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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government are increasing our national investment in infrastructure to the highest sustained level since the 1970s. In Devon, this will include £83 million towards the widening of part of the north Devon link road, and in Cornwall £78 million towards the St Austell link road.
Mr Speaker, may I wish Cornish Members gool Peran lowen—a very happy St Piran’s day?
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, although my Cornish is not quite up to his level, given that I am a Devon Member.
The recent announcement of £80 million of funding for major resilience work at Dawlish was very welcome. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this is the first part of the investment plan and that the Government will provide additional investment as further aspects of the plan to secure our key rail infrastructure come forward?
Robert Jenrick
We are fully committed to rail resilience in the south-west, and the Chancellor restated this as a national priority in the Budget Red Book. As my hon. Friend has said, we are investing up to £80 million in the new seawall to provide greater protection to the railway at Dawlish. Network Rail is providing the further options he mentions to protect the line from extreme weather and improve the rail network for passengers in the south-west, and of course we will consider those proposals when we receive them.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Added rail resilience at Dawlish is really important for the far south-west to keep our train line open, but so is added road resilience. Can the Minister set out what additional funding he can put in place to make sure that the A38 is a safer road? At the moment, there are far too many delays and sadly far too many people die on it?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. By our decision to hypothecate vehicle excise duty, we have created the largest ever investment in our strategic road network, which could perhaps fund projects such as the one he raises. Additionally, our £2.7 billion transforming cities fund will support Plymouth and its surrounding areas in particular.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Gool Peran lowen—happy St Piran’s day—and Kernow bys vyken!
The announcement yesterday on the stronger towns fund did not include any areas from Cornwall, yet Cornwall has always scored very highly on social deprivation and funding. I know that the coastal communities fund has been a help, but what assurance can I have from the Treasury that it will support towns in my area?
Robert Jenrick
The stronger towns fund announced this week will provide support for the south-west and all regions of the country, both in terms of direct funding to be paid to local enterprise partnerships and the competitive fund of £600 million that towns in the my hon. Friend’s constituency and those of other right hon. and hon. Members across the country should bid into.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
The port of Brixham in my constituency lands the most valuable catch in England, but it has now reached capacity and needs urgent infrastructure investment to expand opportunities. Will the Minister assure me that our strategically important fishing industry and processing sectors will be fully considered in future infrastructure plans, and will he meet me to discuss Brixham port’s exciting plans for development, which need only modest investment to help them get rapidly off the ground?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady. We are investing in port infrastructure, as indeed in other infrastructure projects across the south-west. I believe it was she who asked the Chancellor in the lead-up to the Budget to make that national commitment to Dawlish, for example. We are keen to listen to her opinions in this respect, and I would be very happy to meet her.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government have made a very strong commitment to tackling money laundering. Recent initiatives include the creation of the economic crime strategic board and the National Economic Crime Centre. We have also strengthened anti-money laundering supervision through the creation of the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision, and we are reforming suspicious activity reports and tackling the abuse of Scottish limited partnerships.
Alison Thewliss
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury knows better than most of us about the nefarious impact of Russia, and I send my best wishes to his constituency, to the Skripals and, most of all, to the family and friends of Dawn Sturgess, one year after the Salisbury attack.
Yesterday, Prince Charles ended up being drawn into the troika laundromat scandal, with money linked via a maze of shell companies back to the Magnitsky case. Criminal and legitimate money is sloshing around together in our banking system. What are the Government doing to close the loopholes and stop legitimising the proceeds of kleptocracy?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about my constituency. I am familiar with the reports that appeared in The Guardian yesterday evening about the case to which she has referred. Following the response by the Financial Action Task Force to a two-year review of our standards in the United Kingdom, the Government recognise that we are world leaders in this regard, but there are some outstanding concerns about reports of suspicious activity in the banking sector. Work is ongoing, and I will take a close interest in it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Can the Minister quantify the amount of extra tax that the Government have collected since 2010 that would otherwise have been unpaid, as a result of the measures they have taken to tackle money laundering?
John Glen
I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact figure, but we are anxious to crack down on suspicious activity when reports give us reason to believe that further measures are necessary. We have taken action in improving cross-governmental co-ordination, and we are working closely with the Home Office on the suspicious activity reports.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary was unable to answer this question yesterday, so I shall ask it again. Can the Economic Secretary explain why, although the call for evidence on extending corporate liability for economic crime closed two years ago, we have yet to receive a response or see any action?
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I suggest that the answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is £185 billion?
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Britain is now a world leader in financial transparency and dealing with money laundering owing to the public register of beneficial ownership. What action do the Government propose to take to stop those standards being undermined by Crown dependencies, which rely on the British passport and British defence protection, but operate in a much more opaque manner?
John Glen
We are committed to introducing those registers by 2023. Since 2017, we have worked closely with law enforcement agencies through the mechanism of the exchange of notes with the overseas territories, and that has led us to unexplained wealth orders and the forfeiture of bank accounts.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government are determined to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of the development of new technologies. Since 2016, I have committed £7 billion more—a 20% uplift —for research and development, thus demonstrating clear progress towards the Government’s ambition to raise investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. Among other things, those funds are supporting a £305 million national quantum technology programme and a £950 million artificial intelligence sector deal, and there is £250 million for connected and autonomous vehicles.
Trudy Harrison
Small modular reactors could bring a wealth of economic, environmental and social benefits. Will the Chancellor confirm that he supports their merits, and that there will be financial and policy support to ensure that they succeed?
Mr Hammond
The Government do indeed recognise the potential for the UK to become a leader in the development of the next generation of nuclear technologies, provided that there is demonstrable value for money for consumers and taxpayers. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is considering an industrial strategy challenge fund proposal for small modular reactors and whether it would provide value for money.
Eddie Hughes
I do not know whether you are aware, Mr Speaker, that up to 50 different metals may be used in a smartphone. What fiscal support could be given to the excellent work done by Birmingham University in addressing the rareness of those materials, as well as the recycling and reuse of batteries?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right. Rare earths and other critical elements are at the centre of the electronics industry, which now defines our modern life. Some of the materials are very scarce, and recycling the large amounts that are already in use in batteries is crucial. In the 2017 spring Budget I announced the £246 million Faraday battery challenge, to be funded from the national productivity investment fund. Supported by the fund, the University of Birmingham, together with industry partners, is leading the way in developing new methods of recycling lithium batteries, which power so many of the objects that we use in our everyday lives.
Vicky Ford
Quantum technology is one of the most mission-critical technologies being developed today, and so far much of the work has been done at research level. How do the Government intend to help leading British companies such as Teledyne e2v in Chelmsford to commercialise this activity, to ensure that quantum technology remains based in the UK?
Mr Hammond
I knew Chelmsford was going to get in there somewhere.
The additional £7 billion I mentioned earlier is focused on applied research and industry innovation and the commercialisation of the UK’s world-leading science base. Quantum technologies have the potential to be transformative, and the UK is a global leader, so last autumn I committed £315 million for a second phase of the UK’s landmark national quantum technology programme. This investment includes a £70 million industrial strategy challenge fund, which will help leading UK firms such as Teledyne accelerate getting their products to the market.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor knows very well that Huddersfield in the Leeds city region is a hotspot for new technology and innovation and a tech centre, but many people in Huddersfield and Leeds are demoralised by the future and leaving the European Union. What can the Chancellor do to give them some hope that there is a future for their businesses and universities?
Mr Hammond
I am well aware that Huddersfield, like Chelmsford, is a leading centre of industry and technology development. Many of our towns and cities that have traditionally been centres of manufacturing are changing very fast in response to the changing nature of manufacturing industry. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will be making a spring statement to the House next week in the context of some very important decisions that the House will be making about our exit from the EU, and I will be setting out my vision for Britain’s future.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Renewables is a key future technology sector. Can the Chancellor assure the House that the growth of the offshore sector will not be limited by Government airspace protection rules, or, if it will, will the Government look to invest instead in onshore wind?
Mr Hammond
I think the hon. Lady is talking about radar interference problems with wind turbines, something I remember from my Ministry of Defence days. The Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will always argue robustly for protecting the economic potential of these technologies, but of course we have to look at our national security interests as well and get the balance right.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)
How on earth do people think that we are going to be improving the UK’s new technology position when we are on the brink in this House of committing to a disastrous Brexit that will undermine our research funding, stifle our skilled migration, hobble in some ways some of the developments in our pharmaceuticals and biotech sector, and wave goodbye to the European Medicines Agency? Is not the truth that actually our task is going to be to prevent a deterioration in our prospects as a country if we go down that route?
Mr Hammond
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and I know he speaks sincerely and from the heart on these matters, but my view is that we have a huge amount of pent-up investment that has not gone ahead over the last two and a half years because of uncertainty. Once we can provide clarity to British business about our future, which we do by supporting the deal that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be bringing forward next week, we will unleash that investment, allowing Britain to achieve its rightful potential as one of the world’s leading technology powers.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Mr Hammond
I started work in 1977 and I am not sure I ever remember that traditional nine-to-five, but the Government are helping people to be more productive and work flexibly by committing over £1 billion of public money to next-generation digital infrastructure, including full fibre broadband and 5G. Obviously, the primary investment will come from the private sector, but the public investment ensures that those parts of the country that would not otherwise be served because they are not commercial can share in this important technology. We are also supporting workplace productivity in other ways, including by investing £56 million to help small businesses to develop leadership and management skills in partnership with “be the business” programme.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I am sorry, but when it comes to funding the new technologies that really matter, this Government, and especially the Treasury, have been abysmal. The climate crisis is upon us now, but this Government’s reaction has been to axe carbon capture and storage funding; to cancel the Swansea lagoon, despite the fact that we were poised to be a world leader in tidal technology; and to slap innovative emerging storage technologies with business rates. At the same time, they are throwing billions into new tax breaks for oil and gas. Does the Chancellor agree that this Government are not facing the climate emergency but creating it?
Mr Hammond
No, we are committing additional funding to innovation and to research and development—the Faraday battery challenge is a good example—and lots of that money is going into the technologies that will underpin the decarbonisation of our economy. However, we have to get the balance right. Consumers of energy in this country do not want to see their bills rising because we have made imprudent decisions. We have to do this in a way that takes public opinion with us as we decarbonise our energy sector, our homes and our industry in a sustainable way.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Mr Hammond
I recently visited the north-west of England and saw at first hand the enterprising and enthusiastic spirit of SMEs in the region. I am happy to confirm that, in the 2018 Budget, I backed locally led innovation by doubling the strength in places fund to £235 million. I also committed an additional £5 million to encourage proposals for new university enterprise zones, following a successful pilot scheme that invested £15 million in Liverpool. The made smarter pilot in the north-west is helping manufacturers to adopt digital technologies, and together these measures will ensure that businesses in the north-west can take the lead in the fourth industrial revolution.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
The Low Pay Commission recommends minimum wages for the under-25s, such that they are as high as possible while maintaining young people’s employment prospects. We have seen a 45% reduction in youth unemployment since 2010 as a result.
David Linden
That is lovely, but it is not actually the answer to the question I asked, which was whether an economic impact assessment had been carried out. Clearly, the answer is no. The Government obviously have an ideological problem with a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Given that this is national apprenticeship week, does the right hon. Lady really think that it is acceptable to pay apprentices just £3.70 an hour in this country under UK law? Will she use the spring statement to take action to introduce a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? If she will not, will she devolve this to Scotland so that we can do the job for her?
Elizabeth Truss
The reality is that we have been so successful in reducing youth unemployment—which in 2010 was almost double what it is now—because we have taken a reasonable strategy with minimum wages. We have also had a welfare to work programme and helped young people to get experience and skills. It would be completely wrong to raise wages to the extent that young people were unemployed and unable to get the experience and skills that they need to succeed in life.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The Government’s analysis indicates that leaving the EU without a deal would not be good for the UK economy, which is why we are so determined as a Government to secure an appropriate deal with the European Union that can pass through this House.
Gerald Jones
There are 4,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. This Government have had two years to negotiate a good deal for that sector, but they have so far failed to do so. Does the Minister share my concern that Nissan’s decision to build its X-Trail in Japan, and similar decisions by Honda, are a sign of things to come as a result of this Government’s chaotic negotiations?
Mel Stride
The chief executive of Honda has made it perfectly clear that the company’s recent decisions were not a consequence of Brexit. Other factors across the world are affecting car sales, including the switch away from diesel and, in the case of Honda, the agreement on tariffs that has been entered into between the European Union and Japan, which will mean that, after the move to Japan, exports into Japan will attract no tariffs.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does not this underline the importance of fine-tuning the deal so that we can jettison the backstop and use existing technology and EU law to take forward the innovative Malthouse proposals, which will ensure that we can move forward and build the new Britain?
Mel Stride
The House has made clear the basis on which it would be prepared to accept the deal negotiated with the European Union, and that will necessitate some changes to the backstop arrangements. That is what is being negotiated at the moment and it will come back to the House in due course.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is right to raise an issue that relates to our tariff policy in the event of a no-deal Brexit. We have made it clear that we will carefully balance this, protecting consumers from unwanted price rises at the same time as using our tariff policy to provide appropriate protection to vital elements of the economy.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Cheshire-based company ABB has stated that investment in automation could result in radical improvements in cost efficiency, allowing work to move back to the UK. Will my right hon. Friend consider incentivising investment in automation through the tax system?
Mel Stride
We have already brought in some important measures to do just that, not least by increasing the annual investment allowance from £200,000 to £1 million, as announced at the previous Budget. We keep all taxes under review and I will certainly bear my hon. Friend’s important point in mind.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
In a recent survey by the Fraser of Allander Institute, 62% of Scottish businesses said that they did not feel ready for Brexit. Will the Chancellor bring forward an emergency Budget to provide support for small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can cope with the Brexit that he proposes?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we will take stock of the situation and take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that we protect and support businesses throughout the United Kingdom.
Kirsty Blackman
I was specifically talking about the Brexit that the Chancellor is proposing, which is presumably not a no-deal Brexit, although it looks like 100,000 jobs could be lost in Scotland as a direct result of no deal. However, in relation to the deal Brexit, the Bank of England has said that unemployment could be up to 4% higher by 2023 if the Prime Minister’s deal is approved. Does the Chancellor believe that keeping his job is worth costing thousands of others?
Mel Stride
I do not believe that the figure to which the hon. Lady refers is accurate. This Government have seen employment at a record high and unemployment at the lowest level since 1975, and youth employment is half what it was in 2010—unlike the Labour Government, who saw youth unemployment increase by almost 50%.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
At the Budget, I announced an extra £420 million for road maintenance, including potholes, and £150 million to ease congestion on local roads. I also announced that, from 2020, all road tax will be invested back into our road network via a national roads fund, which will involve £28.8 billion between 2020 and 2025, including a record £25.3 billion for our strategic roads. That is part of our plan to upgrade our infrastructure so that it is fit for the future and another element of our overall public investment, which is set to reach the highest sustained level for 40 years.
Gordon Henderson
I am grateful for that answer and for the continued investment in our roads, but does my right hon. Friend understand the frustration felt by my constituents, who have seen their area transformed by massive housing developments, but have not seen improvements to the local road infrastructure, particularly the A249 and the M2, to serve the new homes?
Mr Hammond
We are making good progress on improving junction 5 of the M2 and the A249 Stockbury roundabout, reducing journey times, making journeys safer and supporting future housing and employment growth. All that is in addition to recent investments from the local growth fund in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, including the opening of a new roundabout on the A2500 in December 2018, following a £1.26 million investment, and £2.5 million for the regeneration of Sittingbourne town centre.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Funding for road infrastructure is very important, but I wonder whether the Chancellor thinks it should sit alongside investment in more active travel—walking and cycling.
Mr Hammond
Both. Of course we want to encourage active travel—cycling and walking—particularly in cities where that is the most appropriate response to dealing with the twin challenges of congestion and air quality. Sheffield has benefited from funding that will allow it to enhance the offer to walkers and cyclists.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Over the last decade, we have seen a 25% increase in the number of enterprises in the fantastic county of Essex. That is despite our crumbling infrastructure and our roads. May I make an urgent plea to the Chancellor to support and invest in the two economic arteries that go through the heart of Essex and the Witham constituency—the A12 and the A120?
Mr Hammond
This is probably not the first time that my right hon. Friend has asked me about those two roads. She is a formidable champion of the transport infrastructure that runs through her constituency; I congratulate her on that. As I have just announced, we have made a commitment to hypothecate all road tax to the national roads fund. That will make a record amount of funding available for road projects in the next period.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Road traffic accidents are a major cause of acquired brain injury, so I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider setting up a special fund, in proportion to the amount that he is talking about for road infrastructure—and announce it next week, if he is still going to do his statement next Wednesday—to make sure that there is a fund available to people in the national health service who are developing very innovative ways of rehabilitating people who have had road traffic accidents. If he does not understand, he can ask his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is very good on that.
Mr Hammond
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will be making a spring statement next week and remind him and the House that it is not a fiscal event under the new Budget architecture. We have put very significant additional funding into the national health service. I note the point he makes about acquired brain injury and the research that is happening on that. I will draw the Health Secretary’s attention to his comments.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Chancellor has rightly made great play of the fact that we need to improve our productivity in this country. One of the biggest drags on productivity in my part of the world is clogged-up roads, and my part of West Yorkshire is one of the most congested parts of the UK. So will the Chancellor use money from either his productivity fund or his road-building fund to ensure that there is enough money in the kitty to progress the long-awaited, much-needed Shipley eastern bypass?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend will know, we have funded a study into the Shipley bypass. It is absolutely right that, often, the highest-value road investments can be relatively modest local schemes that relieve pressure and allow town regeneration, the release of housing land and the more efficient operation of local industry. We will have a record-sized fund available through the hypothecation of vehicle excise duty.
Mr Speaker
The Member for Shipley will not stop going on about it until he gets it; I think of that we can be absolutely certain.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The steps we are taking to protect our manufacturing in the event of no deal include supporting the Prime Minister’s deal and the negotiations to make sure that we have a smooth exit from the European Union, and the Treasury itself has made available in excess of £4 billion by way of contingency funding for Departments right across Whitehall.
Mr Sharma
I thank the Minister for that response. Last month, I surveyed businesses in my constituency and they overwhelmingly said that they wanted Brexit cancelled. Will the Chancellor stand up for British businesses, end the uncertainty and use his immense personal prestige in the Cabinet and with the Prime Minister to stop Brexit once and for all?
