard bolt-action rifle. That seems reasonable, and if that is what the Government want to achieve, let us have legislation that achieves that and does not go at just the particular way a higher rate of fire—if there is indeed a higher rate of fire—is being achieved. That will allow us to develop a weapon that can be conveniently used by disabled people but which will be acceptable to the Government in the long term. That was very much why these weapons came into being. They were perfectly legally created but were adapted to the needs of particular shooters.
Let us have out in the clear, in legislation, that the basic thing that the Government want to avoid is fast-firing rifles. Let us ban them. Then something that does not have a higher rate of fire, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, can be allowed and created to meet need of these particular target shooters.
Under this subsection we are looking at a compensation payment of around £15 million, as far as I can discover, which is not enormous on the Grayling scale but is nevertheless a serious amount of money for the Government to focus on whether this is a justified expenditure or not. I would like to be sure that the rifles are being banned because they exceed a rate of fire that the Government find acceptable. If we are going to do it by the mechanism in this Bill because we have not got time to change anything else, let us at least see the evidence. What measurement of the rate of fire of these rifles have the Government made to justify spending £15 million? If that evidence is not immediately forthcoming, let us refocus on the underlying concern—the rate of fire. Let us make that the prohibited thing. That way, we can adapt to changes in technology as they come along and make sure that this bit of the Bill continues to achieve its intended effect into the future, and not just until someone finds another technological workaround. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I support this amendment. I find it very sad that we wish to discriminate in legislation against people who cannot handle certain equipment in general—that is a general principle in life—and in this case rifles for competition. Some of them develop great skill. It gives them something to achieve and excel at. It is highly discriminatory and very sad that we have to discriminate against disabled because of a few concerns and an inability to think this through properly. I therefore support the amendment and really think we should put something like it through.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, especially in light of my success with the amendments that I will be moving formally a little later. I am afraid that these MARS and lever-action rifles are self-loading. The mechanism inside them works in exactly the same way as the automatic rifles that I used in Her Majesty’s service. I do not support these. I thought that we had banned them post Hungerford. At the time of Hungerford, I was surprised that you could privately own a self-loading rifle—a 7.62 military-specification rifle.
Going back to the point by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, I did not realise that, post Dunblane, there was a so-called sporting discipline of combat shooting. Noble Lords will recall the noble Lord, Lord Howard, talking about those who don the trappings of combat. I was unhappy that people could do combat shooting—in other words, changing fire positions and, most importantly, changing magazines. That is the edge that the security forces have over a private person: they train to make sure that they do not pull the trigger and find that they have an empty magazine.
So I am afraid that I do not support retaining the civilian ownership of MARS or lever-action rifles. They are self-loading rifles, and I thought we had banned them a long time ago.
Earl Howe
My Lords, although this amendment refers to Clause 34, I have assumed for the purposes of my reply to my noble friend that he would like to apply the additional wording to Clause 33 as well, for consistency.
These clauses will prohibit civilian access to certain types of rapid-firing rifles, defined as,
“any rifle with a chamber from which empty cartridge cases are extracted using … energy from propellant gas, or … energy imparted to a spring or other energy storage device by propellant gas”.
As has been made clear during previous stages of this Bill, the Government are concerned about the potential risk to public safety if these rifles were to fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. At present, these rifles are available to target shooters who have obtained a firearms certificate from the police, for which they have been vetted. However, the police and National Crime Agency are concerned about the rate of fire of these rifles and consider that stricter controls are needed.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I would like to suggest something to the Minister that has just occurred to me: how about including them with the rifles covered by the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, is another possibility for disabled shooters to use .22 self-loading rifles, which are still available?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. I am sure that that point will be taken on board by the clubs concerned and those who assist disabled shooters.
I do not think we can escape the fact that, were they to get hold of them, criminals or terrorists could cause more harm with this type of rifle than they ever could with a conventional one—acknowledging, of course, that all firearms are lethal and should be controlled. The Government are already satisfied, for the reasons that I have given, that these rapid-firing rifles meet the criteria that the amendment seeks to impose. For that reason, we think the additional wording is not required. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, yes, of course I am going to withdraw my amendment but before I do, I again urge the Government to look at the harm that they are focused on rather than the mechanism by which that harm is delivered. If, as I think is entirely reasonable, the Government do not want rapid-firing rifles, why does the Bill not say that? Just because the energy from firing the previous shot is conveniently available—that is the way that these rifles work at present—does not mean that you could not create a rifle that worked off previously stored compressed gas, batteries, a wind-up clockwork mechanism or some other means of storing energy that would allow a round to be automatically loaded, or loaded with an interrupt mechanism, after the previous round had been fired.
In this legislation we seem to be dealing with the mechanism rather than the underlying problem. Surely, if we deal with the underlying problem, we will not get the situation arising again where a couple of designs of rifle have been allowed to be created—they have not grown up without permission—and have been sold, when, fundamentally, as my noble friend Lord Attlee has pointed out, we feel uncomfortable about self-loading rifles. We are not banning self-loading rifles here; we are banning one particular mechanism of self-loading. That seems short-sighted and not the best way of tackling the problem.
I would be really grateful if my noble friend the Minister could share the evidence that these particular rifles are in fact faster-loading than a bolt-action rifle, not so much because I am concerned about this particular case but because I would like to know that when it comes to making this sort of judgment in future we can look at and understand the basis on which the decision has been taken.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I would be immensely grateful if my noble friend could point it out to me because no one else has been able to. That would certainly be helpful. As my noble friend has requested, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a surplus word from Clause 37(8)(b).
“(c) provision enabling a person to exercise a discretion in determining—(i) whether to make a payment in response to a claim, and(ii) the amount of such a payment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confirm that regulations under Clause 37 providing for compensation for surrendered firearms may allow a person determining an amount of compensation to exercise a discretion in doing so.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a surplus word from Clause 38(9)(b).
“(c) provision enabling a person to exercise a discretion in determining—(i) whether to make a payment in response to a claim, and(ii) the amount of such a payment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confirm that regulations under Clause 38 providing for compensation for surrendered bump stocks may allow a person determining an amount of compensation to exercise a discretion in doing so.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a surplus word from Clause 39(7)(b).
“(c) provision enabling a person to exercise a discretion in determining—(i) whether to make a payment in response to a claim, and(ii) the amount of such a payment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confirm that regulations under Clause 39 providing for compensation for ancillary equipment which has been surrendered or disposed of may allow a person determining an amount of compensation to exercise a discretion in doing so.
The Earl of Shrewsbury
“Statutory firearms licensing guidance
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish a policy statement setting out proposals for the introduction of statutory firearms licensing guidance under section 55A of the Firearms Act 1968.(2) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, open a public consultation on the proposals set out in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to open a public consultation on proposals for the introduction of statutory firearms licensing guidance within three months of the passing of this Act.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. The purpose of Amendment 103 is to place a duty on the Secretary of State to open a public discussion on proposals for the introduction of statutory firearms licensing guidance within three months of the Bill becoming an Act. I spoke about this matter at length at Second Reading and in Grand Committee, where I found considerable sympathy with my proposals, in particular the medical aspects of firearms licensing guidance. I do not intend to repeat those arguments, save to say that my proposals have widespread support from the police, the British Shooting Sports Council and the APPG for Shooting and Conservation. I understand that the suggestions agreed with the Home Office by these bodies some two years ago also have the Home Office’s support.
However noble its intentions, the Home Office is the cause of much frustration in the ranks of various stakeholders through its constant delaying—the answer to the introduction of the promised consultation varying between “soon”, “shortly”, and, indeed, “as soon as possible”, as stated in my noble friend’s response to me in Grand Committee:
“I have a partial answer for my noble friend. The consultation will be launched after Royal Assent, but I am sure that the spirit of that undertaking is as soon as possible after Royal Assent”.—[Official Report, 6/2/19; col. GC 418.]