Mel Stride
It is just little old me, I am afraid, but I have to say that I believe we should respect the result of the June 2016 referendum, a democratic exercise that saw a higher turnout than for any other democratic event in the history of our country. The important thing now is that we get the right deal for us to leave, which we are working on. When it comes back to Parliament, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Mel Stride
We are most certainly not ignoring those businesses—or indeed businesses from a variety of different sectors up and down the economy. We have been deeply engaged with business, through the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other Departments. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, for example, on the issue of just-in-time deliveries and the flow of trade across our borders, we have done an immense amount of work to prepare for the possibility of a no-deal exit to make sure that we protect the very companies to which he refers.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
We are acting to tackle single-use plastic waste at source by introducing a world-leading tax on plastic packaging. The tax, which I announced at the Budget, will provide a clear economic incentive to business to use recycled plastic and, alongside the reform of the plastic producer responsibility system by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it will transform the economics of sustainable packaging. The Government recently published consultations on the detail of both measures, alongside consultations on consistent waste collection and a potential deposit return scheme for beverage containers. We are determined to be the first Government who leave the environment in a better state than they found it in.
Mark Pawsey
I hear what the Chancellor is saying, but in setting policy will he recognise the positive role that plastic packaging plays in reducing cost to consumers by protecting goods in transit and in reducing the environmental burden of food waste by keeping food fresher for longer?
Mr Hammond
The points my hon. Friend makes are well made, and of course this is about getting the balance right. The Government recognise that plastic packaging can play an important role, but we want to reduce the environmental impact of single-use plastic waste and encourage more sustainable forms of plastic packaging that can be recycled. The packaging tax will encourage businesses to use more recycled plastic in the production of packaging and will therefore drive a more sustainable packaging industry.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
My 10-year-old constituent Emily Haines wrote to me about this issue, and she assured me she had not just copied and pasted. Indeed, when I wrote back to her by hand, her father emailed me to say that he had no idea that his daughter had written to me on this subject. So may I ask the Chancellor not to listen to those who say that he should in any way dilute what he is doing on single-use plastics? Indeed, he should do more and do as Emily says: introduce “tough new taxes” to make sure that we deal with this environmental scourge.
Mr Hammond
That is what we are doing. This will be the world’s first plastic tax and it is carefully designed to go with the grain of the market: to incentivise manufacturers to use more recycled plastic in their packaging. Because of that, it creates an effective market for packaging and, together with the producer responsibility note system, will transform the way in which plastic packaging enters the circular economy in this country.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Chancellor is, apparently, taking the issue of plastic waste seriously. The Government have committed £61.4 million to global research to help to prevent plastic waste from entering the oceans. Given the challenge, is that sufficient?
Mr Hammond
It is a good start. The idea is to identify ways in which we can work with countries around the world, including many of our overseas territories, which are particularly vulnerable to this issue, to ensure that we develop effective methods of avoiding plastic waste entering the ocean. Of course the best way to do that is by ensuring that plastics are not created in the first place, or that they are effectively recycled, but avoiding dumping at sea is our No. 1 priority.
Peter Dowd
Talking of preventing waste, what with the millions wasted on the ferries fiasco, the drone debacle, the Northern rail mess, the Carillion collapse, the electronic tagging turmoil, the £2 billion East Coast chaos and, finally, £72,000 spent on defending an illegal prisoner book ban, is it not time for the Chancellor, as the custodian of the public finances, to impose a ban on the failing Secretary of State for Transport wasting any more public dosh?
Mr Hammond
I am not going to take any lectures about waste from anybody on the Opposition Front Bench. This lot are world-champion wasters of public money. They have done it before and given half a chance they will do it again.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government are committed to ensuring that Medway and, indeed, the whole of Kent have the infrastructure that they need. The South East local enterprise partnership has secured £590 million from three local growth fund rounds, to support around 30 important transport schemes in Kent and Medway.
Rehman Chishti
Medway Council’s £170 million housing infrastructure bid will have a significant impact on the unlocking of regeneration in the Thames estuary, providing the extra much-needed homes, jobs and transport connectivity. Will the Minister clarify when such excellent bids will be considered and announced? By way of declaration, I am a member of Medway Council.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has been raising this matter assiduously. At the spring statement in 2018, the Government announced that Medway’s housing infrastructure fund bid was shortlisted for the next stage of assessment, and we look forward to receiving the final proposal later this month. It will be considered alongside other HIF bids.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
At the autumn Budget 2018, we gave councils an additional £650 million, which could be spent on adult and children’s social care. Since 2017, we have given access to up to £10 billion of dedicated adult social care funding, which has meant above-inflation rises.
Mike Amesbury
Eighty-seven people in this country die each day before receiving the care that they need. Does the Minister agree that that figure is shameful and that the Chancellor should use the spring statement to tackle the funding crisis in social care?
Elizabeth Truss
As I pointed out, social care funding and access to it is increasing beyond inflation. In fact, we have seen improvements in many figures. For example, since March 2017, the number of patients who have been delayed leaving hospital due to social care has halved.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government have worked hard to build a stronger, fairer economy. The economy has grown continuously for the past nine years, employment is currently at a record high, unemployment is currently at its lowest rate since 1975 and real wages are rising.
Chris Philp
It is welcome that 75% of those new jobs are full-time and only 3% are zero-hours contracts. It is also welcome that the minimum wage has gone up by 38% since 2010, but what assurance can the Minister give that the policy of dramatically increasing the minimum wage to help the poorest in our society will continue?
John Glen
I can confirm that the national living wage will rise again this year, to £8.21. I can also tell my hon. Friend that later this year the Low Pay Commission will be set a new remit for beyond 2020. We want to be ambitious, with the ultimate objective of ending low pay in the UK while protecting employment for lower-paid workers.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I suspect the Minister knows that it will be more difficult to increase jobs in services businesses if we replace single market membership with a free trade agreement. Will he set out for the House what estimate he has made of the scale of the difficulty, particularly that facing financial services businesses that want to increase jobs in the current Brexit situation?
John Glen
Financial services are well protected and ready to engage on arrangements for beyond the implementation period, but the Government are not complacent in respect of the whole economy. We have made a series of interventions through our productivity fund to meet the challenges of the next generation.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Whenever the Government table self-congratulatory questions like that one, there is a need to put on record what is really happening out there. Six million jobs in the UK pay less than the real living wage, 3.8 million people are in insecure employment and 2.5 million people work less than 15 hours a week. Economic growth, where it exists, is so geographically unequal that it does not reflect the reality of what people see around them. Let me ask, on behalf of those people: what is this Government’s strategy for in-work poverty and insecure employment?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. This Government’s strategy is to relentlessly pursue growth in the economy and opportunities for all. We have seen 18.3% growth since 2010, and a record 32.6 million people in work. We will continue to prioritise interventions around technical education, cuts in business taxes and support for new technologies to recognise the new jobs that need to be provided for.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The decision to freeze most working-age benefits for four years from 2016-17 was one of a number of difficult financial decisions that were taken, but to assist claimants who are affected by debt, the Government announced, as part of the 2018 Budget package, a reduction from 40% to 30% in the maximum rate at which deductions can be made from universal credit awards. That change will help 290,000 claimants.
Neil Coyle
I thank the Minister for his reply. This morning, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited Charles Dickens Primary School in my constituency to talk to parents, children and teachers about the impact that the benefits freeze and other welfare cuts have had on local families, many of whom have been pushed into debt, poverty and destitution as a direct result of Government policy. Will the Government listen to the Select Committee and lift the benefits freeze one year early?
John Glen
The Government have been very responsive to representations over the last two Budgets. There are 637,000 fewer children in workless households than in 2010. We made a number of interventions in the last Budget to increase the availability of interest-free advance loans to those who need them. We are listening, and continue to listen, to the concerns of the sector.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The best way to sustainably drive economic growth is to raise productivity, and that is a priority for this Government. We are increasing public investment in economic infrastructure to its highest sustained level in my lifetime. In the autumn Budget, we set out further investments to support business, technical skills and new technologies.
Julian Sturdy
Last month, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saw for herself the investment that York-based Pavers Shoes is making to change its productivity, yet local businesses are concerned about the effect of traffic congestion on local productivity. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary assure me that the Treasury is fully behind the Department for Transport’s proposals to fund the dualling of the York northern ring road?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary says that she saw some very good leopard-print shoes at Pavers Shoes—and she knows a potential customer for them. Pavers is a highly successful business; I have seen for myself in India the success that it is having in selling shoes. We are committed to increasing transport investment in the north of England; the Secretary of State for Transport recently announced the dualling of the A1237 York outer ring road as a scheme in development for the major road network funding.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that one of the ways to increase productivity is by maintaining grants at European levels of investment in research and development? We have a lot of good universities in this country.
Robert Jenrick
This Government are absolutely committed to maintaining research and development; that is why we will be investing in it at record levels. We are also supporting the private sector, for example by making research and development tax credits more generous so that businesses across the country can collaborate with universities to drive the economy forward.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
Absolutely. We are very excited about the £100 million Ayrshire growth deal and will continue to support that part of Scotland.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The Government take a very serious view of those who enable or promote tax avoidance. We have taken a number of measures to clamp down on them, including penalties of up to £1 million.
Alex Norris
In 2017, the Government introduced the Criminal Finances Act to great fanfare, claiming that they were clamping down on the facilitators of tax-dodging. Will the Minister please confirm how many prosecutions have been brought for the new offence of failing to prevent tax evasion?
Mel Stride
We have taken action against enablers and promoters, and the cumulative amount of time in prison that has resulted from those particular actions is in excess of 100 years.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Mel Stride
I am confident that HMRC will be ready for the outcome of the EU negotiations, whatever that outcome is. We have taken on over 4,000 additional staff to ensure that we are ready, and we have of course invested £2 billion in additional funding since 2010 to ensure that HMRC can operate effectively.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
The economy has grown every year since 2010, and there are now 3.5 million more people in work.
Mrs Murray
Can my hon. Friend confirm that under the Conservatives, in addition to a record number of jobs, wages are growing at their fastest rate in over a decade, meaning that more people have the security of a regular wage to provide for their families?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right, and this has not happened by accident; it is because of the decisions that this Government have made to cut taxes and to reform employment and welfare, unlike the Opposition’s approach, which is to say that business is the enemy and damage our economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are running late, so if the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) can manage to ask a one-sentence question with a question mark at the end of it, I will call him; if he cannot, I will not. It is a deal. [Interruption.] No, not one and a half sentence—one sentence. Mr Shannon, get in there.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Minister further outline whether there will be tax benefits available for small businesses that may not be able to sustain this level of wage increase? That was one sentence.
Elizabeth Truss
We need to ensure that all businesses succeed. In the spending review, we will be ensuring that business support is just as supportive of new entrants and start-ups.
Mr Speaker
This one-sentence model could catch on; that would be splendid. I call Stephen Kinnock.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
No pressure there at all. Question 23, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
No, but you can blurt it out on the question with which we were dealing, if you want. Unburden yourself, man.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and colleagues to discuss this important issue.
Mr Speaker
Oh, I see what the hon. Gentleman was driving at in relation to topical questions. Jolly well done; what a prescient fellow. We now come to topical questions. I call Stephen Kinnock.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I cannot think of another question to ask, as my question has been responded to.
Mr Speaker
I know that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the hereditary principle, but I do not think that those words would ever have come out of the mouth of his dad. I think he should have a go. Just say “Topical 1”, young man.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have a sense that by the time I have responded, inspiration will have struck the hon. Gentleman.
My principal responsibility is to ensure economic stability and the continued prosperity of this country. At this juncture, the best way to achieve that objective is to support a negotiated Brexit ensuring a smooth and orderly departure from the EU through a transition period to a new relationship that allows our mutual trade to continue to flourish.
Stephen Kinnock
Since the introduction of the minimum wage, only 14 employers have been prosecuted by HMRC for failing to pay the minimum wage. Does the Chancellor agree that that is a completely unacceptable state of affairs? What action is he taking to boost the capacity of HMRC to go after those who are not paying the minimum wage?
Mr Hammond
HMRC does take action against errant employers. It is always pleased to receive information on suspected non-compliance and will investigate any such cases. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had difficulty thinking of a question. Anticipating this situation, I have at least four or five potential questions that he could have asked me, and I am happy to show them to him afterwards.
Mr Speaker
Colleagues, on a discretionary basis I am changing the order, but, believe me, I know why I am changing the order and there is a compelling reason in this instance for doing so.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
We were able to increase the education budget by £1.3 billion last year, which means there have been real-terms funding increases per pupil. We are already the top spenders in the G7 as a proportion of GDP, according to the OECD. But I do recognise that we need to make sure that, going into the future, our education system is properly supported. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues to discuss this further.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
When the Conservatives lost their majority at the last election, the Chancellor conjured up a £1 billion bung to the Democratic Unionist party to buy the Tories back into office. Yesterday, with the announcement of the towns fund, we reached a new low in politics in this country, with the attempt by the Government to purchase the votes of Labour MPs to vote for the Brexit deal. Pork barrel politics has become the new norm under this Government. Can I ask the Chancellor: if the price of a DUP vote has been £100 million each, how much has he calculated a Labour MP’s vote will cost?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government have been investing in our cities across the country with interventions such as the transforming cities fund—a £2.5 billion investment. We believe it is important to mirror those investments to drive productivity and economic growth in our towns. This week, we have announced a £1.6 billion intervention to support those towns, building on other interventions that we have made throughout the course of the past 12 months, including the future high streets fund.
John McDonnell
I can understand why the Chancellor has broken convention today in not responding, because I think he would be ashamed to respond. Let me tell him what the answer is: if a DUP vote is worth £100 million, what Labour MPs were offered yesterday was £6 million.
Let me ask the Chancellor to undertake another calculation. Seven days ago, he was forced to publish the Government’s assessment, again, of how much a no-deal Brexit would cost this country—in today’s prices, nearly £200 billion. How much of a threatened cost to this country will it take for this Chancellor to find a backbone to stand up to the Prime Minister and the European Research Group to prevent no deal or a bad deal? Or is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the only Cabinet Minister willing to put country before career?
Mr Philip Hammond
Oh dear, oh dear. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, I have been working tirelessly to ensure that we avoid a no-deal exit—that we leave the European Union in a smooth and orderly fashion to a new negotiated partnership that allows our complex and important trade relationships to continue to flourish in the future. That is what I spend every working day doing.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend is aware, because I have said it already this afternoon, the spring statement is not a fiscal event, but I will update the House on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts for the UK economy and for the public finances. I will follow the approach that I took at spring statement 2018 and also provide the House with an update on progress since the 2018 Budget and set out our intended direction for announcements later in the year. Although it is not a fiscal event, I already anticipate my hon. Friend beating a path to my door before the Budget in the autumn.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
As the Chancellor said, the spring statement is not a fiscal event. We are increasing school funding in real terms per pupil, but of course we need to ensure that we are investing properly in our education system. We are looking at human capital and what will be the most important investments, and we will report on that at the spending review.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
FE spending is a priority, and we have protected the base rate of funding between 2015 and 2020. I was grateful to receive that letter from colleagues and have organised a meeting on 19 March. I am not sure whether we will be able to fit 164 people in a room, but I hope my hon. Friend will be able to attend.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Mr Philip Hammond
As I have told the House many times—I will elaborate more at the spring statement next week—in what I now think is the unlikely event of a no-deal exit, the Government have both fiscal and monetary tools available to them to support the economy. Of course, the likely shock would be on the supply side of the economy, and we would have to be careful that fiscal interventions did not merely stimulate inflation. If we are to find ourselves in that situation, we have the firepower and the clear intent to intervene to support the economy.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. We also need to ensure that we are spending money on the right things. For example, the changes this Government have made to phonics have seen our children go from some of the poorest readers in Europe to some of the best. It is about money, but it is also about what we do with that money.
[R] Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Mr Philip Hammond
We regard the UK shared prosperity fund as very important, and we will launch a consultation this year on plans for the fund.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is not possible to provide an estimate down at constituency level about the impacts of the changes in the personal allowance, but I can inform my hon. Friend that no fewer than 234,000 individuals have been taken out of income tax altogether who are living in the south-east, which obviously includes Dover.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does the Chancellor agree with his right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, who has told me on a number of occasions that he believes other European countries are looking enviously at the United Kingdom’s withdrawal deal, especially in the context of all the economic analysis the Treasury has carried out on Brexit scenarios?
Mr Philip Hammond
I am not in a position to comment on private conversations that the hon. Gentleman may have had with my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, but I can tell him that I agree with everything my right hon. Friend has said at this Dispatch Box.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
Air passenger duty is a per passenger levy paid by all airlines, so there is no reason to believe that it discriminates against smaller airlines. We have now chosen to freeze APD on short-haul flights for eight years and to take children out of it altogether. The Labour party of course want to hike it with its holiday tax.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
What is the Chancellor doing to make sure local authorities have sufficient funding to allow care providers to pay sleep-in shifts at a national living wage rate?
Elizabeth Truss
We are currently working on this with the Department of Health and Social Care.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Treasury Committee will today publish the Economic Secretary’s letter to me of 30 January on the current solution to problems faced by mortgage prisoners. This solution requires the private sector to be receptive to providing new mortgages to mortgage prisoners currently trapped with inactive lenders. What update can Ministers provide on the promised Treasury officials’ work with those lenders?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I can tell my right hon. Friend that I am in conversation with the Financial Conduct Authority about its move to a relative rather than an absolute test. I note that there are a range of views out there about how this problem can be dealt with. The FCA has said that it will come back later this spring with its response, and I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss her concerns further.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
This morning, the Financial Times entitled its editorial, “UK territories need to embrace transparency”, prompted by the Government’s decision to pull a vote they knew they were going to lose last night. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not feel that he is completely out of kilter with the spirit of the modern age?
John Glen
Some amendments were tabled on Thursday, and given the constitutional implications of those amendments, I think it is right that the Government work across Departments—with the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign Office—and have dialogue with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to resolve the matter as the amendments suggested.
Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Adding to the calls of colleagues, may I ask the Chancellor to ensure that more money is provided for schools? Schools across the country desperately need it, particularly in Cheshire, which is the lowest funded.
Elizabeth Truss
In response to my right hon. Friend, I can say that one of the things we have done is to introduce a national funding formula to make sure schools funding is more fair across the country, and it is getting fairer every year. I would be delighted to meet her and other colleagues.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor has claimed that the best way to protect the public finances from a decline in the motor industry post-Brexit is to back the PM’s deal. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says the best way is for the Prime Minister to abandon her red lines and be part of a customs union. Who is right?
Mr Philip Hammond
As the Prime Minister has explained to the House many times, the deal that we have negotiated with the European Union provides for most of the benefits of a customs union, while still enabling the United Kingdom in certain circumstances to be able to strike trade deals with third countries. That is a win-win outcome, and the House should get behind it.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Is it the intention that we will be publishing our draft tariff schedule in the event of no deal before the meaningful vote?
Mr Hammond
I cannot give my hon. Friend a clear answer on a specific date, but soon as we are in a position to publish the tariff schedule, we will do so.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Personal debt is now higher than it has ever been in British history. Household debt is now also higher than it has ever been and has increased by nearly £1,000 in the past year alone. How sustainable is that?
John Glen
That is why the Government are concerned that the establishment of a single financial guidance body should happen quickly this year. Some £56 million is spent on debt advice to 530,000 people. This is an area I take very seriously, and I will be going to the credit union conference on Saturday to outline some more policy initiatives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As is normally the case, demand exceeds supply. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but we are well out of time and we must now move on.
Petition
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition on the topical issue of inadequate funding for police forces, signed by Mr Tony Weafer, residents and business owners in Southampton; it has been signed by 956 constituents in total. The business owners and residents of Shirley in my constituency have expressed concern about cuts in police funding, and the inability of the police force to secure sufficient funds from central Government to protect people in this country adequately from the frightening increase in crime.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The petition of residents and business owners of Southampton in Hampshire, declares that the Police Force is unable to secure sufficient funds from Central Government in order to adequately protect the people of this country from the frightening increase in crime. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Police have the resources they need to adequately protect the people of this country.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002433]
Points of Order
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) is currently on maternity leave. She has served with great distinction as a member of the Select Committee on Health and as a spokesperson who is nationally recognised for her work on mental health. I am deeply concerned to hear that the Labour party has been seeking names to replace and oust her from her position on the Select Committee. Surely this is unacceptable and sends entirely the wrong message about how we value maternity leave in this place. I am very relieved that none of her former colleagues was prepared to be nominated in that way. May I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on that point and on the wider point that Select Committees are surely at their best when Members can leave their narrow party politics at the door rather than being a tool of the Whips Office?
Mr Speaker
If it is, as I believe it to be, on the same matter, I will hear the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) and then I will respond to the two of them.
Joan Ryan
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I support the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health Committee? Members of this House have previously left their parties and become independent or changed party, and I understand from the House of Commons Library that they have remained on Select Committees, only coming off them if they expressed a wish to do so. That is clearly not the case here. May I seek your ruling on the fact that there is no precedent for political parties to seek to remove Members whom the House has said should remain on their Select Committees for the duration of the Parliament?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and the right hon. Member for Enfield North for those points of order. On the very last point, and this is not in any sense a criticism, from my recollection there are precedents. The truth of the matter is that there are precedents for a lot of things in this place and that does not necessarily mean that such a course of action is right. I say that without prejudice to what colleagues might judge to be the merits of the right hon. Lady’s point of order as a whole. She has flagged up a very important issue. The points of order were raised, at least in part, to elicit a response, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the right hon. Lady for giving me notice of them. Procedurally, the position is certainly clear in my mind and I hope I can make sure that it is clear in everyone else’s.
Changes in membership of Select Committees are made by this House on debatable and amendable motions. For almost all Select Committees, such motions are moved on behalf of the Selection Committee by its Chair or another member of it. Under Standing Order No. 121, any Member intending to propose that a Member be discharged from a Select Committee shall endeavour to give notice to the Member whom he or she proposes should be discharged from the Committee. In the first instance, I refer the hon. Lady and the right hon. Lady to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), namely, the Chair of the Selection Committee. I am not aware of any current plan to remove somebody from such a Committee, and I would not necessarily be aware if there were such a plan. Procedurally, what I have said is, I think, accurate and in so far as it contains advice, it is the fairest advice I can offer. I hope that is helpful to colleagues.
I think there was another point of order.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions published a written statement outlining changes to social security, health and disability. By my calculations there are no fewer than nine announcements that will have a significant impact on hundreds and thousands of ill and disabled people, including, to name a few, changes to the personal independence payment assessment for pensioners; the introduction of a new integrated assessment framework for employment and support allowance, universal credit and PIP; seeking to extend contracts on the delivery of the then work capability assessment; yet another review of the Government’s manifesto commitments to get more disabled people into work, with little or no mention of improvements to the Access to Work scheme; a small-scale test into conditionality and sanctions; and commissioning yet more research into the understanding of the needs of disabled people.
Mr Speaker, the written statement is vague on detail and raises significant questions. It is vital that Members are given the opportunity to question the Secretary of State about the changes. Will you please advise me on how best we can ensure that the Secretary of State comes to this House and answers questions from Members?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise this matter. She asks me specifically how to ensure that the Secretary of State will address the House on it. The short answer is that, apart from departmental questions and in the absence of an Opposition day facility to probe the matter, the absence of which at present is a matter understood by Members across the House, the recourse would have to be either through an urgent question, conceivably an emergency debate or a debate to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Beyond that, really only an end-of-day Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall would allow the matter to be aired. Those are the options.
On the procedural question the hon. Lady raises, I have to tell her—unfortunately from her point of view, but it is something I do have to say from time to time—that it is under our procedures for Ministers to decide whether a statement is delivered in writing or orally in this Chamber and whether such statements, rather as with the granting of urgent questions when the Government decide who to field, are delivered by the relevant Secretary of State or by another dare I say it?—more junior Minister.
The hon. Lady has made clear that she finds it unsatisfactory in the case she describes. Those avenues are open to her if she wishes to pursue the matter, as I think she clearly does. My advice to her would be that she discuss this matter with colleagues in her shadow ministerial team. She might consider undertaking the short journey to the Table Office, where further advice will be available to her if she seeks it. I hope that that is helpful to her. I do understand that some of these matters will be very pressing, not just as far as she is concerned but as far as many colleagues are concerned, and there should be an opportunity to air them in the Chamber.
If there are no further points of order—I am grateful to the hon. Lady for hers—I will momentarily call Mr Alan Brown to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.
EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I wish to give formal notice to request an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24 to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the latest developments in UK Government ferry contracts for no-deal preparations.
Good governance goes hand in hand with transparency and accountability, and to date we have seen absolutely none of that in relation to the Transport Secretary’s handling of the no-deal ferry contracts. In fact, every time more information has come out, more questions have been raised and have gone unanswered. In a point of order yesterday, I highlighted my frustration about the non-answers. Yesterday, the Health Secretary answered from the Dispatch Box and gave the same blithe responses as the Transport Secretary. It is simply not good enough. We have had a written ministerial statement, three urgent questions and several oral questions, including eight SNP questions at the last Transport questions, and all we have received are arrogant, condescending responses.
We are still to find out how Seaborne was identified as a suitable provider of what are supposed to be vital services in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It is a company with negative equity, no history of running ferry or freight services, no ships and no port agreements to run the ferry services, and Ramsgate port is still to be dredged to have the depth required for ferries. We were told that due diligence had been undertaken, but it turns out that the Department for Transport limited it. Then we learned that there were no financial guarantees, so when the possible backer walked away, the deal collapsed. We need to know how much of the £800,000 due diligence costs were spent on the abortive Seaborne contract.
The Transport Secretary’s lines of defence—that he was supporting a start-up company, and that cancellation did not matter because it would not cost the taxpayer money—stretch the phrase “inadvertently misleading the House” to the absolute limit. We were advised that direct negotiation was possible under regulation 32 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which relates to an emergency situation brought about by unforeseeable events. Given that the Government claim to have been planning for a no-deal scenario for two years, how was this unforeseen? What legal advice was provided?
Eurotunnel took the Government to court and was paid an out-of-court settlement of £33 million. Why did the Government cave if they were confident of the legal position? Why is it now argued that the £33 million settlement is actually prudent planning for a no-deal Brexit and is required to keep our vital medicine supply chain going? We need clarity and a breakdown of compensation cost versus the so-called service improvement.
There is anger in the House, and Members have not had their queries answered. I am asking for this debate so that we can get the Transport Secretary to the Dispatch Box to provide real, meaningful answers.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, the latest developments in UK Government ferry contract awards for no-deal preparations. I have listened carefully to his application, and I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.
Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House? [Interruption.] Somebody is objecting. [Interruption.] I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), but I am not sure he altogether understands our procedures perhaps as well as he ought to do and as well as I do. In fairness, he is graciously conceding from a sedentary position that the threshold of 40 has been reached. I thank him for his courtesy.
Actually, you lot are ahead of yourselves. People tend to stand up before they need to. [Interruption.] Order. I am saying this because I believe in the public intelligibility and accessibly of our proceedings, which is important. If there is an objection, as there was from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East, 40 Members or more must rise in order that the debate can go ahead. More than 40 Members have done, and therefore the Standing Order requirement has been satisfied.
Application agreed to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support.)
Mr Speaker
The debate will be held today as the first item of public business after the ten-minute rule motion. The debate will last for up to three hours, and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the motion of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
Well, Mr Brown. I hope, at least for now, that you are satisfied with the result of your prodigious efforts. The debate will come in due course.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indications, given the current situation, of whether the Secretary of State for Health or the Secretary of State for Transport will be responding to the debate? It is important, given the detail of the matter to be debated in the House today.
Mr Speaker
I am happy to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman. The presence of the Secretary of State for Transport is not ornamental. He has come into the Chamber, and my very clear understanding from him is that he wishes to speak in the debate. My expectation is that he will speak relatively early.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no need for the hon. Lady to chunter “Ahoy there!” from a sedentary position. That is very eccentric behaviour. It is not the sort of thing I would ever have done as a Back Bencher, I feel sure. We will leave it there. I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber.
Bill Presented
Gender-based Pricing (Prohibition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine, supported by Jo Swinson, Wera Hobhouse, Layla Moran, Stella Creasy, Jess Phillips, Tonia Antoniazzi, Hannah Bardell, Tom Brake and Jamie Stone, presented a Bill to prohibit the differential pricing of products and services that are substantially similar other than being intended for, or marketed to, a particular gender; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March, and to be printed (Bill 348).
Hereditary Titles (Female Succession)
Tuesday 5th March 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill 2017-19 View all Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
We come now to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has been waiting almost as patiently as he has been waiting for the Shipley bypass.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the succession of female heirs to hereditary titles; and for connected purposes.
Mr Speaker, you will know that I often argue that the law should treat everyone equally, irrespective of their sex, and where that does not happen, I speak out. For example, I have spoken out to highlight where men are treated much more harshly in the criminal justice system and about how badly women are treated by sharia councils. This Bill would deal with another area where women are treated unfairly for no reason other than that they are women. That is unacceptable and indefensible.
In 2013, male primogeniture was changed to absolute primogeniture in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, following a report on the rules of royal succession prepared by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in 2011. The report also noted that women continued to be ineligible to succeed the majority of hereditary peers. My Bill would seek to extend the Succession to the Crown Act to include all hereditary titles through a straightforward piece of primary legislation consisting of just a few clauses. It would quite simply mean that daughters would be treated the same as sons for the purposes of succession. It seems to me to be a very natural step to take after amending the same principle for the royal family.
As a Conservative, I obviously resist change for change’s sake, but this amendment both should and could be made. Similarly, I was more than happy to see the ending of the centuries-old defence of marital coercion in criminal proceedings—a legal defence that had been available to married women only in one guise or another until recently.
As drafted, the Bill would not apply immediately where there is already a son due to inherit a title, and it would certainly not be retrospective. If there is currently a son in line for succession, that would remain the case.
I want to take the opportunity to thank Charlotte Carew Pole of Daughters’ Rights, who is the Public Gallery today, and Sir David Beamish, the former Clerk of the Parliaments, for their help in bringing this matter to its present state. They should both be commended for the immensely important roles they have played and the time they have spent putting together this legislation.
This modest change would obviously not affect huge swathes of people. According to Debrett’s peerage reports, there are at present 803 hereditary peers, including 24 dukes, 34 marquesses, 191 earls, 115 viscounts, 426 barons, and four countesses and nine baronesses in their own right. They could all potentially be one of the 92 hereditary peers, or on the register to stand as a hereditary peer in a by-election to the House of Lords. I understand that the register of peers for the election currently has 210 peers on it, only one of whom is female—Baroness Dacre. As this demonstrates, it is already possible to be a female hereditary peer, but clearly, because of the current system, it is not as routine as for males and clearly not as fair. The eldest of the four female descendants of the Earl of Balfour, Lady Willa Franks, commented in an article last year that she had had a very tongue-in-cheek suggestion from her father that she could consider a sex change to overcome primogeniture. I should add that the article went on to say that this was clearly a very light-hearted comment from the earl.
I accept that this is not the most important issue facing the country, but that is no reason not to put right this particular unfairness. Some people might look at this as a game of numbers—this change is needed to get more female hereditary peers into the House of Lords—but I want to be clear that this is definitely not where I am coming from. I refute the notion that any institution should have a particular number of men or women in the pursuit of what I believe to be unrepresentative representation by tick-box. I have often said that I could not care less if the House of Commons, for example, was 100% female. As long as people are here based on fairness and real equality of opportunity, their sex should be irrelevant; it should be their views and their contribution that count. That is arguably in the same vein as the change I am proposing today. As long as people fairly inherit titles regardless of their sex, I could not care less how many men and women it affects—that is not relevant to me at all; it is what they do with that title that should be of primary interest.
The Bill is not about men versus women, but about true equality between men and women, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thought I lived in the 21st century, and although I can commend those sitting in the Public Gallery who are seeking equality within the peerage, and although I understand their frustration, it would be disingenuous of me, belonging to a political party that fundamentally believes in the abolition of hereditary peerage in the House of Lords and of the House of Lords as it sits, and as an individual who is fundamentally opposed to the principle of state-sanctioned privilege, to allow this issue to go undebated on the Floor of this House.
If the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) believed in equality, he would not have given a 91-minute filibuster against the Istanbul convention on combating domestic violence. It is disingenuous, to say the least, that he should take 10 minutes on the Floor of the House of Commons to debate a so-called principle of equality in relation to privilege and the hereditary peerage. How are we to say to the women of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, especially those in their 50s seeking equal pensions, that we are giving equal rights to the privileged members of the peerage but not to them in seeking the money they paid in for their pension? I have sat in WASPI debates in Westminster Hall and listened to Members—predominantly Government Members—say that they should look to their husbands to help them out. What about women who happen to be married to other women born in the 1950s? It is disingenuous to the core in terms of the principle of equality.
The hon. Gentleman talks about equality for those in the peerage. That would be the monarchy, princesses, duchesses, marchionesses, countesses, viscountesses and baronesses—big dames and ladies. They are few and far between in West Dunbartonshire, I can tell you that, Mr Speaker. The women of my community—the women who elected me and have participated in votes for women candidates in my constituency—would be appalled at the disingenuous nature of this equality. He talked about equality for all.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument, which he is doing with considerable eloquence and passion, but I have been unhappy about the frequency with which he has used the word “disingenuous”. I say that to him because it entails an attribution of dishonour to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). It would be better if he confined his argument to reasons why the Bill is a bad thing. He should not impugn the integrity of the hon. Member for Shipley. He has a dextrous facility with words and a versatile vocabulary, and he can express himself in other ways that would not incur the displeasure of the Chair.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I did not mean to attribute dishonour to the hon. Member, who is of course entitled to their opinion, as is every other Member of the House—but, for the record, I think he is talking tosh.
There is no equality when we embed privilege for those, be they men or women, who sit in the honoured position of their father—predominantly—being descended from someone who walloped somebody else’s head off in the 1100s. It is an extraordinary position that we should seek to enshrine privilege, whether it be on a man or a woman, in the hereditary peerage. It would be extraordinary in the 21st century if I and many other Members across the House, not just on the Opposition side, were to go unheard in their opposition not just to the peerage in that other place but to the principle of privileged state positions. It would be disingenuous—I use that word about myself, Mr Speaker—of myself and many Members in this House who fundamentally agree with me.
How has it come to pass that unaccountable, unelected Members of the House of Lords, be they male or female, and even—forgive me—members of the Church of England, can bring in legislation while being unaccountable to the citizens of this political state? This is not a matter of equality; it is a matter of inequality. They are unaccountable not only to the men who participate in votes but to the women of this country who fought and died for the right to participate in parliamentary democracy. It is an affront to parliamentary democracy for Members of that other place to have that state-authorised privilege.
I cannot stand here in all good conscience, or even sit on these green Benches, and not articulate a position with which many right hon. and hon. Members—and learned Members—agree. I am talking about Members on the Scottish National party Benches, in the Labour party and even in the Conservative party. How can I look my female constituents in the face and say we are fighting for equality for a privileged class? If we believe in creating equality, let us abolish the hereditary privilege of hereditary peerage. That would create a level playing field for every man and woman, however they identify—that might confuse the hon. Gentleman even more—who is a citizen in a liberal democracy.
The Bill cannot go unchallenged. We cannot sit here in the 21st century, 100 years after women gained the right to vote, and say that this is what equality is about. Equality should exist for us all. I show due regard to those who have campaigned for their rights as women in the familial position of the peerage. I understand their situation—it is an absolute outrage that they should even be in this position—but the principle still exists that privilege, no matter someone’s gender or gender identity, state-sanctioned against the majority of their fellow citizens, is not equality. It is fundamentally a position that none of us should agree with in the 21st century.
I know that you are keen to move on, Mr Speaker, so I will sum up. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that I will not push this to a vote, because I fundamentally understand the principle of those who have campaigned for the Bill. However, as I said earlier, it cannot be that, in a parliamentary democracy, we believe that someone whose father, in the 12th century, chopped somebody’s heid aff—not “head”, for Hansard’s benefit, but heid—should have a place of honour and economic privilege and political leverage in a parliamentary democracy. That is an affront to those who have campaigned to ensure liberty and dignity for all.
I belong to a political party that believes that citizenship, and equality of citizenship, should not be based on who your father was. It should not be based on your economic privilege. It should be based on the fact that you were born free, male or female, perhaps have a disability, or perhaps come from a minority ethnic community. Those who are part of a privileged society who are unaccountable, and held to be unaccountable, to the citizenry of this state should have no truck with telling me otherwise. They should get no inch, and they will not, from me or from my political party.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Philip Davies, Ms Harriet Harman, Sir Christopher Chope, Jess Phillips, Esther McVey, Christine Jardine, Tim Loughton, Mrs Maria Miller, Vicky Ford, Sarah Champion and Jo Swinson present the Bill.