I and many in the shooting organisations believe that the continuing delay is because the Home Office simply has yet to get its ducks in a row. Further delay is neither fair nor good enough. The amendment serves to enhance the safety of the public. I believe I have cross-party support on it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment in Committee, but when I came to put my name to it on Report I found that three others had already done so. I hope my noble friend is impressed that support for the amendment is from not only the Cross Benches but the Back Benches of the Labour Party.
This is a hugely important amendment. I will not repeat what I said in Grand Committee, but I hope my noble friend will understand that the amendment is designed to enhance public safety. If it had been enacted before Dunblane I think some of the problems there would not have happened. Anybody who has access to the shotgun or rifle cabinet must be properly scrutinised. As my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said, the Home Office is dragging its feet on this. We want it to hurry up. I hope my noble friend will ensure that my former department gets a move on and does this consultation extremely quickly.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, while I support my noble friend’s amendment, which I am sure is a good idea, I return to the issue of the old Firearms Consultative Committee, which fell into disuse. If that was still in operation, we would not have had the MARS lever action release problem and we would have saved £15 million in compensation, because I am sure that that committee would have nipped its development in the bud and saved an awful lot of money.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue and for the opportunity to discuss it with him at a meeting last week. As he explained, his amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to open a public consultation on statutory firearms licensing guidance within three months of Royal Assent.
The Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced a power, contained in Section 55A of the Firearms Act 1968, for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to chief officers that will apply to issues such as background checks, medical suitability, and other criteria to protect public safety. This will help ensure high standards and consistency of approach for police firearms licensing. We have said that there will be a public consultation on the draft guidance before it is promulgated.
My noble friend has indicated that he is particularly interested in the medical aspects of the guidance, for understandable reasons. He and other noble Lords wish to see the consultation launched as soon as possible, as a further step towards improving the operation of the medical arrangements. There is a need for strong information-sharing arrangements between GPs and police, to ensure that those in possession of a firearm or shotgun certificate are medically fit and do not pose a risk to themselves or others. But the Government recognise that there is variation in how GPs are responding to police requests for information, and in the fees being charged to applicants, and that following this, the police are not always responding in a consistent way if they do not receive the medical information they require. In addition to holding a public consultation on the introduction of the statutory guidance, the Government will continue to engage with shooting representatives, the police and the medical profession to ensure that the system operates as effectively as possible.
The Earl of Shrewsbury
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his words. I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment, on his undertaking. Would he be prepared to put that in a letter in the Library?
The Earl of Shrewsbury
Ten points for trying again, my Lords. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Earl Attlee
“Conditions applying to certain firearms: England and Wales and Scotland
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) After section 27 insert—“27A Conditions for storage etc of certain firearms(1) This section applies to a firearm if it is a rifle from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than 13,600 joules at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged.(2) The Secretary of State must by rules under section 53 prescribe conditions—(a) subject to which a firearm certificate relating to a firearm to which this section applies must be granted or renewed, and(b) which impose requirements as to the storage of a firearm to which this section applies and as to the security measures to be taken when such a firearm is in transit.(3) Before making rules under section 53 which prescribe conditions of the kind mentioned in subsection (2) the Secretary of State must consult such persons likely to be affected by the rules as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”(3) In section 53 (rules for implementing the Act)—(a) the existing text becomes subsection (1), and(b) at the end of that subsection insert—“(2) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) rules under this section which prescribe conditions of the kind mentioned in section 27A(2) (conditions for storage etc of certain firearms) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prescribe conditions which must apply to firearm certificates relating to certain high muzzle energy rifles and which relate to the storage and secure transit of such rifles.
“Conditions applying to certain firearms: Northern Ireland
(1) The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (SI 2004/702 (NI 3)) is amended as follows.(2) In Article 6 (conditions), after paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to Article 6A (conditions for storage etc of certain firearms) and regulations under that Article.”(3) After Article 6 insert—“6A Conditions for storage etc of certain firearms(1) This Article applies to a firearm if it is a rifle from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than 13,600 joules at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged.(2) The Department of Justice must by regulations prescribe conditions—(a) subject to which a firearm certificate relating to a firearm to which this Article applies must be granted, and(b) which impose requirements as to the storage of a firearm to which this Article applies and as to the security measures to be taken when such a firearm is in transit.(3) If a firearm certificate is granted subject to conditions prescribed under paragraph (2), that certificate may not be varied so as to vary or revoke those conditions.(4) Before making regulations under paragraph (2) the Department of Justice must consult such persons likely to be affected by the regulations as the Department considers appropriate.”(4) In Article 11 (variation of firearm certificate), after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Paragraph (1) is subject to Article 6A (conditions for storage etc of certain firearms) and regulations under that Article.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to prescribe conditions which must apply to firearm certificates relating to certain high muzzle energy rifles and which relate to the storage and secure transit of such rifles.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Minister’s amendment at page 38, line 28 would convert references to certain Clauses of the Bill relating to firearms into references to a Part of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of the Minister’s amendment at page 38, line 25.
“Guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc
(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time issue guidance about—(a) section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse),(b) section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (penalties for offences in connection with dangerous weapons) as it has effect in relation to—(i) England and Wales, or(ii) the importation of a knife to which that section applies into any other part of the United Kingdom,(c) section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offence of having article with blade or point in public place) as it has effect in relation to England and Wales,(d) section 139A of that Act (offence of having article with blade or point (or offensive weapon) on educational premises) as it has effect in relation to England and Wales,(e) section 141 of that Act (offensive weapons) as it has effect in relation to England and Wales,(f) section 141A of that Act (sale of bladed articles to persons under 18) as it has effect in relation to England and Wales,(g) section 141B of that Act (limitations on defence to offence under section 141A: England and Wales),(h) any of sections 1 to 4 of this Act (sale and delivery of corrosive products) as they have effect in relation to England and Wales or Scotland,(i) section 6 of this Act (offence of having a corrosive substance in a public place) as it has effect in relation to England and Wales, or(j) any of sections 18 to 21 of this Act (sale and delivery of knives etc) as they have effect in relation to England and Wales.(2) The Scottish Ministers may from time to time issue guidance about—(a) section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 as it has effect in relation to Scotland and other than in relation to the importation of a knife to which that section applies,(b) section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as it has effect in relation to Scotland,(c) section 141A of that Act as it has effect in relation to Scotland,(d) section 141C of that Act (defence to offence under section 141A where remote sale or letting on hire: Scotland),(e) section 6 of this Act as it has effect in relation to Scotland, or(f) any of sections 18 to 21 of this Act as they have effect in relation to Scotland.(3) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may from time to time issue guidance about—(a) Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/463 (NI 7)) (carrying of offensive weapon in public place),(b) section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as it has effect in relation to Northern Ireland,(c) section 139A of that Act as it has effect in relation to Northern Ireland, (d) section 141 of that Act as it has effect in relation to Northern Ireland,(e) Article 53 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/3160 (NI 24)) (manufacture or sale of certain knives),(f) Article 54 or 54A of that Order (sale of bladed articles to persons under 18),(g) any of sections 1 to 4 of this Act as they have effect in relation to Northern Ireland,(h) section 6 of this Act as it has effect in relation to Northern Ireland, or(i) any of sections 18 to 21 of this Act as they have effect in relation to Northern Ireland.(4) A national authority who issues guidance under this section may from time to time revise it.(5) Subsection (6) applies if a national authority proposes to issue guidance under this section—(a) on a matter on which the authority has not previously issued such guidance, or(b) which the authority considers to be substantially different from guidance previously issued under this section.(6) Before the national authority issues the guidance, the authority must consult such persons likely to be affected by it as the authority considers appropriate.(7) A national authority must arrange for any guidance issued by the authority under this section to be published in such manner as the authority thinks appropriate.(8) This section does not permit a national authority to give guidance to a court or tribunal.(9) In this section “national authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Scottish Ministers, or(c) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.(10) Until the coming into force of the repeal of section 141(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (ban on importation of weapons) by paragraph 119(2) of Schedule 7 to the Policing and Crime Act 2009, this section has effect as if—(a) subsection (1)(e) referred to section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as it has effect in relation to—(i) England and Wales, or(ii) the importation of a weapon to which that section applies into any other part of the United Kingdom;(b) subsection (2)(b) referred to that section as it has effect in relation to Scotland and other than in relation to the importation of a weapon to which that section applies, and(c) subsection (3)(d) referred to that section as it has effect in relation to Northern Ireland and other than in relation to the importation of a weapon to which that section applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would permit the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance about the operation of offences relating to offensive weapons.