Philip Davies accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March and to be printed (Bill 349).
EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the latest developments in the UK Government ferry contract awards for no-deal preparations.
May I first thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the debate? You asked me earlier if I was happy now, and I was happy, but given that I had such a short time in which to prepare for the debate, I hope you will forgive me for doing a bit of cursing as well.
I am very glad to have secured the debate. We have a Transport Secretary who has tried to duck some important issues and has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Dispatch Box. We can see him saying, “Here we go yet again.” The head-shaking has started, and the chuntering: we are talking nonsense, and we do not understand anything. That is why this emergency debate has been granted.
Let me say to Conservative Members who objected to the debate that it is about transparency and accountability, and about how the Government are being run. They should share the concerns of Scottish National party Members about the lack of that transparency and accountability, and the fact that these no-deal preparations have been a pure and utter shambles.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Assuming that the hon. Gentleman wishes to respect democracy and therefore to deliver on the Brexit decision of the British people, may I ask what plans he has to ensure that life-saving, life-enhancing medicines will cross the English channel post Brexit?
Alan Brown
Well, let’s see. Perhaps I would ensure that no deal was off the table, so that there would be no hint of that cliff edge with no medicines coming through. That is what I would do to start with. We should also consider extending article 50, to try to give this incompetent Government time to make some real preparations, although I have no faith in the possibility that any more time would actually work for them.
I have mentioned transparency and accountability. Let me record my thanks to the journalist who first broke the story about Seaborne Freight in the new year and to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office for the work that they have done so far in assessing the diligence. Members on both sides of the House have raised some important questions: for instance, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) first raised the matter of the likely illegal tendering process.
We have still to get to the bottom of the overall process. It started in secrecy; it has been shrouded in secrecy ever since; and the Transport Secretary’s non-answers and evasions have not helped us to secure any further clarity. His Department has form when it comes to procurement issues. I remember, years ago, the collapse of the west coast main line franchise, which came about following another court action challenge. That resulted in Virgin receiving a direct award to extend its services, which clearly does not provide the best value for money for the taxpayer.
If the Transport Secretary believes so much in competition and privatisation, we have to ask why so many rail franchises have received direct awards, because that is the complete opposite of competitive tendering. The Southern rail franchise model has clearly failed, and much of that failure has been due to the inaction of the Transport Secretary, and the fact that somebody just wanted to have a fight with the unions rather than trying to improve markets and get services up and running.
That is the background to some of the systemic procurement failings in the Department for Transport, and it brings us neatly to where we are now. When the information about the award of the Seaborne Freight contract first surfaced, it was almost like a sick joke. This was an emergency contract for a company to provide emergency services. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) referred to vital services to keep medicines running. The Government, and the Transport Secretary, chose to pick up a ferry company that had no boats, had negative equity of £374,000, and had no history of running ferry or freight services. Both Brian Raincock, one of the directors, and Ben Sharp, the chief executive, had had companies liquidated when they owed money to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Raincock’s debt was £600,000. I remind the House that HMRC is, effectively, all of us taxpayers.
What, then, constituted the due diligence, and what red flags were identified at that time? We have still to hear the answers to those questions. It turned out—I touched on this earlier—that the due diligence heralded by the Transport Secretary was actually very limited. It was very high-level, that meant that it was not due diligence. The companies which carried it out confirmed that they could not make a proper assessment of the merits of Seaborne being given a supposedly vital contract.
We need to ask some questions, and the Transport Secretary needs to start answering. How on earth did Seaborne get hand-picked for direct negotiation, given the circumstances? Saying that it accounted for only 10% of the vital services is no answer. Saying that that the Government were supporting a vital British start-up company is certainly not an answer. Why should we hand-pick start-up companies for vital emergency services? That makes no sense whatsoever. It was so wrong that it led to a £33 million settlement for Eurotunnel. The Transport Secretary is shaking his head. Hopefully he is managing to multi-task and listen to these points, and will respond to them at the Dispatch Box.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the £33 million for something that never materialised—the phantom ferry contract—is not dissimilar to the £30 million that the Secretary of State’s predecessor committed to the garden bridge? There is nothing to show for that either. It was not even directly a transport project. The hon. Gentleman mentioned rail upgrades. Vital rail upgrades elsewhere in the country were cancelled when the money was committed to this project. It is taxpayer money, and Members should not laugh at this appalling waste.
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting yet another miserable failure, with more money being thrown down the drain. It is interesting that Eurotunnel was paid £33 million for vital services, given that that seems in one way or another to replace the contract of Seaborne Freight, which was given only £14 million. So we really do have to ask what extra we are getting for the £33 million, or is this all the compensation that Eurotunnel walks away with and the taxpayer has no chance of recouping? Again, the Transport Secretary really needs to explain this.
The Government have argued that direct negotiation was possible under regulation 32 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which relates to emergency situations brought about by unforeseeable events. So, after more than two years of no-deal planning, we suddenly had an unforeseen event—an unforeseen event, however, that allowed such protracted negotiations and £800,000-worth of due diligence. I would like the Transport Secretary to explain how long those negotiations were ongoing in this supposedly emergency situation, because £800,000 of consultants’ money amounts to a fair bit of time in negotiation, so he needs to explain when the actual emergency situation kicked in.
The argument from the Dispatch Box was that Seaborne Freight would only receive the money if it delivered the service, but that misses the point, because if it did not deliver the service, the emergency service it was contracted for would not happen, and that would leave the Government in a right mess in terms of no-deal preparations. The Transport Secretary has also argued that Seaborne has not cost the taxpayer any money. Hopefully he will re-explain these figures, because I would like to know how £800,000-worth of due diligence, at least some of which was on Seaborne Freight, has not cost any money. How did going to court and defending the Government’s position not cost any money? How did an out-of-court settlement with Eurotunnel at £33 million not cost any money that was related to Seaborne, because I am pretty sure a key plank of Eurotunnel’s objections was the fact that the Transport Secretary gave an important contract to a company with no ships? Meanwhile Eurotunnel is a company that obviously provides successful cross-border services. It is no wonder it was at court.
I would also like to ask the Transport Secretary whether there are any more objections outstanding: any more risks of court action. In response to a written parliamentary question I was told that a limited number of representations were received. In my book, a limited number is more than one. We have already had one court case to date; are any more court cases pending?
Alan Brown
Are we absolutely sure about that? Given the Transport Secretary’s ability to count, “A hae ma doots,” as they say.
The Transport Secretary has never been able to answer what the loss of the 10% Seaborne contract would actually mean for the impact on Dover? Dover is so sensitive that even 10% would have a massive effect. We have heard about the fact that a minute and a half to two minutes of additional checks per lorry could lead to 30-mile tailbacks. Fortunately, under the Transport Secretary’s competent planning for no deal, we know that the Government have planned for at least 10,000 lorries by doing an exercise involving 89 lorries, driving up and down the motorway! [Interruption.] Yes, and the bin wagons. So 89 lorries driving up the motorway and parking up at Manston airport successfully proves that this Government can handle no-deal preparations! I am relieved; I am happy at that. I hold to my faith in the Transport Secretary.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to reports what those lorries were mostly doing was sitting stationary while the drivers were drinking cups of coffee, so I am not sure the Secretary of State will have learned too much from that?
Alan Brown
Well, at least the lorries were not polluting the air so much if the drivers were just sitting drinking coffee; I am sure they enjoyed the exercise anyway. This illustrates a key point, however: if the Government are seriously saying that they are ready for a no-deal Brexit, they need to up their game in what they are doing and show some level of competency. I do not see many Conservative Members wanting to justify that exercise or how the Government handled that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he share my concerns about the lack of planning for other ports around the country? The Department for Transport and Ministers have been very lackadaisical about making sure that, if there is a no-deal scenario, those ports will be able to operate?
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I assume she is speaking in particular about ports in the north-east of England, and it seems that the Department for Transport has not engaged with any of the Scottish ports either. This is all about mitigating things around Dover, which is fine as Dover is clearly the biggest and busiest port, but one way to mitigate the traffic impact at Dover would be to stop as much traffic as possible travelling from the north to the south and to look at these other ports, and doing some real strategic planning. Strategic planning is severely lacking from the Department for Transport.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying with great interest. He will understand that, as I represent the constituency of Dover, this subject is very dear to my heart. In any negotiation, we have to have contingency planning. That is very important and it is right that the Department for Transport takes measures to ensure that, if there are disruptions at France, as has been threatened by some French politicians, it has alternatives and different ways of getting goods in and out of the country notwithstanding that. Does he not think that in principle the Department for Transport was acting in the national interest?
Alan Brown
We could argue that in principle the Department for Transport was trying to do the right things in terms of contingency planning because, let’s face it, a no-deal Brexit could happen. But in practice, it has been a pure and utter failure—a shambles. That is the difference. Contingency planning needs to be absolutely that—putting in place proper, robust procedures for the contingencies. It is clear that that has not happened.
Charlie Elphicke
I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, like me, read with interest the National Audit Office detailed report into this. It goes through the decision making in the Department for Transport and it does not come across to me as highly critical. It highlights that
“The additional freight capacity is intended to allow government to prioritise the flow of critical goods into the UK and to enable imports to flow as freely as possible in the event of no deal.”
It has to be in the national interest that we make sure we get medicines and other critical goods into the country and that we are prepared for every eventuality. Does he not accept that as a matter of principle—yes or no?
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman for gamely trying to defend the Government position. Fair play to him; he is the only one willing to do that. I would like to see him argue to all the members of the Public Accounts Committee that that NAO report was reassuring and that the evidence it took was reassuring, because that is not what I have heard from PAC members. So again I disagree.
If this were a real and robust process, the Government would have defended themselves to the hilt in court. They would not have caved in and done an out-of-court settlement. Again, that is indicative of where the Government are and the lack of confidence they had once they were eight-balled by Eurotunnel.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I also read the NAO report said that warnings were ignored in the “rushed…ineffective” and “inappropriate” privatisation, creating “significant risks”, that it wasted £500 million and that the number of recalled prisoners skyrocketed. But that was about the Secretary of State’s careless probation service legacy. So he clearly has a track record. As a master of understatement, he said that those reforms had not worked as well as he had hoped.
Alan Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I spoke earlier about the systemic procurement failures in the Department for Transport. It is clear there is a common thread between the systemic failure in the privatisation and procurement of probation services and the man who is now in charge at the Department for Transport, who is sitting here lackadaisically thinking everything is okay in the world and he is doing a fine job. I am sorry but that is not the case and that is not how it is seen in the wider country.
I will now return to some questions raised in the Chamber that have still not had satisfactory answers. The permanent secretary at the Department for Transport told the PAC that the Department had awarded Seaborne the contract before Arklow confirmed its backing. So the Transport Secretary needs to be able to provide further clarity on that. We return to the question: where were the written guarantees that he was supposedly assured about from Arklow before it walked away? It is shameful that it turns out that as far as we know no written guarantees were given by Arklow, yet when it walked away some of the most hard Brexiteers, the right-wing Brexiteers, said it was an Irish conspiracy because Arklow is an Irish company. That is shameful. It was the Department for Transport not doing its due diligence
Additionally, the director general at the Department for Transport said that it was no longer possible to complete procurement and operation for any large amount of further capacity across the channel before the end of March by either sea or rail. Can the Secretary of State explain that? Can he explain how the sudden £33 million settlement with Eurotunnel, if it is going to provide all these vital services at the end of March, stacks up against the fact that the previous argument was that the Department no longer had time to be able to source those additional services?
In relation to Seaborne Freight, the Secretary of State said that
“we have spent no money on this contract.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 619.]
I ask him once again if he could please spell out the real financial implications of that award to Seaborne Freight and the handling of the direct negotiations.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
At the risk of being called a Government nark—which I am not often called at the moment—I want to ask the hon. Gentleman this question. If this emergency debate is so important to Scottish National party Members, where are they?
Alan Brown
I feel as though I have more friends in here than I would have down the pub on a Friday night. This is a really good turnout for the SNP. There are only 35 of us, so this is a good turnout. But wait a minute—I do not understand that intervention. Once we discount the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Government Front Benchers, how many Conservative Back Benchers are in the Chamber? How many are rushing to speak in this debate and to defend the Government’s handling of this? That is the question that the right hon. Gentleman wants to ask himself.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is a leading member of the European Research Group, which advocates a no-deal Brexit. Given that this issue pertains to no-deal Brexit planning, why are there so few members of the European Research Group here?
Alan Brown
That is a fair point—[Interruption.] It is also being pointed out that there are no Scottish Tories here—those Scottish Tories who stand up for Scotland and do such a good job with their independent leading voices. Well, where are they?
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Through him, I wanted to respond to the Labour gentleman sitting at the back there—[Hon. Members: “He’s SNP as well.”] Oh, I am so sorry. That means there are about 13 of them. I do apologise. Most members of the ERG are, as I speak, working towards how our country can be free, so they are otherwise engaged—
Mr Speaker
Order. There has been a certain amount of frivolity on the matter of attendance at the debate, but perhaps we can now return to the theme of the debate rather than having a constant competition as to who can be more amusing at others’ expense on the matter of attendance.
Alan Brown
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I shall return to the substantive point of procurement. I touched earlier on rail franchising. The Secretary of State always says that he believes in competition. If he believes in competition, why did he have this secretive direct negotiating process? What is competitive about that? How could that provide value for money for the taxpayer? Will he come to the Dispatch Box and justify the expenditure and give us a detailed rationale of how he has managed to provide any value for money for the taxpayer in this entire process?
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ending of Seaborne’s contract has not in fact cost the taxpayer a penny?
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which proves either that she does not listen or that the Transport Secretary does not understand the meaning of spending money. It actually resulted in an out-of-court settlement of £33 million, in legal fees—we still have to hear how much—in further risk to the Government and in the due diligence costs. That seems to be quite a hefty expenditure loosely related to the Seaborne contract.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way one more time. I am glad to see Scottish MPs taking an interest in the matter of trade across the English channel. I am looking again at the NAO report, which makes it clear that the Department considered that it had to use a faster process. He castigates the Department for not advertising the contract and doing the usual procurement, but the report states:
“The Regulations also allow for the award of a contract through a ‘negotiated procedure without prior publication’”,
when time is of the essence. That is clearly what the Department did. Given the fact that the clock is ticking, it is hard to say that that was an unreasonable thing to do.
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman for trying once more. The EU referendum was in June 2016, and as I have said, the Government are supposed to have been doing no-deal planning for over two years. So why did this suddenly become an emergency issue? At what point did the Transport Secretary go, “Oh shoot! We might have a no-deal Brexit! We need to put in some plans to deal with that.” So again I rebut the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. By the way, it is also a fact that the Transport Secretary did not even bother to visit the port of Dover until October 2018, even though it was supposed to be so critical. Why did it take him so long to go and see those operations in person?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was to hear that no costs had been incurred in this? He has highlighted the £800,000 that was paid out to consultants, but there was also the cost of dredging the port. We were told by the permanent secretary that that was paid for by Seaborne, yet the contract was cancelled. Is the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I am that Seaborne bore the cost of that itself—or was it borne by someone else?
Alan Brown
I am actually very surprised at that. I put in a written parliamentary question asking how much the Department for Transport had paid towards the dredging of the port at Ramsgate, and the answer I was given was that it had paid nothing, so I shall be challenging that further. We need to get to the bottom of this, because we know full well that that operation was not done for nothing and that the Transport Secretary was lobbying Thanet Council to keep the port open because of his negotiations with Seaborne. There is more to run on this, and I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing it up.
Returning briefly to Eurotunnel, we know that the out- of-court settlement was effectively a Government cave-in. The thing about that Government cave-in is that we have learned that they are going to keep 10,000 documents secret for reasons of commercial confidentiality, which will make it much harder for us to get the bottom of this. We know that they had no confidence in their own position because they settled out of court.
We also need to understand why the Health Secretary came to the Dispatch Box yesterday to tell us that this was such an important contract as it would keep medicines coming into the UK. He said that that was why the Government had negotiated the £33 million settlement with Eurotunnel. He suggested that it was not about compensation but about vital services and improvements. I repeat that we need clarity on this. If that £33 million was related to the provision of vital services, why did Eurotunnel take the Government to court? Why was Eurotunnel not identified as a reputable provider before, when the Government were looking at Seaborne Freight? How much of that £33 million compensation for Eurotunnel has gone forever? What services are we going to see? What updates will the House be given on the progress of those vital services that the Government have procured?
The Transport Secretary has been lax on updating the House from start to finish. We had one ministerial statement at the outset, which he thought would head off the bad press about Seaborne Freight. We have subsequently had to table three urgent questions, and we are now having this emergency debate. And of course, he has sometimes not even turned up to the Dispatch Box. The fact that he is unwilling to come to the Dispatch Box, state his case clearly and leave himself open to questions from Members says everything about his confidence in his own competence.
A procurement matter that I touched on yesterday is that it looks as though Bechtel is going to sue the Government over the HS2 tendering process, so will the Secretary of State identify what other departmental risks exist in relation to procurement? What review of the procurement process has he instigated? Who is heading up the review and when will it report on this matter? It is quite clear that some sort of procurement review is absolutely vital.
I will finish by again describing the Transport Secretary’s litany of failures. We heard about the near £600 million cost of privatising the probation service following his time at the Ministry of Justice.
Chris Grayling
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that the probation service contracts are running around £1 billion under budget?
Alan Brown
I cannot confirm that. The right hon. Gentleman is quite comfortable with his legacy there, so I will leave that to him; what he said is on the record. No one else seems to appreciate his legacy, including the current Justice Minister, who is trying to deal with the mess.