Earl Attlee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to insert new Clauses after Clause 39.
“(ja) section 40;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to insert new Clauses after Clause 39.
“(la) section (Guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause before Clause 43.
Earl Attlee
“(da) section (Conditions applying to certain firearms: England and Wales and Scotland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to insert the first of two new Clauses after Clause 39.
“(ba) Part 1A;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a series of new Clauses after Clause 13.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would convert references to the Clauses of the Bill relating to threatening with an offensive weapon into a reference to Part 4 of the Bill.
Earl Attlee
“(ha) section (Conditions applying to certain firearms: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to insert the second of two new Clauses after Clause 39.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause on piloting relating to knife crime prevention orders etc as one of a series of new Clauses to appear after Clause 13.
“(i) section (Guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc) so far as it confers functions on the Scottish Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause before Clause 43.
“(ha) section (Guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc) so far as it confers functions on the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause before Clause 43.
Earl Attlee
“(hb) section (Conditions applying to certain firearms: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to insert the second of two new Clauses after Clause 39.
“(za) section (Guidance);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause on guidance relating to knife crime prevention orders etc as one of a series of new Clauses to appear after Clause 13.
“(zb) section (Piloting);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause on piloting relating to knife crime prevention orders etc as one of a series of new Clauses to appear after Clause 13.
Earl Attlee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to insert new Clauses after Clause 39.
“(ka) section 40;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to insert new Clauses after Clause 39.
Knife Crime
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question asked in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, this weekend, two teenagers—Jodie Chesney and Yousef Makki—were stabbed to death. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express my deepest condolences to their families and loved ones—two young lives tragically lost. They are the latest victims in a cycle of senseless violence that is robbing young people of their lives right across this country. There is no hiding from this issue: serious violence is on the rise, communities are being torn apart and families are losing their children. Last year, 726 people were murdered in the UK, 285 with a knife or bladed weapon, the highest level since records began.
After the horror of this weekend, I welcome the chance to come to this House and address this issue. We all wish that there was one thing—just one—that we could do to stop the violence, but there are no shortcuts; there is no single solution. Tackling serious violence requires co-ordinated action on multiple fronts.
First, we need a strong law enforcement response. This includes the Offensive Weapons Bill, currently before Parliament, that will introduce new offences to help tackle knife crime. We also need to give police the confidence to use existing laws, such as stop and search.
Secondly, we must intervene early to stop young people becoming involved in crime. We have amended the Bill to introduce knife crime prevention orders, which will help prevent young people from carrying knives. And, alongside our £200 million youth endowment fund, the £22 million early intervention youth fund has already funded 29 projects endorsed by police and crime commissioners.
Thirdly, we must ensure that the police have the resources to combat serious violence. I am raising police funding to record levels next year—up to £970 million more, including council tax. On Wednesday, I will meet with chief constables to listen to their experiences and requirements.
Fourthly, we must be clear on how changing patterns of drug misuse are fuelling the rise in violent crime. I launched the independent drugs misuse review, under Dame Carol Black, in response to this.
Fifthly, we need all parts of the public sector to prioritise tackling serious violence. That is why I will very shortly be launching a consultation on a statutory public health duty to combat violent crime and help protect young people.
We must all acknowledge that this is an issue that transcends party lines. Politics can be divisive, but if there was ever an issue to unite our efforts and inspire us to stand together, then surely this is it”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question given by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place earlier today. I agree there is no single solution and there are no shortcuts. What is missing from the Statement is an unequivocal link to ensure that youth services and other provisions across government to support families and young people receive the attention they deserve. Nothing in this Statement gives me confidence in that respect, so can the Minister comment on that and set out how the Home Secretary will ensure we deal with this matter across government—as she says, completely across the piece—and provide me with some reassurance on this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for his question, because there is a disproportionate number of young people as both victims and perpetrators of knife crime. The young chap who was killed on Saturday night in my neighbourhood is just one example. I have talked about the £22 million early intervention youth fund to support communities on early intervention and prevention with young people. There will also be the £200 million youth endowment fund over 10 years, which the Home Secretary has announced and which will enhance that, along with a consultation on the new legal duty to underpin a public health approach to tackling serious violence. The notion that any one department or measure is the answer to this is not true at all, as the noble Lord will absolutely know. This issue is more complex and it transcends government departments. We all need to work together on it, but he is absolutely right to start with young people.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It talks about early intervention with young people, yet since 2010 there has been a 26% reduction in government support to local authorities. It talks about the police having the resources to tackle serious violence, yet compared to 2010 there are 20,000 fewer police officers in front-line roles. It talks about a statutory public health duty, but there is no mention of additional resources to support that duty. This Government are responsible for creating the environment where this knife epidemic has been able to take hold, and they should take responsibility for funding solutions. For example, why will the Government not adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to have centrally funded, ring-fenced money for community police officers? We need visible policing in high-risk areas to reassure communities and to build trust and confidence, so that the police and communities can work together to take knives off the streets.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point to early intervention, and I mentioned some of the funding streams that either have gone forward or will be going forward to that end. He also talks about the police; both I and the Home Secretary have absolutely acknowledged the pressure that the police have been under, particularly over the last couple of years. As the Home Secretary said, he will be making up to £970 million available next year. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is not in his place, but I pay tribute to him and the work that he did while he was Metropolitan Police Commissioner on reducing some of the problems of knife crime in communities in London. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my honourable friend Vicky Atkins will be in discussion with the noble Lord on some of the learning points from his tenure for how we can address this really terrible growing issue.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Those of us in your Lordships’ House who have policed, conducted or judged murder cases can attest to how little force it takes to kill someone with a single blow from a knife. As part of the Government’s strategy, will they ensure that education is provided in schools by people who understand, and can provide sound education on, the danger of carrying a knife for any purpose whatever, which can so easily turn someone into a murderer?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord points out the stark simplicity with which somebody can kill somebody else—by a single blow of a knife. In talking about the public health response to knife crime, the Department for Education has a critical role to play in the lives of these young people, certainly some of those who are excluded from school, and on how to keep them engaged and out of trouble, not only when they are in school but when they are excluded too.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if anyone had suggested that the visible police presence around this building should be reduced or withdrawn, there would be universal condemnation of the suggestion. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is relevant in this context. If we have, in our towns and cities, a more prevalent, visible presence on the streets, it will surely be the best single thing we can do to combat this appalling scourge of our society.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I have to say to my noble friend that the type of police presence on the street is a matter for PCCs. I am also in agreement with him that we need the police resource necessary to tackle the problems we are facing but, as I said earlier, it is not just the police’s job; it is the job of departments across government to try to tackle this terrible problem together.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise to my noble friend, as I rushed in as quickly as possible when she began this Statement, after watching the screen. I think they need to make it more focus friendly, because it is so tiny—it is my age. Joking apart, this is a serious issue, so I have been doing lots of media and radio this morning.
After this weekend and seeing the young girl—and I give my deepest sympathy to the families—I have been thinking of what happened to her and many others. I have been a victim of crime and know what hands and feet can do, never mind what a knife can do, but I stand here with anger and disappointment. While I greatly respect what the Government are trying to do with money, finances and departments, I have to say to my noble friend that, in all of this, we are missing a piece about young people. There is nothing about humans in all of these statements.
I was disappointed to hear the Home Secretary’s Statement today, and it does not make me feel good to stand here and say that, but I have spoken today about how we have to get real about these children. We have to get real as, actually, what you perceive to be a child is a six-foot-two young man or woman—because my husband was beaten by young women. We have to be honest about what we want to deliver here to make it a safe environment. Policies are one thing and will take many years, but in the meantime we are losing many lives.
As I was community champion in my previous role, I am willing to go back into communities to roll up my sleeves and talk to them. Yesterday, I listened to somebody calling the radio who goes out to gangs, who has attended Home Office meetings over the last 10 years. He said that nothing changes unless you bring these young people in and speak to them and their parents. This is not just down to government; it is down to society to stop being so desensitised.
I would welcome a conversation with my noble friend and the Home Secretary, who I am seeing next week, but I feel that we are losing the human beings behind this and the families who are being ripped apart. We have to send the message that we are serious, but we also have to get there early to talk to them, because they are creative people. Let us get them into jobs, intervention and education because, if they are creative with their hands, they will no longer carry a knife and create the havoc that we are seeing as a national crisis today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, once again I pay tribute to my noble friend for all her work in this area. She must have heard the earlier discussion when my noble friend Lady Barran talked about exactly that—listening to young people. I have had discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, about the same thing. We cannot just tackle it from a policy point of view; there are humans in all this. As my noble friend said, they may be six feet two, but they are still children and capable of much good as well as much damage. I will take her points on board. We must work in this way in future.
Privatised Probation System
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer given in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice. The Statement is as follows.
“I am pleased to be called to address this Urgent Question, and fully understand why the honourable Member has raised it. As the House will be aware, we have been looking very carefully at the future of probation services, and this gives me the opportunity to briefly set out what the transforming rehabilitation reforms were, some of the challenges, and our response.
As the House will be aware, transforming rehabilitation was strongly influenced by a Labour pilot—the Peterborough pilot—which demonstrated that by bringing in non-state providers, concentrating on a cohort of short-sentence prisoners who had not previously been supervised, and paying providers for reducing reoffending, it was possible to achieve significant improvements. Transforming rehabilitation was a coalition government commitment built on these principles, by contracting the private sector and others—for example in Durham Tees Valley this included the local authority—and undertook to pay the providers significant sums if they were able to reduce reoffending. The contracts were left flexible to encourage innovation. This private model was applied only to low-risk offenders; high-risk offenders continued to be supervised in the usual way by the state. The new model has delivered in some ways. But, as the National Audit Office has pointed out, it has not delivered in others.
There has been a reduction in the binary rate of reoffending, although there has been an increase in the separate frequency measures; 40,000 additional offenders are currently being supervised, who were not previously supervised under the old system. Some innovation has come into the system and it has saved the taxpayer money. So even though the honourable Member opposite would point out that through changes to the contracts, more money has gone in, we are still forecast to spend significantly less than we originally anticipated—perhaps as much as £700 million less. But the programme was challenged by external factors, some of which were difficult to model and predict. For example, societal changes, and different sentencing decisions by judges, meant the case load given to the CRCs—the community rehabilitation companies—shifted and some of the accredited programmes allocated were fewer than expected. This meant that the income streams of these companies were less than anticipated. Broader issues, such as drugs, and issues around housing and treatment programmes, meant that it was difficult for providers to control all the factors in reoffending. This led to some of the companies losing significant sums of money.
We have therefore taken a new approach, which seeks to address all these problems. We have just conducted a consultation and are carefully studying the responses. Our intention is, first, to remove the dependence in the new probation system on unpredictable case loads, and to improve co-ordination with the National Probation Service. We are emphasising overall quality of service, not just the reoffending rate; we will be ending the existing contracts early; we will be setting minimum conditions for offender supervision; and we have invested over £20 million in through-the-gate services.
Our objective—while retaining the benefits of flexibility and innovation—is to create a much higher-quality probation service that focuses on good-quality delivery and protects the public”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Answer. I admire her for doing it so well; it is not an easy gig. There has been cross-party authorship and ancestry to privatisation of probation and, indeed, other vital services at the core of the state’s principal duty to protect people. So I do not want to make partisan points but to say what we have learned and what we want to do differently in future. It seems to me that there is a constitutional problem with privatising services at the very core of keeping people safe, whether it is the military, policing, prisons or—if we are serious about reducing offending in the future, as we heard so eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—probation, too.
In that spirit, I ask the Minister, and all noble Lords here, to consider whether it is time to say that probation should not be for profit, so that we can have the greater ministerial accountability that our people deserve and we can put this at the core of everything we are about, in Parliament and in government—not contract it out or do it on the cheap, but take responsibility. Do the Minister and other noble Lords agree that we should do this? I say this to put private contractors, whether they are succeeding or failing, on notice that this is something that we on this side of the House are very concerned about.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is correct that this is not an easy gig, but I believe that probation can have a positive future. In the past we have opened up probation to a diverse range of providers. This was supported by Labour when it was in government; clearly, no longer. We need to learn lessons from the first generation of these contracts and we certainly have. We believe that public, private and voluntary providers all have an important role to play and we would like to see better integration, under new arrangements, so that they can all work together to protect the public and tackle reoffending.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question, but it does not reflect the shocking indictment of the probation changes in the report of the National Audit Office. During his time as Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling introduced a number of reforms to the probation service that have ultimately resulted in its near decimation. It is estimated that ending private contracts will cost at least £171 million. Reoffending, recall to prison and short sentences have soared. The number of offences has increased by 22%. The National Audit Office chief stated that the Ministry of Justice set itself up to fail in how it approached probation reforms. Will the Minister publish a cross-government strategy to explain how it will work with other bodies to reduce reoffending and develop a plan to manage the winding-up of existing contracts?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his comments. The NAO report made a number of very long-standing criticisms, of which we were, of course, already aware. We have taken action to respond to those criticisms, many of which I hope to come to in other answers. The noble Lord asked specifically about reoffending. As I mentioned in my opening statement, it is a very complex and difficult issue to solve; certainly, we are approaching it from a cross-government perspective. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recently established the cross-government Reducing Reoffending Board, which brings together senior Ministers from all relevant departments to tackle the impact of reoffending on society as a whole. The core member of this group is the MoJ, but it also includes health, education—which is so important—the DWP, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and, of course, the Home Office. By working together we can reduce reoffending. Nobody would suggest that it is easy, but I believe that with a cross-government approach we will be able to do it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in both Houses and with Governments of both parties, I have consistently made the point that it is wrong for the state to opt out of crime and punishment. I believe that now even more strongly. Will my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues at least consider this alternative? None of us would advocate a private police force and I do not believe that any of us should advocate or support a private probation service or private prisons. That has been my consistent view throughout. I urge my noble friend to say that this matter will at least be reconsidered.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for his comments. He will be unsurprised to learn that I disagree with him. I do not see this as an opting-out of crime and punishment. Certainly, people in the private, third and voluntary sectors have lots of experience in this area. It is important for us to use that and work with them. However, at this moment we are looking at the responses to the consultation that closed on 21 September. We will look closely at what people have said and the way that this should be planned going forward. We will bring further plans to Parliament before the end of the year.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the failings listed in the Statement and found by the National Audit Office were foreseen in the 2014 report of the House of Commons Justice Committee, which I chaired at the time. Does this experience not demonstrate that when Ministers and departments receive carefully researched, evidence-based Select Committee reports from either House, they should not move into a defensive posture but look at the risks identified and for ways to ensure that policy changes are made before the policy goes ahead?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I will take the noble Lord’s comment on the chin. It is important that we look at prepared reports, then compare policy and future policy in putting into effect the recommendations that we feel able to. We have taken action, which I have not been able so far to describe. We have been in touch with the CRCs and ended their contracts early. We are making sure that there are contractual variations to secure performance improvement and operational stability for the whole system, which is important. We have also provided an additional £22 million per year for through-the-gate services, which will add another 500 staff, and all providers must now offer monthly face-to-face meetings in the first 12 months.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest. My spouse is the founding director-general of the National Probation Service. I also declare a conviction. I have long supported producer-provider relationships. In the right place and at the right time, they can be highly effective, but they do not provide an answer to every question. In this instance, there is a matter of both principle—as other noble Lords have commented on—and competence. Nobody has said yet that the NAO report is a truly shocking read. This was a botched reform. We will discuss later the £33 million payment to Eurotunnel. Does the Minister accept that this raises a question about basic government competence on procurement?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I do not accept that. The situation was complex. We set the scheme up and we have learned lessons from the first-generation contracts. It would not be right to prejudge the outcome of the consultation. To go back, noble Lords will recall that prior to setting up the CRCs, which look after three-quarters of offenders, 40,000 offenders had no support whatever when they left prison. We have come some way. Using CRCs to look after these offenders has had its positives and negatives. We are learning and will come back with proposals forthwith.