Gavin Newlands
I cannot believe that the Transport Secretary stood up and defended his probation service reforms. I serve on the Select Committee on Justice, and the Ministers who replaced him and his team at the Ministry of Justice have said time and again that the service is a shambles. I am absolutely amazed that he stood up to defend it. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Alan Brown
I agree wholeheartedly. To be fair to the current Transport Secretary, he allowed VTEC, the Virgin-Stagecoach consortium, to walk away owing the taxpayer £2 billion and said that that was not a bail-out. If I let somebody off from owing me £2 billion, it would seem that I had bailed them out. As I touched on earlier, he also has a lot of culpability in the Southern rail franchise and in how the model was set up, and he has been unwilling to get involved in industrial disputes. In fact, in a way he wanted the disputes to continue because of his views on the unions. We had the Northern rail timetable fiasco, where the Government again tried to argue that the taxpayer was not liable, but when Network Rail pays compensation to a franchise holder, that money comes from the taxpayer. All that is in addition to the £800,000 on due diligence and the out-of-court settlement with Eurotunnel. It has been a farce from start to end, but the Transport Secretary is not willing to accept accountability.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
When hearing these lists about how the opposite of the Midas touch has affected so many aspects of public policy, we should not forget the introduction of English votes for English laws, which was undertaken when the Transport Secretary was the Leader of the House. EVEL turns the House into a shambolic laughing stock whenever we try to use it.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the subject matter of today’s debate, the terms of which have been specified and which the Secretary of State will answer. This cannot be a general ad hominem attack on the Secretary of State or a replay of other matters that happened at an earlier point in the Secretary of State’s career to which Members want to object.
Alan Brown
I will take your guidance, Mr Speaker, and perhaps spare the Transport Secretary any more of his litany of failures.
The right hon. Gentleman has already survived what was effectively a vote of no confidence, but I have several times called for him to be sacked, as has the shadow Transport Secretary, and he should do the right thing and step aside. It is abundantly clear that his handling of this shambles has been truly shameful. I will be interested to hear what he says at the Dispatch Box, but I have no confidence in his handling of this matter and he really should think about walking.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
As I have explained to the House on several occasions, the Government entered into contracts with ferry operators to provide additional ferry capacity and services into the UK as part of no-deal contingency planning. However, as we have heard clearly this afternoon, the reality is that the SNP does not believe in preparing for no deal. Even though the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) accepts that it is a possibility, a risk and a danger, he does not support us in preparing for the risk of a no-deal exit—[Interruption.] The Labour Front-Bench team say, “Take it off the table,” but we can only take no deal off the table by reversing Brexit or agreeing a deal. The reality is that Labour and the SNP have spent week after week trying to prevent a deal, voting against the deal and trying to disrupt the process of getting towards a deal. Frankly, they are acting in anything but the national interest in doing so. We, however, have been acting in the national interest in preparing for all eventualities.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State really believes that no deal should be an option, why on earth did the Government not begin preparations sooner?
Chris Grayling
We have been preparing for a no-deal exit for months and months. There was a particular reason, as I will set out in a moment, for this particular procurement at this particular time, but my Department has been working for months to prepare for the risk of no deal. That can be seen in the new international aviation agreements, in Kent, where we have put in alternative resilience systems to the deeply disruptive Operation Stack, and in many other things.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
It is not just here that we see the Opposition parties not acting in the national interest, because the same applies to statutory instruments. It is a constant refrain. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way of taking no deal off the table is by voting for the Prime Minister’s deal? It is time for the Opposition parties to put narrow party politics aside.
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. All that we have heard for months is, “Why are the Government getting this wrong?” but we have had no tangible or realistic plans from the Opposition. At every opportunity, they simply work to disrupt the Brexit process. Labour stood on a manifesto that respected the referendum result, but the party is doing anything but respecting the result. If it continues to disrupt the Brexit process, it will pay a heavy price in its heartlands, where people voted for Brexit.
Charlie Elphicke
I have been reading the NAO report with considerable interest, and it says:
“Over the summer of 2018, government departments stepped up their contingency preparations for no deal.”
The truth of the matter is that Government policy changed in summer 2018 to step up contingency planning, so the Department for Transport acted from that point onwards because wider Government policy had changed from that point onwards.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I must say that we started some of our planning well before then. However, it is certainly the case that last summer, as we saw the progress in the negotiations, the Government stepped up their preparations for no deal, as any responsible Government should. It is quite extraordinary that the Labour party seems to believe that we can just wave a wand and take no deal off the table. We have voted to leave the European Union, and we will either leave the European Union with a deal or without a deal, or we will reverse Brexit. Those are the only three options.
Mr Francois
It is right that Government did indeed step up their no-deal preparations, as my right hon. Friend has quite rightly told the House, but one of the points of debate has been the speed at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been prepared to release funding to individual Departments to facilitate those preparations. Does my right hon. Friend think it would be helpful in future if the Chancellor were to lean forward a bit more to ensure that all preparations are fully funded in good time?
Chris Grayling
I will leave my right hon. Friend to make his point, because I do not want to start debating discussions within the Government.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked why we started this procurement when we did. As I have said, we and the national health service had been preparing for disruption at the ports lasting approximately six weeks after exit day. However, based on the negotiations, on comments coming from Brussels and on what we saw happening on the other side of the channel, the analysts changed that assumption late last autumn and recommended that Government prepare for a longer period of disruption.
At that point, the Department of Health and Social Care rightly highlighted the fact that that would put significant pressures on their stockpiles of drugs. The Government therefore collectively decided following discussions in Cabinet Committees to go to the ferry industry to secure capacity to guarantee the delivery of drugs to this country in the event of a no-deal Brexit. That was a collective decision, and it was the right decision. We talked to all the current ferry operators working across the North sea and the English channel, plus any other operator with tangible plans to do so. That is where the procurement came from.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Is this not the key question, however? Did the right hon. Gentleman have advice from his officials that negotiations solely with ferry companies would result in a legal challenge by Eurotunnel, which ultimately he has now paid off with a £33 million investment from taxpayers?
Chris Grayling
We knew, in accelerating the procurement process, that there was a legal risk. That has been highlighted in the NAO report. However, it was my judgment, the judgment of my accounting officer and the judgment of those who vetted the plan across the Government that that was a risk that we should take, given the need to ensure that we had a supply of drugs into the country in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
David Hanson
The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was a legal judgment that there was an element of risk. He took that risk, and his actions have therefore cost the state £33 million.
Chris Grayling
We took a collective decision, in the light of the legal advice, which was taken by me, by my accounting officer, and by those who approved this across the Government, and we did so—[Interruption.] We did so because we judged it important to ensure that we had a proper supply of drugs to the NHS in the event of a no-deal Brexit. I challenge Labour Members, as they chunter from the Front Bench, to say that they disagree with ensuring a supply of drugs to the UK in a no-deal Brexit.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I have been listening very intently to what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. The thing that really surprises and shocks me is the fact that there is a complete lack of humility with regard to the fact that £33 million of public money—taxpayers’ money—has been wasted. Could he just stand up and say sorry to them?
Chris Grayling
I very much regret the fact that we were taken to court. It was a risk that we acknowledged was there, but I stand by the decision to make sure that we could guarantee the supply of drugs to the NHS in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that proper preparation is an important role of the Government, and that frightening people unnecessarily, particularly those who are vulnerable and dependent on medicines, such as those with epilepsy, is completely irresponsible and unkind? Can he confirm to my constituents that the medicines will be available, regardless of whether we have no deal or Brexit on the Prime Minister’s deal?
Chris Grayling
I can absolutely confirm that, and I think it is absolutely right and proper that we took the steps necessary to ensure that continuity of supply. We did so with a collective decision across the Government, taken by Cabinet Committees.
Andy McDonald
Does the Secretary of State not understand and accept that today he is laying bare the advice that he received—and that he acted in contravention of that advice and he lost? We are not asking for an absence of preparation for contingencies; we are asking for a modicum of competence, and he has singularly failed.
Chris Grayling
We did not receive legal advice saying, “Do not do this.” We received legal advice saying that there was a risk in taking the approach, and we judged collectively across the Government that it was a necessary risk to take in the national interest.
Chris Grayling
I am going to make a bit of progress, because I have given way many times.
Let me touch briefly on the issue of Seaborne Freight, which was raised exhaustively by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and on which I have answered question after question in the House. First, to be clear, the agreement with Eurotunnel was not about the contract with Seaborne Freight; it was about the procurement process, and particularly about the continuing contracts we have with Brittany Ferries and DFDS for additional ferry capacity into the UK, to provide us with resilience. I have spoken exhaustively in the House about Seaborne Freight. I am disappointed that the contract had to be terminated. I stand by the decision to give that company a chance, particularly since it was backed by Ireland’s biggest shipping firm at the time. We have, as a Government, paid no money at all to Seaborne.
The hon. Gentleman keeps asking me about spending money on due diligence. We spend money on due diligence for contracts that we do not award as well as for contracts that we do award, because rightly and properly in government due diligence is applied to a tender of any sort. That is what we did in this case, and what we do in all other situations. That, again, is the right thing to do.
So it is absolutely clear—I want to be absolutely clear—that when it comes to the Eurotunnel litigation, the settlement struck between the Government and Eurotunnel was separate to the issue of the Seaborne debate, and it was struck, I think, in a way that is designed to ensure that the taxpayer actually receives value through the addition of important facilities at the border that will smooth the flows.
Chris Grayling
It was a challenge to the procurement process, on which I said I took detailed legal advice at the time of procuring, which I and my accounting officer took into account when awarding these contracts. We expected that if a legal challenge were brought, any court determination would be brought well after Brexit and would not disrupt the process. All this, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will be aware, has already been looked at by the National Audit Office. We have invited it to take a further look, but I stand by the decisions that we took.
These decisions were not simply taken by me and by my Department; they were decisions taken collectively, in the national interest.
Joanna Cherry
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm, just for the record, that not a single penny of the £33 million paid out to Eurotunnel will be returned in the event that there is a deal?
Chris Grayling
The deal that we have done is to pay for additional facilities at the border, to create a smoother flow at the border. That is something that we will benefit from at the borders.
Mr Speaker
Order. Look, I understand passions are high, but the hon. and learned Lady must not say that the Secretary of State is not telling the truth, because that—[Interruption.] Order. That is an imputation of dishonesty. The hon. and learned Lady may think that the Secretary of State is wrong, but I am afraid before the debate proceeds further she must withdraw that charge.
Mr Speaker
I say to the hon. and learned Lady that I am chairing this debate. The hon. and learned Lady will speak in full, or otherwise, if and when she catches the eye of the Chair. Thank you.
Chris Grayling
Mr Speaker, I simply reiterate: the settlement that we have reached with Eurotunnel is going to pay for improved facilities at the border, to improve flow, to make sure that our border through the tunnel works more smoothly in future, particularly in the post-Brexit world. That is a simple, factual point about the settlement that has been reached.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way one more time. He knows that the port of Dover could see the legal risk of the process that he had undertaken, but decided to act in the national interest. Will he make sure that the port of Dover is not in any way disadvantaged in relation to this matter?
Chris Grayling
I have to say that the management of the port of Dover have been exemplary for the last few weeks in co-operating with us, not only over this but in preparations for no deal. They rightly judged that it was not in their corporate reputational benefit to try to block the delivery of drugs to the NHS in a post-Brexit world. I am disappointed that not everyone took the same view.
Chris Grayling
I am going to make some progress.
I simply want to reiterate the point. We have taken the decisions. We collectively, in the Government, back in November; we collectively, a couple of weeks ago; we collectively, about this settlement, have taken the view that we need foremost to put the national interest first. We need to make sure that this country is ready for a no-deal exit, even though we are working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. We are working very hard to make sure that we are prepared for all eventualities. That is the responsible thing for the Government to do. Sometimes you have to take some risks in doing that, but I think sensible Governments take risks in the national interest. I and we and all of my colleagues who took this decision collectively, stand by this decision; we are deeply sorry that it did not work out in the way we had intended, but the reality is, it was the right decision to take, because we were putting the national interest, and particularly patients in our national health service, first—and that, Mr Speaker, you would expect any responsible Government to do.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is good to see the Transport Secretary finally in his place today, after I tried and failed to bring him to the House yesterday. Instead he sent the Health Secretary as his human shield, but that came as no surprise, considering how the Transport Secretary has made a habit of treating this House with disdain. Perhaps he will reflect upon that.
I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for securing this debate. Understandably, the Health Secretary was not able to answer the questions put to him yesterday, so I am going to have another go at getting some answers out of the Transport Secretary, but I am not holding my breath. In the papers filed at court in the weeks before the case was due to be heard, the Government lawyers described Eurotunnel’s case as “embarrassing”. They were bullish and confident, yet in the early hours of the morning of 1 March a settlement was reached between the Government and the company. This sequence of events raises many still unanswered questions.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is at least an apparent conflict between the reported out-of-court settlement of £33 million and the Secretary of State’s claim that the £33 million is to pay for “improved security”, and that we ought to be trying to get to the bottom of whether that is accurate?
Andy McDonald
The hon. and learned Lady makes an important point on an issue to which I will be returning in a few minutes.
Alan Brown
I tried to intervene on the Transport Secretary on this point. Was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was that only after an out-of-court settlement with Eurotunnel had been agreed was this suddenly all about medicines? We had all the other urgent questions and medicines were never mentioned, yet we come to the Eurotunnel settlement and suddenly this is a health-led initiative. Does he share my surprise?
Andy McDonald
Yes, I was greatly surprised, but the hon. Gentleman has to concede that there had to be some justification for bringing the wrong Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box, and if a hook could be found to hang that on, that was as good as any. It was a nice try, but it failed totally.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend noticed that every time the Government get something wrong through their incompetence, the excuse is that it is “in the national interest”, yet when Labour Governments make mistakes it is a different thing altogether?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I am just astonished that people can hide behind what they perceive as being the national interest; I fail to see how it is in the national interest to pour millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money down the drain. I do not call that being in the national interest at all.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is about to turn to some of the questions he would like the Secretary of State to answer, but does he agree that one of them should be about the due diligence process that was carried out? The company that carried out that due diligence says that it could not ask the normal questions of Seaborne Freight because it was such a new entity. So how could the Government be in any way confident in their risk aversion in awarding that contract to Seaborne in the first place?
Andy McDonald
That is a very good question, and I have raised the point myself. Those who were inquiring into the bona fides of these companies were restricted in the scope they were given. Why on earth they did not look into the track record of the individuals concerned at Seaborne is beyond me, as these things are well known. A mere cursory search of Google tells us about the track record of Ben Sharp in his dealings in the Gulf, but seemingly that was not considered. The hon. Gentleman makes the point well.
Let me return to the settlement that was achieved on 1 March. I want to know why the Department for Transport was so confident about winning the case only a week before. What brought the sudden change in strategy towards the legal challenge? The Department clearly thought it could win. Who intervened? What was the view taken by other Departments—the Department of Health and Social Care Health, the Treasury and Downing Street? Why did they take a different view from the Department for Transport? Why did the Government not settle earlier? Why did they leave it so late? Why did they continue to employ Monckton Chambers and a QC and two barristers, who do not come cheap? How much was spent on this case, both on Government legal fees and Eurotunnel’s fees? Will the Secretary of State say who made the decision to settle with Eurotunnel over the £33 million provision of emergency medical supplies in the event of no deal?
Chris Grayling
I will give a very specific answer to that question: a Cabinet Committee.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful for that clarification that it took a Cabinet Committee to make such a mess of things. Can the Secretary of State specifically say what is in this standard settlement—or are there other clauses within it? Ordinarily, when such cases are settled, they are done by reference to a consent order, in which there would be a paragraph dealing with the sum of money to be paid. In these circumstances, it may say “£33 million” and it may say the date upon which that sum is to be paid. It may also say that the costs are to follow the event. So we want to know the answers to those questions.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be highly unusual in an out-of-court settlement for the party settling to stipulate how the party receiving the settlement would spend the money?
Andy McDonald
I absolutely agree with the hon. and learned Lady on that. Having been in practice for the thick end of 30 years, I have never entered into a settlement where the defendant has told me what I am going to spend the money on. That is absolutely ludicrous, so we need to know the answers.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State was being used as a human shield. Is he aware that many Conservative Members have considerable sympathy with the Secretary of State? We believe he has been urging his colleagues for the past two years to undertake contingency planning for no deal but was frustrated by other people, perhaps in the Cabinet, who did not want to do that. If mistakes are to be made because these decisions have been taken at the last moment, it is not the fault of the Secretary of State, but he is too much of a gentleman to argue that in his own defence.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that revealing clarification about the obvious chaos that the Government are in over these important issues. They do not speak with a concerted and singular voice, and people are falling out with each other left, right and centre. That comes as no surprise to me whatsoever.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman clearly has a lot more experience than I do in matters of collective responsibility. Let us take the previous intervention at its word. If a Secretary of State is clear that the collective responsibility of the Government is preventing him or her from doing the job properly, is not the only honourable course of action for that Secretary of State to resign? So what the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has done by speaking in his defence is say that the Secretary of State should not resign now, as he should have resigned months ago.
Andy McDonald
That is a fair observation. We have heard that the Secretary of State was prevented from undertaking contingency planning in the first place because of disputes in the Government and that it took the Government to make a collective decision because nobody could come forward to take a decision on this settlement themselves. That really does characterise a Government in chaos and meltdown. Can the Secretary of State say which Departments contributed towards the £33 million? Yesterday, the Health and Social Care Secretary did not know whether his Department had contributed, so will the Transport Secretary please clarify which Department or Departments paid that bill?
Charlie Elphicke
Although I do not agree with the action that Eurotunnel took, it has to be said that this £33 million is clearly being invested in border infrastructure. I would like to see and have been calling for similar investment in Dover. Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that this money could have been very well spent as “no regrets” spending to improve our border security and trading links?
Andy McDonald
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that that is a ridiculous proposition. Is he saying for a single second that this is wise investment and that it takes a court case for people to come to the right conclusion about investing in our border provision? Is he really suggesting that that is the way to drive public policy? Is he suggesting that we drive Government policy through the litigation process, whereby a claimant puts a case to the Government to say, “This is what you should be doing.”? He cannot possibly sustain that as an argument.
Andy McDonald
I know the hon. Gentleman wants to get to his feet to retract that comment, so I will let him intervene again.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman is making a facile point. My point is simply that the Secretary of State, confronted with opportunism, has made the best of a bad job to make sure that the investment is used to the good of the country, not to fatten the profits of Eurotunnel. In a difficult situation, he has done the right thing, trying to act in the national interest while being consistently undermined by the Labour party, the Scots Nats party, the TIGgers and everyone on the Opposition Benches, who have been continually trying to undermine this country’s leaving the European Union.