Eurotunnel
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“I would like to update the House on the agreement the Government have reached with Eurotunnel which will help to deliver an unhindered supply of vital medicines and medical devices under any Brexit scenario. The best way to ensure a smooth and orderly exit both for the NHS and the wider economy is to support the deal that the Prime Minister has proposed to the House, as amended by the negotiations being conducted by the Attorney-General. Anyone in this House who cares about the unhindered supply of medicines should vote for that deal.
But leaving the EU without a deal remains the default position under the law and it is incumbent on us to keep people safe. It is therefore vital that adequate contingency measures are in place for any Brexit scenario. Preparing for a no-deal exit has required significant effort from the NHS, the pharmaceutical industry and the whole medical supply chain. I want to pay tribute to their work and thank them for their efforts on these contingency measures. The settlement struck between the Government and Eurotunnel last week is an important part of these measures. Because of the legal action taken by Eurotunnel and the legal risks of the court case, it became clear that without this settlement, we could no longer be confident of the unhindered supply of medicines. Without the settlement, the ferry capacity needed to be confident of supply was at risk. As a Government we could not take that risk and I doubt that anyone in this House would have accepted that risk either.
With this settlement we can be confident, as long as everybody does what they need to do, that supply will continue. While we are disappointed that Eurotunnel took this action in the first place, the House will understand why we acted, so businesses and the NHS could plan with confidence. Under the settlement, Eurotunnel has to spend the money to improve resilience, security and traffic flow at the border, benefiting both passengers and business.
The Department for Transport, on behalf of the whole Government, entered into these contracts in good faith. Our duty is to keep people safe, whatever the complications thrown up by legal process, and while we continue to plan for all eventualities, it is clear that the best way to reduce these risks is to vote for the deal in the days to come”.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer, but perhaps I may start by repeating the Question: to ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a Statement on the payment of £33 million to Eurotunnel over no-deal ferry contracts. We make no criticism of the National Health Service or anyone else in the supply chain. This Question is directed at the Department for Transport, in particular its leader, Chris Grayling. His catastrophic handling of the DfT’s no-deal preparations is what we are discussing.
Can the Minister spell out in detail why the Government have to pay out £33 million of taxpayers’ money? What were the specific mistakes? What are the detailed improvements that Eurotunnel has agreed to make? Will the entire £33 million be spent on improvements and when will they be ready?
Everything the Secretary of State touches seems to go wrong: from 800 trains per day cancelled as a result of the botched timetable introduction, to the east coast main line being brought back into public control. What action is the Secretary of State planning to improve the performance of his department—or is he going to take the advice of my honourable friend in the other place and resign?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has asked a number of questions. He asked what the payment of £33 million was based on. It followed detailed negotiations, fully informed by legal advice. The figure represents the financial impact of us not having the critical capacity we need if the contracts are cancelled. The noble Lord also asked what this money will be spent on. Under the agreement, the money will be spent on measures that will improve security and traffic flow at the border, benefiting both passengers and businesses. This will include improved access to the UK terminal, increased security protection within the terminal and improved traffic flow. There is a binding obligation to spend the money in these areas.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the truth is that the Secretary of State is now regarded as so incompetent by his colleagues that they did not dare let him answer his own questions. I regret the pathetic attempt to dress this up as a Health question, but I am sure the Minister will be more than able to answer my Transport questions.
On 21 January I asked the noble Baroness the Minister:
“What assessment have the Government undertaken of the impact on the Channel Tunnel of additional ferry services which, unlike existing ferry services, will be subsidised by the Government?”.
The Minister replied:
“We consider the contracts to be entirely consistent with the Government’s agreement with Eurotunnel”.—[Official Report, 21/1/19; col. 501.]
This started as a piece of post-Christmas pantomime and has descended into Whitehall farce. The Minister stressed to us in earlier answers that the Department for Transport took legal advice from prominent, well-known advisers Slaughter and May, Deloitte and Mott MacDonald. Not only did they apparently fail to notice that Seaborne Freight had no ships and was offering pizzas on its website; they also apparently failed to notice that giving £100 million to subsidise ferries would distort the market, to the obvious disadvantage of Eurotunnel.
I have two questions: can the Government confirm that all three of the Department for Transport’s expert advisers were satisfied with this scheme, its probity and its practicality? Can the Minister confirm how much the Government paid for this apparently faulty advice on the ferry contracts that have led to the taxpayer having to dish out a further £33 million?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her questions. Her last question was specifically about the cost that was paid. I do not have that figure, but if it is not commercially confidential I will ensure she gets it. The noble Baroness also referred to the Seaborne matter. As she said, due diligence was carried out not only by senior officials at the Department for Transport but by third-party organisations with sufficient experience and expertise in this area, including Deloitte, Mott MacDonald and Slaughter and May. Due diligence was carried out throughout this process, and the fact is that we took careful note of our legal advice on this matter as well.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, as a very old nurse I will take this back to health. A lot of people in this country are on long-term medication. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me what conversations the Department of Health and Social Care is having with pharmaceutical companies to make sure there are sufficient medicines in the UK when we leave the EU?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, my noble friend asks about sufficient supplies of medicines. I can confirm that we are working closely with pharmaceutical companies to ensure that patients can continue to receive the medicines they need. As I said before, we are confident that the supply of medicines will be uninterrupted in the event of no deal. In addition to extra warehouse space, as a first line of defence industries have been asked to ensure a minimum of six weeks’ additional supply in the UK for prescription-only and pharmacy medicines—over and above existing, business-as-usual buffer stocks—by 29 March 2019.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the clear implication of this settlement with Eurotunnel is that the original procurement was unlawful? What legal advice on the conduct of the procurement was sought at the time? Was that legal advice ignored?
The Earl of Courtown
No, the legal advice was not ignored. As I said earlier, the legal advice we were given was in line with the expedited form of contract competition that we entered into.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this £33 million to Eurotunnel is nothing more than hush money to shut it up and to avoid the disclosure of something like 1,500 pages of probable rubbish that demonstrates just how bad the procurement process has been. Can the Minister explain how Eurotunnel can possibly spend £33 million in four weeks to improve the movement of medicines across the channel when there is no evidence that there will be a shortage of capacity on any of the ferries or the Channel Tunnel? There will probably be a reduction in demand because of business going down. Surely what the Government need to have arranged in Calais is an enormous car park, with many more people checking the goods going backwards and forwards: it has nothing to do with the capacity on the ferries.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, this is all about guaranteeing capacity. As I said before, there are measures to improve security and traffic flow at the border, benefiting both passengers and businesses. This will include improved access to the UK tunnel. This will happen whether there is no deal or we get a deal. So the money will be well spent and this will go on for longer than the next four weeks.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while this payment to Eurotunnel is highly controversial, for most people in the country the most important point is for the Government to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we have supplies of pharmaceutical and medical products that come into the country effectively and on time?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, my noble friend is right. Patients can have confidence in the Government’s contingency plans to work with suppliers who provide medicines and other medical supplies to the UK to ensure the continuity of supply. We have selected the best way of ensuring that patients continue to receive the medicines, devices and medical supplies they need.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, no one believes that this £33 million was paid to Eurotunnel to secure medicines post Brexit. Anyone who knows anything about the legal process knows that, at the door of the court, the Government’s lawyers told them, “We need to settle this case”—and they settled it for £33 million to Eurotunnel. The question, which has been posed to the noble Earl twice now, is: did or did not Chris Grayling, when he personally signed these contracts, sign them against any advice that the process that had been undertaken and was challenged in court was anticompetitive and could not be protected against a legal challenge? If all the legal advice was that the process could be protected, are the Government ever going to use these lawyers again?