Andy McDonald
If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that expending £33 million when the Government did not want to or need to is a sensible way forward and a sign of success, I really do not want to see what failure looks like. That is outrageous. Saying that £33 million was the maximum amount to be paid implies that payment was conditional on particular outcomes being achieved. There is a lack of clarity on whether the Government can claw back money from Eurotunnel if it is not used on Brexit preparations. So do such provisions exist?
On that point, was the permanent secretary at the DFT correct to say of the Seaborne contract award:
“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”?
Has the Secretary of State’s Department therefore thrown £33 million of public money down the drain by not contesting Eurotunnel in the courts? Or is it the case that because of the Prime Minister’s catastrophic Brexit negotiating tactics, which have brought us right up to the cliff edge with 24 days to go before we leave with a default no-deal Brexit, the Government’s failure to plan for such a devastating outcome has meant that they have given themselves no option but to pay out this money to Eurotunnel? Surely nothing says more about the shameful and destructive Conservative party than how, in the year 2019, a UK Government are having to make such costly decisions about prioritising medicines over food supplies. This disaster is only of the Conservatives’ own making.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was wrong to claim that yesterday’s urgent question was not related to Seaborne even though the legal action was brought about in response to the award of a contract to Seaborne Freight. He did not explain why, if it was not related, as he stated, an agreement was reached with Eurotunnel now rather than in November or December. It is one way or the other.
Andy McDonald
I am happy to take an intervention. Hopefully the Secretary of State can come to the Dispatch Box and correct his human-shield colleague, because the urgent question was directly related to the Seaborne contract.
Chris Grayling
Once again, the hon. Gentleman has conveniently forgotten that 90% of these contracts for the things on which the NHS is depending are with DFDS and Brittany Ferries. I wish that at some point he would be frank with the House and explain the full gamut of what we are talking about.
Andy McDonald
That is not the first time the Secretary of State has put up this false argument, as if 10% of the goods flowing into this country through these ports and by this method are somehow irrelevant and unimportant. It is a ludicrous proposition. If damage was caused to 10% of the trade coming in, we would be in an incredibly difficult position.
Andy McDonald
No, I have already let the Secretary of State intervene on this point. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Come on then, get it over with!
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman cannot add up. This contract brought 8% of the equivalent, in total, with DFDS and Brittany Ferries, and the contingency buffer was made up by Seaborne on the basis of buying tickets in advance that we would not pay for unless the ship sailed.
Andy McDonald
I cannot add up? I really think that is pot calling kettle. The Secretary of State has not been able to count for years; he is costing us a fortune.
Andrew Dean from law firm Clifford Chance warns that this may not be the end of the matter. Mr Dean, who used to advise the DFT and is a procurement specialist, says it is quite likely that the Eurotunnel deal will be challenged. What contingency planning has been done in relation to such a challenge, and what public funds, if any, have been allocated as part of such plans? The Secretary of State talks about having received legal advice and listened to it; perhaps he could tell the House what advice he has received about the risk of yet further satellite litigation because of the deal he has done.
The Government talk about the UK maritime industry being market-led. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State’s blundering interventions have directly undermined the industry? He promised to ensure continuity of supply for six months in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Key to that was not increasing traffic around Dover, yet the Eurotunnel/Getlink route still goes through the same bottleneck road network on either side of the channel.
The Secretary of State appears to be puzzled by the anger of the House. Allow me to explain why Members and the public are so furious: this latest fiasco would be enough to warrant the resignation of the Secretary of State even if it were an isolated incident, but it is not a one-off; rather, it is the latest costly error in a series of blunders—blunders that could have been avoided were a different, more competent Secretary of State in post.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a really good point, but my constituents are also very cross about the sheer waste of money in all this, and at a time when we are told that we do not have any money for anything else.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. An awful lot of people are looking at these eye-watering sums and thinking about what else could benefit from such interventions. That really makes my point for me: the Transport Secretary’s record is that of a departmental wrecking ball. Almost every decision he made as Secretary of State for Justice was damaging and eventually reversed, at significant cost to the taxpayer. As Secretary of State for Transport, he has repeatedly thrown our transport networks into chaos, wasting obscene amounts of public money. A £2 billion bail-out for Virgin Trains on the east coast line; his failure to prepare airports for drone attacks; his awarding of contracts to Carillion when the company was on the verge of collapse; the rail timetabling chaos; the privatisation of probation services; the banning of books from prisons—the list goes on and on.
Research into the total cost of the Secretary of State’s mistakes, both in his current role and at the Ministry of Justice, found that he has cost the taxpayer £2.7 billion. That money could have paid for the annual salaries of 118,000 nurses or 94,000 secondary school teachers. Instead, it has been squandered. He has even wasted more money than the Prime Minister offered as a Brexit bribe to towns. Shamefully, all this has been allowed by the Prime Minister, who keeps him in post because she is short of allies in the Cabinet. The country is being made to pay a heavy price for her political weakness. This would be unacceptable at any time—
Andy McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman says, “This is really poor” from a sedentary position, and I agree with him: this is really, really poor. It would be unacceptable at any time, but it is especially outrageous following the years of austerity and neglect that have left our towns and communities hollowed out and our public services in crisis.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech. Does he agree that if the SNP Government in Edinburgh or the Labour Government in Cardiff were guilty of this sort of profligacy with public money, we would never hear the end of it from Conservative Members?
Andy McDonald
The hon. and learned Lady is exactly right: it is one rule for the Tory party and another for everyone else. [Interruption.] No, it is not a funny issue. The right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench would condemn such waste, and with some justification; they really cannot complain when other people hold them to account for their continuous errors and wastefulness.
There are now 8 million working-age adults in poverty, while child poverty has grown to more than 4 million and rising; councils have had their funding slashed by half; violent crime is rising; and school budgets are seeing cuts for the first time in 20 years. In my constituency and many others throughout the country, there is appalling poverty and people are struggling. We are told that there is not the money to properly fund our schools, hospitals or social care services, yet the Prime Minister always finds the money to indulge the Secretary of State’s latest blunder. A further £1.9 billion has been spent on planning for a damaging no deal. For some, it seems, austerity is over. It is one rule for Tory Ministers and another rule for the rest of us. This cannot be allowed to continue. On behalf of the country, I implore the Secretary of State to resign.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing this debate. He has been far more efficient and effective than the official Opposition, who did not seek this opportunity.
It seems to me, representing one of the channel ports as I do, that the issue is that the people of Britain voted to leave the European Union. Some 17.4 million people voted to leave and we need to make a success of it. They voted to leave because they believed in Britain and in the kind of land of opportunity that we could build. They believed in the kind of future that we could make outside the European Union. That vote needs to be respected.
Having backed remain myself, after the vote I listened to my constituents, who said, “Let’s leave,” and I spent time on contingency planning. Two years ago, I set out a detailed report about how we needed to be ready on day one, deal or no deal; how we could overhaul our entire customs systems, our road infrastructure and our border infrastructure; and how that investment would be no-regret spending because a more efficient border system would provide economic growth. That is not just my case; it is what Jon Thompson, head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, said in evidence to the Treasury Committee when I raised the possibility of a single Department for borders. That is why I say that it is no-regret spending to invest in our borders, our border security and our border systems.
The shadow Secretary of State rejects as absurd the view that we should make such an investment. No doubt it would not be made by a Labour Government—they did not make it last time, so they would not do it now. They are not serious about border security, and they have a leader who believes that every single migrant should be allowed to wander into the country.
Andy McDonald
In case the hon. Gentleman wants to cite my words accurately, I said that the litigation route was a peculiar way of going about investing in infrastructure. Waiting until somebody sues us before we decide what to do—surely to goodness, that is not the way we should go about business when developing policy in this country.
Charlie Elphicke
The Labour party failed completely to invest in many things, including border infrastructure, when it was last in power, and it has not been serious about border security and border control ever since.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Did my hon. Friend note, as I did, that under the stewardship of the last Labour Government, the UK transport system fell from seventh best in the world to 33rd? Perhaps that is an indication of how well the Labour party would look after our transport system in the future—if it gets the opportunity, which I hope it will not.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government have invested substantially in transport. I believe we need more investment in roads to the ports, as has been set out in transport reports, and in infrastructure at our ports. It is so important, particularly as we leave the European Union, that we invest in our trading systems and ensure that the ferries, the channel tunnel and all other logistics work efficiently, swiftly and well. That is why, two years ago, I set out the fact that we needed to plan to be ready on day one, deal or no deal.
Alan Brown
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s congratulations on securing this emergency debate, which suggests that he agrees that it is needed because the Government are not answering questions properly. He is making a point about contingency planning; I respect the fact that he is talking about planning ahead two years ago and about no-regret spending. Does he know any more than other hon. Members present about what security improvements are coming after the £33 million settlement with Eurotunnel? The Transport Secretary certainly has not explained them.
Charlie Elphicke
I do not represent the tunnel, which is in Folkestone and Hythe; I represent Dover. However, I have been keen to press the Secretary of State to ensure that Dover receives similar investment and that it does not lose out, and I look forward to his confirmation that that will be the case.
Sir Edward Leigh
Away from the party games, we all know that the problems in the British transport system are so intractable that any Secretary of State would face them. Many Conservative Members think that if the rest of the Cabinet had listened to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary two years ago and started no-deal planning at the time, not only would the EU have taken us seriously and offered a much better deal, but we would not have made the mistakes that have clearly been made. It is not the Transport Secretary’s fault.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my hon. Friend for making exactly the point that I am coming to. I set out how we needed to invest to be ready on day one, deal or no deal; as I argued at the time, to get the best negotiation, we needed to be able to get up and walk away from the table. I also set out detailed legal reasons why we did not owe any of the divorce bill—another point that was important to our negotiation.
The Government as a whole—the Cabinet—decided not to spend money at that time. The Cabinet decided not to invest at that time. The Cabinet decided not to take forward contingency planning at a substantial level until after the Chequers discussions. To visit that on the Secretary of State would not be fair, right or proper.
Charlie Elphicke
I have given way quite a lot, so I will make some progress.
The Secretary of State has worked hard in the national interest to make sure that contingency plans, once authorised, have been taken forward. I pressed him on the point, because I wanted to see a new route from Dover to Zeebrugge in Belgium, but it would have required a level of intervention that is difficult under the procurement rules. As it was, he undertook procedures that were known within the Department to be legally risky, but were seen as being in the national interest because of the time available. I have to agree that that decision was in the national interest. It would have been very easy for the port of Dover to go for an opportunistic legal action on the basis that it was being shut out of the process, but it would not have been the right thing to do.
Everyone across the country could see what the Secretary of State was trying to achieve: to take pressure off the port of Dover and the channel tunnel in case there were difficulties with France. That was a concern at the time because of the kind of rhetoric that was coming from the French President, Monsieur Macron. Now that things have moved on and we know that the European Union will extend transit on a no-deal basis, the risk of such difficulties is much less, but that was not known at the time. It is right that the Secretary of State and the Department take measures based on the information before them.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with quite some interest. If he had to choose between the risk of potential legal action and the risk of no medicines for our NHS, would he make the same choice as the Secretary of State?
Charlie Elphicke
Therein lies the heart of this debate. The Opposition are saying that the Secretary of State should not have taken this action at all. They are attacking him for taking contingency planning measures.The kernel of their argument is that he was wrong to take them. I think that that is incredibly opportunistic. As I said, he may or may not have been allowed out of the traps as early as many of us in this House would have liked, but once he was away, he took the measures that were necessary.
Beyond the whole issue of contingency planning, some important improvements are needed in our country. The reason we need contingency planning is that we have not invested in our border systems and infrastructure as perhaps we might have done in the past. To set out the case for my constituents and the people of Kent, we need to ensure that our infrastructure is better prepared, because—irrespective of Brexit—we have big queues in Kent and problems on the ferries and in the tunnel.
Contingency planning or no contingency planning, there needs to be investment in more lorry parking in Kent, and the Department for Transport needs to be more effective in taking it forward. The roads to the port need upgrades. In particular, the A2 dualling, which was taken out of the programme by John Prescott in 1997 as one of the cuts in the early days of the then Labour Government, is long overdue and needs to be brought back as quickly as possible. It is also incredibly important that contingency plans work on a balanced basis between the tunnel and the port of Dover.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that our case is not that there should be no contingency planning, but that if the contingency planning had been done in a timely fashion and under proper procurement rules, it would not have put the Government at the legal risk that has now cost them at least £33 million?
Charlie Elphicke
The difficulty with the hon. Lady’s point is that she and her party are trying to lay the blame opportunistically at the Secretary of State’s door. My point is that the Government as a whole should have released the funds and made the decision to invest in our borders. Irrespective of this debate and of Brexit, that investment is in the national interest because our country will benefit from having more efficient, effective, safe and secure borders and from more efficient trading systems. Fewer people will be able to enter the country unlawfully, and people who are here unlawfully can be helped back to where they have come from.
We need to ensure that our trading systems are efficient and effective not just for our trade with Europe, but for the trade that we already do under World Trade Organisation terms. The more efficient we make them, the more economic growth we will get. Again, those are not my words, but those of Jon Thompson in evidence to the Treasury Committee—and he runs HMRC.
Alan Brown
Given that the hon. Gentleman’s robust defence of the Transport Secretary is that the fault lies not with him but with the entire Government, who does the hon. Gentleman think should resign over this fiasco?
Charlie Elphicke
I am saying that the Secretary of State is not at fault, but neither are members of this Government. It is too many Members of the House of Commons who are at fault for not heeding the votes of 17.4 million people who say that we should leave the European Union at the end of March. It is about carrying into effect the referendum mandate, which the Scottish National party, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the TIGgers have continually declined to do and sought to stop at every single turn. This House should respect the decision of the British people because this House asked the British people to make that decision; and that decision, having been made, should be respected.
People in this House are at fault, and they know who they are. To a person, those people know that they have not been doing their bit to ensure that we carry into effect the democratic will and decision of the British people. It is entirely shameful of the Opposition parties to have opportunistically attacked this Secretary of State, when the whole House knows that the Secretary of State has been working hard and doing his bit in the national interest to ensure that Brexit is a success and that we are ready on day one at the end of March.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for securing this important debate. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who asked us to respect the decision of the people. Well, SNP Members respect the decision of our constituents and the people of Scotland, who voted 62% to remain, and we will continue not just to respect that, but to stand here and defend their decision. The hon. Gentleman spoke about this utopia voted for by the people who wanted to leave—this wonderful place that would be the UK out of Europe. However, he failed to recognise that people voted to leave because they were neglected, forgotten and ignored for years and years. Those areas had not been invested in and, as a result, there was a vote. But it was a vote of anger and protest, not for the mess that we are currently in.
During yesterday’s urgent question on the Eurotunnel payment, the Secretary of State for Health insisted 24 times—I have been through Hansard—that these contracts were about the unhindered supply of medicines. He also went on to say:
“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”—[Official Report, 4 March 2019; Vol. 655, c. 710.]
I just wonder what part of the contingency planning process awards contracts to a company that has no ferries, when this is all about the vital supply of medicines. It makes no sense whatever.
Given that the Secretary of State for Health yesterday answered questions for his pal, the Secretary of State for Transport, I assume that there will be a reciprocal agreement today. I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport, before he leaves, will answer some questions about health. If this is all about the unhindered supply of medicines, we need him to answer some questions about medicines. In particular, I want him to answer some questions about medical radioisotopes. I have been asking about this issue for more than two years without any proper information coming forward. I asked yesterday, and I previously asked a fortnight ago during Health questions on 19 February. It is a shame not to see the Health Secretary here today as he is so good on transport. On 19 February, he said that any issues with the supply of radioisotopes would be dealt with because the radioisotopes would be brought in by air. He also said that this planning was at an advanced stage. That was a really useful statement. If this contingency planning is indeed at an advanced stage, I would be keen to hear about the arrangements—about what is actually happening to ensure that we have radioisotopes for medical diagnosis and cancer treatment.
Most of our medical isotopes currently come through Dover or Coventry airport. If we assume that they are going to be coming through Coventry in the event of problems at Dover, we can also assume that there is expertise there to deal with it. Coventry airport deals with isotopes efficiently and effectively at the moment, but has there been increased capacity planning? We now know about the £33 million, and we have heard statements today that this will improve the services and ensure that everything runs smoothly, but I wonder how much has been spent on increasing the capacity at Coventry airport. If we are at an advanced stage of planning, I wonder how much training and upskilling has been done for staff in Coventry. Dealing with radioisotopes needs special skills and training, but I am sure it will be fine because we are at an advanced stage.
The UK is not self-sufficient when it comes to producing these materials. Around 80% of the materials we get come from Europe—from the Netherlands, Belgium and France—but, unlike medicines, they cannot be stockpiled. As soon as they are produced, they begin to decay, and the longer the delay, the smaller the dose of useful isotope that remains. There are two isotopes that are important in this process. The first is molybdenum, which has a half-life of 66 hours. Just to be clear, half-life means that after 66 hours it is half as effective as it was, and after another 66 hours it is half as effective again. This means that if we have a delay of even under a week, only a quarter of the useful substance will get to us. Once we get the molybdenum, we use it to generate technetium, which has an ever shorter half-life of only six hours. That has to get to patients quickly, but it would soon become utterly unusable. Not only does that have implications for patients’ health; it also has cost implications. If the original molybdenum does not get to us quickly, we will only have a half or a quarter of the stuff we thought we could use. That is problematic.
In 2008, a channel tunnel fire interrupted the supply of medical radioisotopes from the continent. Even this brief disturbance affected services. In 2015, industrial action in Calais resulted in radioisotopes being flown in via Coventry airport. The concern is that the situation that we face now is far greater than any of these incidents and much harder to mitigate, and the duration of the disruption is almost impossible to predict.
There are major questions over the UK’s ability to safeguard measures such as air freight deliveries of radioisotopes. Even assuming that aviation is completely unaffected by Brexit, there will be additional costs, and there is no guarantee that the supplies will be smooth, predictable and uninterrupted. There is uncertainty over the sourcing of radioisotopes from the European Union. We are currently part of Euratom, through which we are able to source them. Yes, of course, we can go further afield, but we cannot go to South Africa anymore because it has shut its reactor down, so supplies are even more limited. We could go to Canada, but as I have already explained, the time factor would make that problematic. This situation has serious implications.
Radioisotopes represent just one fragile and time-sensitive supply chain, but the challenges are considerable. With multiple links in the supply chain simultaneously threatened, the potential for serious disruption is immense, as we are seeing just now. The costs could be substantial, not least to the 1 million UK patients who depend on these services every single year. I am sure that the emergency planning has taken that into account. It is a pity that the Transport Secretary has gone because I would like to hear about the contingency planning for getting these medicines to the UK. In fact, since members of the Government are now able to switch roles, I would also like to hear how he is sourcing these medicines. I want to know what spending has taken place in Coventry.