The Earl of Courtown
We are not publishing our legal advice, but we did not go against it. We had to enter into these contracts—the expedited form of competitive tendering—because the planning assumptions changed and the maritime market was not responding to the risk. As a responsible Government we had to react to ensure the supply of important medicines if we ended up in a no-deal scenario.
Feed-in Tariffs (Closure, etc.) Order 2018
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
That this House regrets, in the light of the worsening climate emergency, that the Feed-in Tariffs (Closure, etc.) Order 2018 will end the export tariff for small-scale renewable energy without any replacement scheme in place; will result in new installations having to export their electricity to the National Grid for free; and will harm jobs and investment in the renewable energy industry (SI 2018/1380).
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my regret Motion is against the Government’s decision to scrap the feed-in and export tariffs for people who install small-scale renewable energy systems in their homes. I should declare that I have already installed solar panels on my house and am therefore not affected by this measure.
I feel so strongly that it is a bad thing to do that I wanted to table a humble address, but the clerks advised me that I would create a constitutional crisis—and we probably have enough of those going on already. I want to emphasise that the word “regret” does not come anywhere close to my feelings on this issue. The Government have behaved with economic illiteracy and I hope that, towards the end of the debate, I will hear from the Minister that they will pause in the scrapping of the tariff until they have at least determined the level and the timing on the export tariff.
The Feed-in Tariffs (Closure, etc.) Order, currently before this House, will cause enormous damage to our fledgling green economy and wreck our already too slow attempts to deal with climate change. Over the past decade, solar panels have steadily been installed on rooftops around the country. People have saved huge amounts of money on their energy bills and made a significant reduction in their personal impact on the planet. Some local authorities, following the lead of Kirklees Green councillor Andrew Cooper, have been able to use the stability of the feed-in tariff to finance mass deployment of solar panels for some of the poorest residents in their boroughs. In the process, they have created thousands of jobs in a high-skilled, well-paid industry.
It is now undeniable that the world is in a state of climate emergency. Scientists have made it clear that we now have less than 12 years to make massive changes if we are to have any hope of avoiding runaway climate change. The switch away from fossil fuels to renewables is one of the essential changes that we have to make.
The Government’s response is that they have steadily cut away at the feed-in tariff scheme and have now finally scrapped it altogether. This is, according to the Government’s impact assessment, so that we can reduce people’s energy bills by £1 per year—I repeat, £1 per year. The Government suggest that this was the plan all along, and that this is just another step towards a market-based system of renewable energy that must compete cost-for-cost with other sources of energy. That sounds perfectly reasonable—except that it is a fallacy that requires us to pretend that other forms of energy do not receive huge subsidies from the taxpayer, society and the environment. The European Commission has recently published research that shows that the UK has the highest level of fossil fuel subsidies in the EU, and more subsidies for fossil fuels than for renewables. That is shameful and certainly not fair—as well as poor economics.
Coal and oil are not new sources of energy, but they still receive enormous tax breaks to keep them in business. Nuclear energy is being paid double the going rate with government price guarantees, despite the fact that it will take decades for new nuclear power stations to be built, and despite the fact that nuclear has lost all credibility with a large proportion of the nation. Fracking, a whole new source of carbon emissions, seems to be granted new tax breaks in every Budget Statement made by the Government.
There is not a single source of energy that is not heavily subsidised—apart from renewables. Why are renewables held to a higher standard as the only energy source that needs to become financially self-sufficient, in a way that would cripple fossil fuels and nuclear power? If the Government want subsidy-free energy, at least create a level playing field and remove the nuclear and fossil fuel subsidies. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the House why renewables are singled out while the Government continue to create favourable tax incentives, easy planning rules and a strong policy commitment for the polluting energy sources. The distortionary effect of all this is enormous—a government-backed guarantee that we will be tied into fossil fuels for decades longer than the planet can handle.
Coming back to the statutory instrument and its justification, the Government are suggesting that this is just a stepping stone between the old system of support and a new system, a “smart export guarantee”, which will be based around new technology and market innovation. Again, it sounds sensible, but none of that new system exists and there is not yet a market for domestically produced green energy. The Government are doing absolutely nothing to ensure that this changes.
The stark reality is that the Government are throwing the domestic renewable industry off a cliff, with the vague promise that an ambitious new system might appear in time to save it. Plus we have no idea of the rate at which this energy will be valued. Can the Minister let us know whether there is any conclusion on that? Why have the Government decided that for an indeterminate amount of time new domestic renewable installations will have no option but to export the energy they produce to the national grid absolutely free? How that can be considered acceptable to anyone is beyond me. It is state theft and cannot be justified.
If the Government had a policy that resulted in the oil and gas industry producing for free, people would complain that we had turned into a communist country. For some reason, the exact same thing is happening with solar and wind power and it is just fine.
It is true that the renewables industry has made incredible progress in bringing down its costs and that we are approaching a point where it will be able to outcompete fossil fuels on its own. However, it is plain wrong to single renewables out as being the only energy source that should not get any subsidies or tax breaks. We need to do the opposite of this; we should be spending billions of pounds on a green new deal to create a million climate jobs and transform our economy.
Will the Minister explain to this House why the Government are not doing all they can to take climate change seriously? I ask her please not to do a Claire Perry and say how we are world leaders, that we are doing on best on emissions and that sort of thing, when we do not even count all our emissions—for example, we do not count aviation and shipping. For all these reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue and bringing it to the Floor of the House. I commend her passion about the subject; it is completely justified. We should remember that feed-in tariffs have been amazingly successful. As we see from the Explanatory Memorandum and the commentary from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, some 800,000 feed-in tariffs have been applied over the period in which they have been in force. One of the great things about them is that they democratise the fight against climate change. Whether they are microschemes or smaller schemes, they allow households, communities, small groups and small businesses to participate in providing renewable energy to the energy system and decarbonising our economy.
I am proud to say that FiTs came in in 2010 and were implemented by the coalition Government as part of the work of the previous Labour Government. The announcement that they would end came in 2015—a dreadful year for climate change—when the Conservative majority Government took over and we had announcements about this, the end of carbon capture and storage experiments, the end of zero-carbon homes and many other examples of decarbonisation and “all that green crap” disappearing from our legislation and our climate change targets.
As was shown during the coalition period, Liberal Democrats agree as much as anybody else that renewables and the public money put into them need to provide value for money. I have no problem with tariffs being brought down to reflect cost levels, as long as that is done in a smooth way that industry can predict, whereby the rate of return remains sensible for investors, whether they are firms or households.
What we have here is the stopping of the system altogether. Once again, it is an example of the green vandalism we have seen so much of in renewables, affecting jobs and green industry. There has been a failure to provide continuity of employment and skills, and no growth of private-sector green businesses. This secondary legislation is an example of that. We have taken away one of the ways in which communities, households and small businesses can participate, resulting in another body blow to the small-scale renewables industry.
The noble Baroness referred to the export tariff. I find it unfathomable. Claire Perry, the Minister for climate change, said that there will be export payments, but there was a major gap between that and the original announcement of this government policy. That meant the industry had a major shock, and only later was that repaired by some very vague references. The consultation period has not ended. We come to the end of FiTs on 31 March, and we are bound to have a gap during which the industry will not know what is happening. I do not know what went through BEIS’s mind as a department. From 1 April—very appropriately—consumers were going to give free energy to major energy companies. This was one of the greatest ironies and a huge political mistake. Yes, the department has decided to change that, but very late and leaving a gap. We still do not know what the change is.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness’s Motion of regret. It is almost inevitable that a debate such as this will range more widely than the specific issues that the noble Baroness is focused on. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for beginning in Salisbury, my cathedral city, on a day when there has been a considerable amount of reflection about events there a year ago and their significance for the city and internationally.