Finally, I thank the Secretary of State for Transport for agreeing to appear here today. It is nice that he was here for a bit. I look forward to hearing more about the unhindered supply of medicines that we have heard about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) did not actually put in to speak.
Mr Speaker
Sit down. The hon. Gentleman did not put in to speak. He is signalling that he wishes to speak, and that—[Interruption.] If he leaves me to make the judgment and tell him what the situation is, he will benefit from the instruction that I am about to give him. Working on the basis of an informal time limit, it would be helpful if colleagues did not exceed 12 minutes each. I call Mr Kevin Foster.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I will of course observe that courtesy. I would not wish to prevent other Members from having the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), particularly given her interest in Coventry airport. As a former deputy leader of Coventry City Council, I know that one of the issues for that airport is that it is quite an underutilised resource since passenger flights from it were ended a couple of years back, when, sadly, the then Labour Government decided not to allow the airport permission for a terminal that would have allowed that service to become financially sustainable. Helpfully, there is quite a large resource there and an ability to develop it further. I hope that gives her some reassurances. Certainly, it is an airport that could contribute a lot more to our economy more generally. I will now focus my remarks more on Torbay.
There is a bit of a groundhog day feeling to this debate. Those who come here to tell us how dreadful no deal would be and to raise legitimate concerns about what that may mean for business and the economy, normally the next day pop back to complain about measures to mitigate no deal. There was always going to be a need to try to move with some urgency, particularly in relation to what the contract is actually about. We keep on talking about the ferries, but what we were actually talking about yesterday is the fact that this is about securing the supply of vital medicines into the UK if there is disruption at the border.
It is worth noting that there was not a contract just with Seaborne Freight; that is how it is regularly portrayed, for pretty obvious reasons. There are also contracts with DFDS and Brittany Ferries, which represent the majority of the capacity. Those contracts are still in place, even though the one with Seaborne Freight is not. As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), whose speech I found quite informative and useful, this is about the balance of the debate. Let us be candid: if the Secretary of State had refused to take a decision to create additional capacity, we would probably be here debating the potential lack of capacity for medicines to be transported into this country in a no-deal scenario. Instead, we are debating whether the legal risk was the right one to take. That is ultimately the nub of this debate.
In any scenario, we cannot say 100% exactly what the legal risk will be. No one presenting a legal case to court, particularly with any move towards reaching an out-of-court settlement, is going to start with the gambit, “We think we’re done—now we’re going to come here and negotiate.” That would clearly be an absolutely ludicrous position to adopt at the start of any discussions. I have taken part in such discussions myself. Both sides are always going to start with the fact that they feel their case is strong. We would be surprised if Eurotunnel walked in the door having decided that its case was not.
Joanna Cherry
Has the hon. Gentleman, like myself and the official Opposition spokesman, ever come across a commercial case where the settler stipulates how the settlee must spend the money? That is simply unheard of. Will he contradict that?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention, which gives me an opportunity to confirm that this is not about £33 million going straight into Eurotunnel shareholders’ pockets—it is about spending it on specified outcomes. I am perfectly content to see what the settlement is being used for.
Kevin Foster
I will continue with my speech for a few moments.
This is not about just handing over £33 million. It is about the fact that investment will follow with a company that—let us be blunt—the Government work very closely with on a range of issues. If there were disruption at the border, the Opposition would immediately be having a go and complaining about it, yet now they are complaining about measures to try to mitigate disruption in case of a no-deal outcome.
For me, this is about that balance. The Secretary of State would have had to look at the legal risk versus the risk of no medicines coming into the NHS. That is the nub of the decision. If every decision went perfectly, there would never be a debate in this Chamber about it. That is what this fundamentally boils down to. [Interruption.] If the shadow Secretary of State, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, is saying that he would not have awarded the contracts and that he would have taken the risk on the supply of medicines in a no-deal scenario, that is a position that he could defend. I do not think that would have been the right decision. My personal view is that it would be better to take a legal risk than a risk with vital life-saving medicines, but he can try to defend his view if he wishes to.
Alan Brown
The Secretary of State has argued that the £33 million will not be going directly to the Eurotunnel shareholders because of the improved services, border systems and security. Can the hon. Gentleman clarify for the House what these additional services are, because we would all appreciate that?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. When we are investing in border security, we do not usually put the exact details of what we are doing out there, do we? However, that issue has certainly been covered.
Kevin Foster
The hon. Gentleman has had his answers to his points. He may not like the answers he gets, but he has had them and I will not take a further intervention.
Some people have come here today talking about the fact that we should take no deal off the table and that would make all this absolutely pointless. I am afraid that we cannot simply take no deal off the table. We have to do one of two things. To be fair, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats take the consistent position that they would look to ignore the referendum result by revoking article 50. In effect, they would take no deal off the table by staying in the European Union. The only other option to take no deal off the table is to agree a deal with the European Union. That is where we see the inconsistency of many of Labour’s positions. It is all very well Labour Members saying, “I don’t like this deal; I don’t want that deal,” but, unless they are prepared to say that they would revoke article 50—there are two parties that are still on that platform; I do not agree with that but it is at least a coherent position—then it is absolute nonsense to come here and say, “We don’t like any of the deals but we demand that no deal be taken off the table.” That is absolute tosh and rubbish.
Peter Grant
Has the hon. Gentleman read the alternative deal that was put forward by the Scottish Government in December 2016?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I did read the White Paper put out by the Scottish National party a few years ago that was a bit of a work of fiction. My understanding, unless he wants to correct me, is that his position is that he wishes to remain in the European Union.
Kevin Foster
If the hon. Gentleman is going to get up and say that it is not, that will be quite a surprise for quite a number of Scottish National party supporters.
Peter Grant
I take it from his non-answer that the hon. Gentleman has not bothered to read that document. What the Scottish Government put forward over two years ago showed a willingness to make a significant compromise. They would have been willing to consider a deal that kept us in a single market and customs union if it allowed Scotland—and, indeed, Northern Ireland—to have the wishes of our people respected. It is a pity that he clearly has not bothered to read that document. Although his Government have completely ignored it, I would still recommend it to him because it might yet show us a way out of the shambles that they are creating.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I say, I naively thought that his position was to stay in the European Union, because that is what I keep hearing in virtually every debate on Brexit that the Scottish National party contributes to. I recall the SNP Government’s proposals on staying and it makes the point: why on earth would anyone want to be outside the European Union while following all its laws, all its rules and all its customs obligations, and probably ending up still within its common fisheries policy, which, as we know, has had such an impact on the north-east of Scotland? It would continue to do so if we stayed in the European Union. We would be obliged to be part of it, despite the claims by the Scottish National party.
This debate is about having a go at no-deal preparations, while at the same time complaining that the impact of no deal would be too great. There is a real opportunity next week to put an end to all these discussions by voting for a deal. It is an opportunity for some Opposition Members to come off the fence and be clear about their options: the deal that has been negotiated, which is realistic and can be passed, or joining the SNP in voting to stay in the European Union. It is easy to make party political points. It is easy to have a go and criticise decisions that you know you probably would have taken. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker—decisions that they know they would have taken; the only decisions you take are on who is called to speak and procedural matters in this House.
That is the nub of this debate. Ultimately, it was a legal risk versus a risk to medicine supply. Many Members sitting in the Chamber know what they would have done in those circumstances. The contracts with DFDS and Brittany Ferries are still in place, providing the majority of this capacity. Next week, people will have to start choosing between the alternatives that are actually on the table, not ones that they pretend might be.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Shortly after the Secretary of State awarded contracts to ferry operators as part of his no-deal contingency planning, the Transport Committee, which I chair, received two submissions to our inquiry into freight and Brexit alleging that the Secretary of State had acted illegally in doing so. Although it has already been published, I would like to make the House aware of the written evidence submitted by Dr Albert Sanchez-Graells. He is a reader in economic law at the University of Bristol Law School, a former member of the European Commission stakeholder expert group on public procurement, a member of the European Procurement Law Group and a member of the Procurement Lawyers Association Brexit working group, so one would think that he probably knows what he is talking about.
Dr Sanchez-Graells was clear in his evidence to our Committee that
“The award of three contracts for ‘additional shipping freight capacity’ in the context of the Government’s ‘No-Deal’ preparations raises important illegality concerns.”
He said that, under regulation 32(2) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015,
“‘extreme urgency’ only exists where an unforeseeable event renders impossible the observance of the time-limits laid down for calls for tenders.”
He said that the award of the three contracts for additional capacity seems “likely” to be in breach of that regulation,
“as there was time to comply with the 60 calendar days’ time limit required by alternative, transparent competitive procedures with negotiation.”
He went on to say:
“Even if it was accepted that there was no time for alternative competitive procedures… the award to Seaborne Freight (UK) Ltd still raises issues of potential illegality. The Secretary of State for Transport has justified the award as an act of support for a new British start-up business. This fact, coupled with…the lack of readiness of the port infrastructure…undercuts the rationale of the extreme urgency of the procurement and heightens the likely illegality of the award.”
We now know that the Department faced a legal challenge from Eurotunnel and that settling the case has cost UK taxpayers at least £33 million.
I am afraid that the Secretary of State has shown a repeated failure to operate in an open and transparent manner. He avoided questions in the House yesterday, but as I said, that does not mean that these questions go away. I understand why he is not in his place. However, I expect to receive written answers to these questions, as I assume that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who is sitting on the Front Bench, does not intend to respond to them this afternoon.
These are the questions that I want to raise. It is reported in The Times today that the Secretary of State wanted to fight Eurotunnel’s legal action over the award of contracts to ferry firms but was overruled. Is that true? What legal advice did the Government receive on the likely success of Eurotunnel’s action? How was the sum of £33 million arrived at? Is the fact that the Secretary of State was overruled an indication that he does not enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister or his Cabinet colleagues? I believe he mentioned that it was decided by a Cabinet working group.
When the Secretary of State was not here yesterday, we had the rather ludicrous spectacle of the Secretary of State for Health trying to cover for him and explain. He said that
“the purpose of the decision is to ensure that unhindered flow of medicines.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2019; Vol. 655, c. 700.]
However, he failed to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) about how much of the £33 million being paid to Eurotunnel is being contributed by the Department of Health and Social Care. We still need an answer to that question, and I expect to receive one.
I will not be surprised if my Committee has additional questions. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who unfortunately is not able to be here for this debate, has described the level of this settlement as “absolutely outrageous”, so I am sure he will share my wish to understand how it was arrived at. How much of Eurotunnel’s £33 million settlement will be spent on border measures in Calais, rather than in the UK? Is it right that the UK taxpayer will be paying for these measures, rather than Eurotunnel or the French Government?
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the settlement may amount to an entirely fresh procurement process, and if that has not been done correctly, there is a real risk of yet further litigation and cost to the taxpayer?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We would like to receive further information about the basis on which this settlement was reached and the legal risks that it entails.
Finally, I return to the question I asked yesterday, to which I received nothing but bluster. If there is a Brexit deal, or if indeed there were no Brexit, how much of the taxpayers’ £33 million do the Government expect to recover from Eurotunnel? I take it from the Secretary of State’s earlier response that the answer is none. I would be grateful if we received answers from him to those questions.
It is essential that the Department for Transport is subject to proper scrutiny and held properly accountable for its waste of public money. It is very disappointing that the Secretary of State once again had to be dragged to the Chamber. At least on this occasion he was here, but we still do not have proper answers on these important matters, which the public deserve.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate. I want to start by dealing with the red herring we frequently hear from Conservative Members that this debate is about impugning the Government’s responsibility to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. It is not about that. It is about their ability to make those preparations competently and without squandering taxpayers’ money.
Of course, the Government have to prepare for no deal because they are insistent on keeping no deal on the table, and last week they voted against the SNP amendment that would have taken it off the table. As some Conservative Members have generously accepted, no deal could be taken off the table by a number of routes, including an extension of article 50 or the option of revoking it—the lifeline thrown to the British Government by a number of Scottish politicians, including myself. In that respect, I declare an interest, with the backing of the Good Law Project.
Let us get that red herring off the table. This is not about the Opposition querying whether the Government should prepare for a no-deal or Brexit. This is about the Opposition doing their job and holding the Government to account for making those preparations in a shambolic, chaotic fashion that is wasteful of public money.
Last week, the Government settled out of court litigation brought against them by Eurotunnel for the legal reasons laid out by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). They paid more than £33 million to buy off the risk of losing the action and having to pay more, and the action was brought because they had failed to put three contracts—not just Seaborne Freight, so far as I am aware, but all three contracts—out to competitive tender. That £33 million was in lieu of a larger sum that would have had to be paid out in damages if the court case had gone ahead and the Government had lost.
That is why I, as a lawyer, am so puzzled by the insistence of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Health that this £33 million will somehow pay for increased security at the ports. In my long experience of 30 years—20-odd years at the Bar and a number of years as a solicitor—I have never heard of such a stipulation in an out-of-court settlement in this type of case. That is why I was so puzzled, and perhaps expressed my puzzlement in terms that were unparliamentary.
I want to know. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), is looking at his phone and is not interested in what SNP Members have to say, as usual, but this is not going to go away because I am going to pursue it with Eurotunnel and others. I want to know—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps he could just listen and be quiet while he is listening. I want to know whether Eurotunnel—
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it customary for the Member who is speaking to provoke a Minister into looking at her directly and then to say that he is somehow interrupting her. It seems to me it would be far better if the hon. and learned Lady went on addressing the Chair and left the Minister to listen, like the rest of us.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has his own interpretation of the chronology of events, which those attending to observe our proceedings can make a judgment about for themselves, and that is one point of view. If I may say so, there is another point of view, which is that the hon. and learned Lady was somewhat disquieted, not to say mildly irritated, by the junior Minister’s evident fascination with the contents of his electronic device. It might be thought courteous not to be focusing intently on the said contents when a Member is addressing the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take offence when I say that he is in the end a very loyal sort of person, and it is not terribly surprising that he should spring to the defence of his ministerial colleague and fellow parliamentarian. It was very gracious of him and a nice try.
Joanna Cherry
It may have been a nice try, but I am not going to leave this one alone. I want to know how much of that £33 million will be repaid in the event of there being a deal. I think I know the answer: it will be nil. I want to know whether there was any legal agreement that any amount of that £33 million was to be spent on improved security, and if so, to what extent. I will not be leaving those issues alone either today or in the future.
I was the first person, to my knowledge, to raise this issue on the Floor of the House or in Committee earlier this year. When I got hold of a copy of the contract with Seaborne Freight, which was readily available on the internet, I, like any lawyer worth their salt, looked up the public contracts regulations and realised that it looked very much as though the Government had avoided the competitive tendering process that they are bound to carry out under law.
That is why I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in the Chamber on 7 January. I am going to go through the chronology because I want to make the point that I have raised at least half a dozen times the question of what was the urgent or unforeseeable event that justified there not being a competitive tender, and that on no occasion have I received the answer that has been given today by the Secretary of State for Transport that it was to do with a decision taken collectively by the Government last autumn to improve the supply of medicines in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The very first time I heard such an explanation was on the television at the weekend, when the Secretary of State for Health used it, and he of course used it again yesterday. However, it is very odd—again, this informs my puzzlement and frustration earlier this afternoon—that we have never heard that explanation before.
Let me go through the chronology. On 7 January in this Chamber, I asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union why the contract with Seaborne Freight had proceeded under the negotiated procurement procedure without prior publication—that is to say, not competitively—because it seems to me that it must have been foreseeable for quite a long time that there might be a no-deal situation and it was therefore hard to say that no deal had come out of the blue and was urgent or unforeseeable. I received the usual non-answer from the Secretary of State. I will not bore hon. Members with the contents of the answer—they can look it up in Hansard—but there is nothing about a requirement to prepare for the urgent supply of medicine and, indeed, no kind of explanation at all.
The following day, 8 January, I raised the same point with the Secretary of State for Transport on the Floor of the House. I said I was concerned about the legality of the procurement process, that I had a copy of the contract notice and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) reminded the House earlier that day, no deal has always been a possibility because the Prime Minister said right at the beginning that no deal is better than a bad deal. I asked the Secretary of State what the urgency was and whether the Government had set aside any funds in the event of legal action. I got a non-answer, other than to say it was a “matter of extreme urgency”, and there was no reference to the supply of medicine.
The following day, 9 January, I raised the matter in some detail with the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), at a question and answer session before the Exiting the European Union Committee. I am proud to say that the segment where I questioned him went viral on the internet. I asked him a number of times to tell the Committee what the urgent and unforeseeable event was that justified these contracts not going out to competitive tender, and he was unable to tell me.
If the explanation that it had been a collective decision by the UK Government to put these contracts out non-competitively to secure the supply of medicines, I would have expected the Minister in charge of no-deal planning at the Department for Exiting the European Union to know that. The fact that he did not know and, under sustained questioning, did not mention it does raise a suspicion in my mind that it is an explanation that has been invented after the fact, rather than an explanation that has always been the case.
Joanna Cherry
I will finish the chronology, and then I will give way.
That was on 9 January. Later, I put in a written question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what unforeseeable events led his Department to award contracts for additional shipping freight capacity under Regulation 32 of The Public Contracts Regulations 2015.”
I received the reply:
“A negotiated procurement procedure without prior publication was concluded…to ensure that capacity can be in place in time for a No Deal exit whilst at the same time securing value for money for the taxpayer.”
There was no mention of the need to secure the urgent supply of medicines in the event of no deal, but there was a mention of value for money for taxpayers. Do the Government still think they have provided value for money for taxpayers, given what we have heard this afternoon? I very much doubt it.
On 31 January, I asked the Attorney General about this matter. I asked him whether he was concerned that the Government could face legal action in respect of their failure to put these contracts out to competitive tender, whether he had been asked to advise on the matter and whether any money had been put aside for the contingency of such court action. He fell back on the Law Officers’ convention not to answer that question, but he certainly did not mention that the reason why these contracts had been awarded as a matter of urgency and non-competitively was the need to secure the supply of medicines.
On 11 February, I raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Transport. I asked:
“Will he state clearly for the record, as I have asked this question of him and other Ministers five times now: what were the reasons of extreme urgency and the unforeseeable events that justified his Department proceeding without competitive tendering”?