We were grateful for the Prime Minister’s visit earlier today. I particularly thank the council, Wiltshire Police and the fire and ambulance services, as well as the district hospital, Porton Down and the military, for their commitment through the year. Wiltshire Council has led a programme of recovery. Although business is still badly affected, we are making progress. We are grateful for the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
From those ghastly events that began to unfold a year ago, we have learned not just about the need to recover but about using a crisis as an opportunity to rethink what sort of city Salisbury can be. The same is true of the environmental crisis we face. Wiltshire Council recognised last week that this climate emergency is such that it committed to make Wiltshire carbon neutral by 2030. There is a real sense of urgency locally about what this means. For the Lords spiritual, this is about the care of God’s creation and living out of reverence for life with a spirituality that addresses the issues of the day. Species depletion, pollution, soil degradation and climate change are all strongly caused by us—human beings.
The UK gave strong leadership at the Paris summit in 2015. There are areas where we have led strongly. There are huge business opportunities as we develop new technology to support a carbon-neutral future. Rather than seeing this as a burden, it is a much more attractive possibility to see that we are doing this for the love of creation and life. There are opportunities for development and growth within this. A different sort of future is being glimpsed. The urgency is such that we do not know whether we are too late. However, the implications are severe. We therefore sense the urgency of those who talk about extinction rebellion and the more apocalyptic scenarios presented to us on a regular basis.
The purpose of biblical apocalyptic is not to paralyse but to encourage a radical change of life. It draws on past experience to understand present circumstance, and reveals truth in such a way as to change behaviour: to encourage good action with faith, strong values and creative purpose. We need both vision and purpose. A task without a vision is a drudge, and a vision without a task is an illusion; but a vision with a task is the hope of the world. The task of this House is both to help envision the future and to work out practical policy, in reality. What steps do we need to take to move from where we are to where we need to be?
There is a huge amount happening. At the climate change summit in San Francisco in September, Christiana Figueres, who chaired the Paris summit, said that the response to climate change is happening at a pace that few of us could have hoped for 10 years ago. She said that we are making progress through good climate leadership, market forces and the digital revolution. At that summit the glass was very much half-full, but there are days when it feels less positive. By the Government’s own admission, the very sharp decline in feed-in tariffs last year removed 18,000 jobs from the economy. There is a very subtle balance between supporting new technology, enabling public engagement and creating a fair marketplace in which people who want to do the right thing are enabled to do so with some ease.
Energy is subsidised in a variety of ways. The noble Baroness said in her opening remarks that all energy sources are subsidised. We need to develop a range of resources, but we need to focus now on developing carbon-neutral, sustainable energy supplies in which solar, wind and tidal will play an increasing part. The development of solar energy still has some way to go.
The climate change committee is doing some work on what is needed for the UK to contribute to the global target of no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade warming on pre-industrial levels. A lot of quick wins need to be made. New houses should be built to the highest environmental standards; retrofitting them is more expensive and less satisfactory than building really energy-efficient homes with good insulation. Similarly, we need to develop micro solar projects: the sorts of things that have been developed on many houses. They depend on a simple relationship between consumption and production, and the feed-in tariffs recognised this. The gap that has opened between people producing solar energy in their homes and contributing to the national grid but not being paid for it seems quite extraordinary. We need to encourage people to do the right things with their own homes, and to develop good local micro-projects.
The purpose of this debate must be to point out the inconsistency of government approach between vision and reality. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for securing the debate. I add my voice to those who ask the Government to review their actions so as to connect vison and reality in ways that will encourage all of us to do the right thing at a local level.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing the attention of the House to this negative SI. I have always found the designation of instruments as affirmative or negative rather arcane, and either can be the case following substantial changes in government policy. I thank your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for recommending that the order be brought to the public interest; otherwise, it would have become operable without comment or scrutiny under the negative procedure. It certainly follows the Conservative Government’s pattern of behaviour to cut, curtail, restrain and restrict sensible, positive climate change policies.
In 2015 the new Conservative Government announced that they were going to scrap green taxes and levies in general, and in particular that the tariff for the generation of renewable energy to new entrants under the FIT scheme would end in March 2019. With so many policy swings, the result is that the UK is no longer on course to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets recommended by the Committee on Climate Change; wind and solar deployment have been severely curtailed, resulting in a severe recession in the industry; and policy reversals have shattered investor confidence. Many important projects, such as CCS, have also been cancelled and scrapped. All this is at a time when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has come forward with updated warnings about global temperatures by 2050.
The order takes advantage of the timed scrapping of the tariff for the generation of renewable energy under the FiT scheme and adds to it by scrapping the export tariff on surplus small-scale generated electricity to the grid, so that both coincide. The Government knew there would be serious concerns about this decision because they consulted on it, with the result that a massive 91% of responses opposed the plans, but they carried on anyway. That such a large proportion of representations against the change were ignored raises the question of why industry and the public should bother engaging with the Government. What can the Minister say to convince the public that it is worth their while to engage in consultations in future? Will their expertise be listened to?
As the Motion points out, future entrants to small-scale generation will have to provide surplus electricity to the grid for free. Respondents to the consultation are correct that this change of policy is incompatible with the Government’s climate change targets and responsibilities. It can have only a destabilising effect on the renewables sector and jobs. It denies a route to market for small-scale generators that encourages everyone to do their bit to alleviate climate change. Of course, as technology develops the costs of low-carbon generation decline and over time there will be less of a need for support, but it must also be pointed out that this is consumer support, not government support. Of course costs on households must be kept to a minimum, but what are these costs? The impact assessment points to an estimated cost saving from scrapping this scheme of £45 million a year from 2021—a whole £1 per year to the average household. Is that material for this disruption?
Yet the Government admit that there is still a need for a scheme to encourage small-scale generation. It is indeed still necessary. The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, Claire Perry, recently said that,
“nobody should be providing energy to the grid for free”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/19; col. 159.]
The Government agree that new entrants will still be needed but they have no replacement. They are consulting on their new scheme—the smart exports guarantee, or SEG—in recognition that the small-scale low-carbon generation electricity market is not yet fully developed and support is still required. It is still a fledgling market and a scheme is still needed but the Government admit that they have not got it ready, so why scrap the existing scheme prematurely? The scheme could continue with less disruption, still with value for money, while the consultation was completed and a new scheme drawn up. How long do the Government expect to take between the end of this consultation and having a smart exports guarantee scheme ready?
The order includes an element of levelisation—charges on suppliers for costs—and the Government would wish to build on suppliers providing remuneration to small-scale low-carbon generators under their new SEG scheme. However, the Solar Trade Association is lobbying for a minimum floor price set at a fair market rate. What guarantee can the Minister give that small-scale generators will not be left in a vulnerable position under these government plans and will be provided with a fair and competitive price? Why not gain experience of this levelisation scheme, continue with the current policies to prevent a clear gap opening up in the market and withdraw the order? Why rush to close the FiT scheme?
The consultation has been damaging to the reputation of the Minister’s department. Yes, cost-control measures need to be developed to be effective and proportionate from an administrative perspective, but the scheme has not run its course. The simple question to the Government is: why do you want to do this now?
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, reminded the House of the Smart Meters Act, which highlighted the Government’s turmoil on that matter. We offered the Government more time to get it right. He will remember that the Government foolishly rejected that offer. The turmoil continues.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this timely and important debate on the future of small-scale low-carbon generation. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury for his measured, thought-provoking and sometimes hopeful speech. It was certainly a very welcome contribution.
By way of context, the UK is a world leader in cutting emissions while creating wealth. Between 1990 and 2017, the UK reduced its emissions by over 40% while growing the economy by more than two-thirds—the best performance in the G7 on a per-person basis. According to PwC, the UK has decarbonised its economy at the fastest rate of any G20 country since 2000.
The feed-in tariffs scheme, introduced in 2010, alongside other government schemes, has been instrumental in enabling the UK to build a successful renewables industry in support of this rapid decarbonisation effort. Indeed, renewables accounted for 33.1% of generation in Q3 2018—the highest ever share—and the UK achieved a record 76 hours of continuous coal-free electricity generation in April 2018. Through partnerships with business, we are both tackling climate change and moving to a smart, low-carbon energy system.
We are working with industry to develop an ambitious sector deal for offshore wind, which could result in 10 gigawatts of new capacity, with the opportunity for additional deployment, if this is cost-effective, being built in the 2020s. We have also supported the deployment of new renewable technologies by investing up to £557 million in contracts for difference. Alongside this, and irrespective of the closure of the FiT scheme to new entrants, which was announced in 2015 and comes into force on 1 April 2019, installations already on the scheme will continue to receive support in accordance with the terms they received on joining. We recognise the need to go further, building on our remarkable progress in cutting emissions from electricity. The Clean Growth Strategy sets out our plans through to 2032, including ambitious proposals on smart systems, housing, business, transport, the natural environment and green finance.
We are delivering a smart and resilient energy system fit for the 21st century that will benefit every home and business. Small-scale generation and battery storage can play a crucial role in cutting carbon emissions as part of this smart, flexible and efficient system, both reducing local demand and providing clean power into the grid when it is needed. But, as the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out in his lecture “After the trilemma—4 principles for the power sector”, consumers of all types should pay a fair share of system costs. While government must be prepared to intervene to provide insurance and optionality, wherever possible we must use market mechanisms to take full advantage of innovation and competition.
In this context, it is worth reflecting on the success of the feed-in tariffs scheme and the reasons it is no longer aligned with the Government’s vision for a smarter, flexible energy system that minimises support costs to consumers. The scheme has made an important contribution to renewable generation and it outstripped predictions. It generates enough electricity to power 2 million homes. Since 2010, the scheme has supported over 830,000 installations and been instrumental in helping to grow the small-scale low-carbon sector. Our support has contributed to lowering the cost of renewable energy significantly. However, to date over £5.9 billion has been spent through FiTs to support small-scale renewables, and over £30 billion is expected to be spent in continuing to support the existing installations over the scheme’s lifetime. All bill payers share these costs, and the FiT scheme currently adds £14 a year to the average household energy bill, at a time when the focus is also on reducing average bills.
This consumer-funded subsidy model does not align with the wider government approach to minimising support costs on consumers. Take solar as an example: 99% of FiT schemes are solar PV. The support these installations receive comes directly from consumer bills; as hardware costs fall, it is vital that we control the impact on bills and move towards subsidy-free solar deployment.
Furthermore, looking specifically at the FiT export tariff, it is a flat-rate tariff that does not reflect the actual value of the electricity at the time of export, and is mainly issued on estimated exports to the grid, rather than actual measured values. It may be that payments are being made for electricity that has not been generated and fed into the grid. This stifles innovation in export tariff design and in technical solutions to track or shift time of export in a way that would provide whole-system benefits. Therefore, as this successful scheme closes to new entrants—new, not existing—we need to develop a market that sends the right signals to incentivise investment in local generation and storage, in a way that makes sense for a smarter system.
The Government have recognised that green power will likely be the cheapest power by the mid-2020s, and the prospect of subsidy-free solar PV is becoming increasingly realistic for developers. Two such sites have already deployed in the UK and the planned construction of two more large-scale subsidy-free solar projects has recently been announced. Alongside this, a range of emerging technologies, including electric vehicles, smart appliances and battery storage, are being developed that can work alongside solar and help to decarbonise our economy. For example, while the cost of solar cells has fallen by 80% since 2008, the cost of lithium-ion batteries has also fallen by over 70% since 2010 and is expected to halve again by 2030, according to industry experts. Companies in the UK, such as Moixa, are taking advantage of this reduction in costs and installing their battery systems in homes and businesses in the UK and abroad.
Increasingly, business investment in renewable projects and smart energy technologies will unlock growth in the UK solar industry. This market-led innovation in energy is absolutely key to our modern industrial strategy and our clean growth strategy. If we deploy smart, flexible technologies, we could save the UK between £17 billion and £40 billion by 2050, and this would benefit both consumers and the environment.
Turning to the smart export guarantee, we recognise the need to ensure that while these smart innovations are developed, consumers do not give away the power they have generated for free simply because suppliers are not yet ready to provide payment for their export. That is why we are consulting on a smart export guarantee. It provides a guaranteed route to market for small-scale low-carbon generation. We expect to see suppliers bidding competitively for electricity to give exporters the best market price, while providing the local grid with more clean, green energy.
I am sure noble Lords will appreciate a little more detail on the smart export guarantee. The Government are proposing to mandate that larger electricity suppliers—those with over 250,000 customers—offer small-scale generators a price per kilowatt hour which is exported to the grid. The remuneration will be available to all the technologies currently eligible for the FiT scheme—up to 5 megawatts. Suppliers will be obligated to provide at least one tariff. The consultation proposed five possible options for tariff design, and when we see the results of the consultation we will be able to bring forward further details. We are also guaranteeing that remuneration must be greater than zero, even at times when negative pricing would be in effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the timing of this and, as I am sure he knows, the consultation closes tomorrow. We will analyse the responses to the consultation very quickly. We propose to bring forward proposals in this area as soon as possible; we do not want to see a significant hiatus between the closure of the FiT scheme and the SEG scheme coming into force. Of course, after any installation of capacity between the two schemes, that capacity would then be able to sign up for the SEG scheme when it is operational.
On the point about £1 a year made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, it is true that that is for the export tariff, but I have already discussed this and why it does not represent good value for money for anybody. I also mentioned that it is £14 a year for consumers—that is all consumers, including the most vulnerable. That is a really important point that we sometimes forget: often, the people benefiting most from the FiT scheme are those who have the capacity and the agency to get solar panels fitted on to their very large houses, which is not necessarily the case for those who live in slightly smaller houses.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about smart meters, a topic close to his heart, and indeed mine because we debated that Bill earlier. We are not aware of any technological reasons why smart meters cannot be installed in premises with generating facilities. Certainly, I will investigate further and respond to him because he asked for more detail about SMETS 1 and SMETS 2, so I will have to find some more information about that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury expressed concerns about jobs in this sector. Certainly, this is a highly skilled sector. While we expect that some people will have to shift jobs—it is very difficult to quantify the impact across the different technologies, capacity sizes and regions—we have not been able to quantify the job losses, if any.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about a wide range of issues, going far beyond the FiT scheme we are discussing today. It is a topic worthy of a much longer debate. It is the Government’s position that we do not provide subsidies for the production of fossil fuels—the noble Baroness is looking at me aghast. We would never be able to do the issue justice in the very short time we have today, drilling down into the necessary detail.
Building on the considerable success of the feed-in tariff scheme, the smart export guarantee will ensure that small-scale, low-carbon generators do not export their electricity to the grid for free while also protecting consumers from unfair cost burdens. The SEG would provide space for innovative market solutions to come forward, reinforcing our vision for smarter, cleaner and more flexible energy systems. As a reminder, the consultation on these proposals remains open until tomorrow and I encourage all noble Lords to engage in the wider conversation around delivering this vision.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, may I be clear on what the Minister is saying? I thought she was quite positive in some areas. Was she saying that the Government intend that there will not be a gap when the exports finish—not a guarantee, but an intention? If there was a gap, would there be a reimbursement during that time? That is what I heard.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am afraid that the noble Lord heard incorrectly and I apologise if that was what was understood from my description of what will happen. The consultation closes tomorrow; we will look at the consultation responses as soon as we possibly can. It is our intention to bring forward the new scheme as soon as possible, but we recognise that there will be a hiatus between the two schemes. However, anybody installing generating capacity between the two schemes will, of course, be able to sign up to the SEG when it becomes available. Installing generating capacity also means that they can take advantage of their own home-generated energy, so it has many advantages.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am always impressed by the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to speak without notes, which I am afraid I can never do for that long. It was very good to hear from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, who expanded on the climate change aspect, which I tend not to do in this Chamber because I think people will get bored by my saying it, so I am delighted that he did. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who talked about a sensible climate change policy, which clearly this Government do not have.