He said it was
“a change to the assumptions on the levels and length of disruption that might arise in a no-deal Brexit scenario.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 624.]
Perhaps the junior Minister could take a note that I want to know from the Secretary of State for Transport why he said on 11 February that the explanation was a change to the assumptions on the levels and length of disruption that might arise, and why he is now saying that it was a decision back in the autumn to secure the supply of medicines in the event of no deal.
Joanna Cherry
I will finish the chronology, and then I will give way.
Finally, I raised the point again on 14 February with the Secretary of State for Transport, asking him what he meant by a “change in the assumptions”. I asked:
“Would he care to elaborate on exactly what he meant by that? Does he think that that defence will stand up in court?”
Those were my exact words. He said:
“I recall explaining on Monday precisely what the circumstances were, and I do not want to detain the House any longer by repeating an answer that I gave to the hon. and learned Lady three days ago.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 1038.]
Again, he had an opportunity to say that the explanation was a requirement to secure the urgent supply of medicines in the event of a no-deal Brexit, but he did not. In fact, he told me that he had already told me precisely what the circumstances were, three days before, when he referred to a change in assumptions and said nothing about medicine.
I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) in a moment, but the point I am making is that this is just an example of the number of times that I have pursued this question. I know that other hon. Members have done so, too, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). They have pursued in some detail their concerns about the supply of medicines after a no-deal Brexit, and never has anyone said to them, “Don’t worry, we so are concerned about this that we have risked breaking the law on competitive tendering to sort it all out.” That is why I am highly sceptical.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for giving way, and I have been listening carefully to her submissions. The question of purpose is dealt with in the National Audit Office report, which states that the decision was meant
“to prioritise the flow of critical goods into the UK”.
Specifically, the report says that in September and October 2018, the intention was to
“‘ensure that capacity and flexibility exists for government to prioritise the flow’ of certain…goods”.
In November 2018, the Department’s business case was
“to ensure that capacity and flexibility exist for government to enable the prioritisation of…certain goods”.
It seems to me that critical goods were always in the mind of the Department, so I am not sure that her submissions to the House are borne out.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, because he actually reinforces the point that I sought to make. The National Audit Office has that information, and the House of Commons has had it today and yesterday, but my point is that on repeated occasions when I asked a number of Ministers from different Departments what the explanation was for this urgent need to tender non-competitively, not once did any of them mention what we are told was a collective decision to do it for a particular purpose. I therefore question whether that explanation has been invented after the fact.
Andy McDonald
The hon. and learned Lady is doing a brilliant job of exposing the facade that has been put up to excuse this reprehensible behaviour, but is the bottom line not that the Government knew that they were in breach of their own procurement rules and that Eurotunnel was going to win? That is why they settled the case.
Joanna Cherry
That is the bottom line. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
I am going to draw to a conclusion, because I know that others want to speak. The history of this whole event, which the Government now say that they all knew about as it was a collective decision, has been one of evasion and obfuscation. I and others are left with the inevitable conclusion that they are trying to cover up a monumental error of staggering negligence in their preparations for a no-deal Brexit, which is costing the British taxpayer a lot of money. I would like to point out that Scottish taxpayers did not even vote for all this nonsense in the first place, and their representatives in this House have, apart from the Scottish Tories, done their best to try to get a no-deal Brexit off the table.
I came to the House this afternoon planning to ask for the resignation of the Secretary of State for Transport. That has been asked for by others already. But now that we know that this was a collective decision and that the Government are taking collective responsibility for it, let me say that in any normal, healthy and functioning democracy this scandal would bring the Government down.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
What a farcical situation. It gives me no pleasure to say that this Government have become a laughing stock to people not only in this country but throughout Europe and the world. In many ways, that is epitomised by one individual: the Secretary of State for Transport.
It came as no great surprise that Eurotunnel was aggrieved by the decision taken by the Secretary of State for Transport and his colleagues. I am no expert on procurement policy or tendering law, but it strikes me as common sense that there should have been a tendering process, especially as it was very obvious that the Government were making a decision late in the day in response to a predicament of their own making. If they were serious about considering a no-deal Brexit, they should have begun the preparations as soon as this House triggered article 50. They decided not to, and to delay it, so they found themselves in a predicament and decided not just to avoid the law but to consciously, perhaps, break it as well.
When the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the procurement process was not being followed, he announced to the House that three contracts were being issued—for three “compliant bids”, as he said. Towards the tail end of that ministerial statement, I asked a question that I thought was pretty innocuous, and I expected a certain reply. I asked:
“In the interests of transparency, will the Secretary of State indicate to the House which companies were considered for the contracts?”
At that point, I realised that the procurement process had not been followed, but I assumed that the Secretary of State had at least had a shortlist and decided from that which companies were best equipped to fulfil the requirements. The response was significant, because the question was totally ignored. The Secretary of State simply said:
“We received three compliant bids, all of which we judged acceptable and accepted.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 202.]
In other words, there was not just an avoidance of the procurement process or a dilution of it; there was a complete and utter conscious avoidance of it. Instead, we had cherry-picking—of the worst kind—of the three companies.
We have learned now that the Government have paid £33 million to Eurotunnel to avoid the case going to court, because it is pretty clear that the Government did not have a leg to stand on. The question that has already been asked is where that is coming from. Are there contingencies available that we do not know about? Will there be further public expenditure cuts? Where precisely will this £33 million of unplanned expenditure come from?
It is important to recognise that Eurotunnel had plenty of time to prepare if it had been given the opportunity to make a bid. There was clearly no urgency when the Government chose to take the action they did. It is also important to recognise that although the Government have said that they are coming to an agreement with Eurotunnel and will pay that £33 million, they have unusually stipulated what the money will be used for, as has been mentioned. We understand that the money is for the development of infrastructure, security and border measures that will guarantee the flow of vehicles carrying urgent and vital goods to help keep supply chains moving that are essential to both industry and consumers. It is interesting that the Government have stipulated that, and it begs the question that has already been raised by the shadow Secretary of State: what is the legal basis for taking such action and making such a stipulation?
Andrew Dean, an expert in procurement law who works at the law firm Clifford Chance, used to advise the DFT and is widely recognised as an expert in his field, said:
“If Eurotunnel were required to develop or redevelop infrastructure that delivers or supports a public function as part of this settlement, there is a risk it could be construed as another piece of public procurement without open and transparent competition… In which case the government would be back to square one, with other potential providers able to challenge the process.”
My question to the Minister is this: has the Department considered that possibility? What advice is he currently receiving from his departmental legal team on where the Government now stand? There is a distinct possibility that they are going from the frying pan into the fire. They have apparently solved one problem of their own making, but they have another problem, also of their own making, that they will possibly have to confront in the very near future. That is an important issue.
All of us are extremely concerned about the situation in which we find ourselves. At one point I thought the Government were surely not serious about considering the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. I suspect that initially they were not serious about pursuing it, but as time has gone on and the negotiations have been more and more unfruitful they have found themselves inevitably in the situation of having to make quite extreme, ill-thought- out contingency plans. I hope very much indeed that the Government do not have to introduce those plans. The message has gone out from right across this House, as well as from industry, the trade union movement and civil society generally: for goodness’ sake, even at this late stage, end this farce once and for all, and take no deal off the table.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing the debate, and you, Mr Speaker, on granting it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who is no longer in her place, earlier speculated on why it was the Secretary of State for Health who responded yesterday. I am sure Members are aware that requests have gone out to civil servants in all Departments—for example, the Department for Education—saying, “Please, please, please, will you come and work for one of the Brexit Departments?” It may be that the Secretary of State for Health was simply responding to such a request from the Department for Transport to go and bolster the numbers in that Department.
Mr Speaker, you rightly pre-empted the introductory comments a number of Members wanted to make in relation to the Secretary of State’s rather cluttered hall of shame. Had you enabled us to dwell a little bit on the other matters for which the Secretary of State has been responsible, or indeed irresponsible, this debate would have continued for much longer. I will just say, “Probation, timetable fiasco, drones” and move on to the subject of Seaborne. Before I do, it is worth pointing out on the timetable fiasco that in correspondence with me the Secretary of State refused even to reveal that the Department for Transport had any responsibility for that. That is rather indicative of the way he approaches things, as is his unwillingness to issue an apology for anything he has been responsible for. I think he actually sneaked in a very small apology earlier today, I think for the first time, although it was collective responsibility that he seemed to be admitting to. Maybe that is a positive development.
I have a chronology. It is not as detailed, erudite or in-depth as anything from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but I thought I would go through recent statements by the Secretary of State to see where he has referred to no deal, just to see his level of awareness of the prospect of no deal. I started googling, as everyone does these days, and the first reference was from last month. Nothing surprising there. Apparently, because of the Secretary of State’s completely disrespectful manner and what he has been saying about a no-deal Brexit, he has been banned from the port of Calais. That augurs well. I understand he may have had to leave the Chamber because there is currently a go-slow at Calais. It does not augur well for our future relationship if Calais has sought to ban our Secretary of State for Transport because of his attitude to no deal.
Going back a bit further to September 2018, Mr Barnier was apparently ticking off one of our departed Secretaries of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), over his no-deal letters. In September 2018, therefore, there was clearly an awareness of no deal. In August 2018, hauliers were warning our Secretary of State for Transport that he had no plans for no deal, so clearly in August he was being warned that he had no plans. Going back a little bit further to February 2018, some Members will remember that the Secretary of State for Transport was saying that in a no-deal situation we would be growing our own—farmers in the UK would be doing the growing, but presumably some of us would be too—potatoes and other vegetables in our own back gardens. He had also made the same comment in October 2017.
At that point, I gave up. It was clear that however much more trawling I did, I would find earlier references the Secretary of State had made to the risk of no deal. Clearly, for him to say now, or to have said a couple of months ago, that no deal was an emergency about which there was no knowledge within the Government, is not borne out by the facts that are very easily there and available for people to dip into if they choose to do so.
More recently, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West has been particularly insistent on pursuing him over the contracts, as have other Members of the SNP and Members of other parties. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January. My final question was: “Are the contracts in accordance with procurement rules?” I made lots of other points in the letter, most of which were answered, but that final point was not answered. I do not know why. A lot of other things were said in the reply to my letter, including that it was because of me personally and my Liberal Democrat colleagues that we were going to have no deal, rather than the 118 Conservative Members who voted against the Prime Minister’s deal. Apparently, it was all my fault. However, the point about whether the contracts were in accordance with procurement rules was completely ignored in the response I received. The response was not from the Secretary of State, of course; it was from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani).
I would like to conclude, as I know other Members wish to speak. We have had to bring the Secretary of State, or his representative on Earth in the shape of the Secretary of State for Health, before us a number of times and it is hard to find new material to go over, so I will just finish by saying that in any other Government at any other time the Secretary of State would be sacked by the Prime Minister. In any other Government at any other time, the Secretary of State would in fact have resigned before he was sacked, but this is not any other Government at any other time. Our calamitous Secretary of State remains in post mainly, I suspect, because he was in charge of the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign when she became our Prime Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There are two remaining speakers. Just as a helpful guide to both hon. Members, the average length of Back-Bench speeches has been approximately 10 minutes. Neither hon. Member need feel a driving ambition to exceed that very satisfactory self-imposed time constraint.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing it, and I thank you for approving it, Mr Speaker.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) could have conducted this debate on her own, because in the space of what I am reliably informed was about 10 minutes, she utterly dismantled any shred of credibility that the Secretary of State and the Government had left. She has made a succession of attempts to get a simple answer—I can vouch for that, because I was often either behind or beside her when she did so—but one has not been forthcoming. The charitable explanation of that is, as she suggested, that the Government made up the answer just a few days earlier. The less charitable, but, I fear, correct, answer is that they responded to every single question with a deliberate attempt to place obstacles in the way of Members of Parliament and prevent them from doing their job. This Parliament is supposed to be getting back sovereignty as a result of Brexit, but the Government’s first, and often only, response to proper parliamentary inquiry is to stonewall, swat away questions and often to insult the motivations of those asking the questions.
It was a bit rich for the Secretary of State to talk about how many times he has answered these questions. He has not answered them at all. He has responded to them, but has not yet given an answer. Although my right hon. Friend could not, within the terms of parliamentary order, say that he has not been telling the truth, it is fair to say that he has not been telling the whole truth. Although not telling the whole truth is not unparliamentary, it can sometimes have the same effect as telling a complete untruth. Although the explanation that the contract is about securing emergency medical supplies has apparently been talked about in Government circles since August or September last year, it has been used as an explanation for Members of Parliament only for the past few days. It simply does not wash.
Tom Brake
I agree that the explanation about medicines is entirely dubious. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even if it were true, the fact that our Government—in peacetime, not wartime—are having to prepare to air freight in medicines because of the risk that they will get stuck at the border is condemnation enough of their complete incompetence?
Peter Grant
Absolutely. The single biggest example of incompetence coupled with complacency—it must be said that a lot of the official Opposition were guilty of this—was triggering article 50 and setting a two-year deadline that we cannot unilaterally get out of, after which we will leave without a deal, before the Government had any idea what no deal meant. It is notable that, although the Prime Minister’s mantra was, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” we just heard the Secretary of State announce that, two years after the referendum, they suddenly discovered that no deal would be a lot more disruptive than they realised. I will just mention in passing that when the Government discovered that a no-deal Brexit would be much worse than they realised, they were allowed to change their minds, have another think about it and do something that they had not done before, but 60 million citizens of these nations have not been allowed to have another think and perhaps another go at a decision now that they have been told what they could not have been expected to know in June 2016 about the disastrous consequences of no deal, because Her Majesty’s Government were blithely unaware of it until August or September last year.
We are told that the reason why the Government brought in this new company was the desire to support a new start-up business. Well, bravo. I would always support that, but it completely annihilates the claim that the reason for urgency was that this was a potential life-or-death medical supplies requirement. If there is a service that cannot be allowed to fail because people’s lives would be at risk, who in their right mind would give the opportunity to undertake that work to somebody who had never done the job before? I am sure that health services and health authorities all over the United Kingdom do what they can to give work experience and job opportunities to young people who have not had too great a time at school, but they would not under any circumstances put them behind the wheel of an ambulance with a blue light and ask them to go and save lives, but that is, in effect, what the Secretary of State is telling us the Government did with this contract. Either the contract was innocuous enough that we could afford to give it to a business that did not exist, because nothing would go wrong if the whole thing collapsed, or it was a life-or-death contract that, for reasons of urgency, had to be signed very quickly. If that was the case, it was an act of utter folly to award it to anyone who did not already have an impeccable record in the running of ferry services.
I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) to protect the Secretary of State by saying, “It wasn’t the Secretary of State who was incompetent; it was everyone else in the Government.” My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West has given us the way out of that.
What does the fact that this Parliament does not have the authority to table a vote of no confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport tell us about this model of parliamentary democracy? We do not have the authority to instruct a Prime Minister to remove a Minister from office, and we do not have a say over who the Prime Minister appoints or does not appoint to any post in the Government. We must be one of the very few allegedly democratic Parliaments in Europe that does not get a say before Ministers are appointed. Ministers in the Scottish Government have the same Crown appointment as Ministers in the UK Government, but the First Minister of Scotland will not put them forward until they have been agreed by a motion of the Scottish Parliament. The First Minister herself did not accept the commission from Her Majesty until her appointment had been recommended and agreed by a vote of the Scottish Parliament. Maybe that is one of the 1,001 improvements to democracy we need in this place, so that in future Ministers are appointed and unappointed not at the whim of the Prime Minister but by a vote of their peers in this Parliament and can removed from office when this Parliament loses confidence in them, rather than only when the Prime Minister decides they have become too much of an embarrassment.
Throughout this Brexit shambles, any number of serious issues have been raised—life-or-death issues, issues with the potential to devastate our economy, issues such as citizens’ rights that have the potential to ruin the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, issues with the potential to wipe out entire sectors of industry and put tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people on the dole—and each and every time the knee-jerk, first-choice response from Her Majesty’s Government has been to throw it back at the person raising the concern. If it comes from Labour Members, they are told, “Well, if you lot had been in power, it would have been an even worse disaster.” What kind of a way is that to run a Government? I can understand why a lot of people would have concerns if the current Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister—I would have my concerns as well—but if the only thing the Government can say to defend themselves is that the Government-in-waiting would be even worse, they are a Government well past their sell-by date.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West has repeatedly and rightly raised valid concerns—I hope she will continue to raise them because she has right on her side—and the response from numerous Ministers has been ridicule: she did not know what she was talking about, she was trying to make trouble, she was just an SNP Member, the SNP did not want to leave the EU anyway so how could they possibly have any good ideas for making Brexit less damaging? That would be unacceptable for a Government with a majority of 150. For a Government who threw away their majority and do not command majority support in the House or the nations, it is a despicable way to behave. If that is the best they can do, not only the Secretary of State but the whole Government have to go.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to follow—well, everybody.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and you, Mr Speaker, on granting this debate. It is important when such issues occur that the Government and their Ministers and Secretaries of State actually be held to account and not be allowed to duck and dive their way out of their responsibilities.
The Secretary of State is increasingly popular with some people—those employed by law firms—but he is not popular with anyone else. Let’s recap. He contracted a company with no ships or terms and conditions of their own and after no proper assessment. He has given no answers. There has been no accountability. He takes no responsibility. He basically does not have a clue, and the public have been left with a bill of at least £33 million, not counting the £800,000 in consultant fees and whatever else. Coming from a constituency ravaged by the effects of universal credit over the past six years, I find that deeply insulting to all the people suffering under the policies of this Government.
We have heard from other right hon. and hon. Members about the litany of failure that the Secretary of State has visited upon his ministerial career; it is well rehearsed and I will not go into it again. Nobody has confidence in this Secretary of State, and yesterday we found out, because he was too feart to appear, that even he does not have confidence in himself as Secretary of State. What he does have is a brass neck wider than a ship’s bell. What a snapshot of this Tory Brexit chaos and this Tory Government: defending the indefensible time after time, instead of doing what they should have done right away, which was rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The Secretary of State’s decision to award Seaborne Freight a contract worth £13.8 million attracted widespread criticism when it was announced. Seaborne was founded only two years ago and, as I said, had no ships or trading history. That has been raised by many of us in the Chamber since the beginning of the year, which was the first opportunity we had. Although the company had never run a channel service, it was one of three firms awarded contracts totalling £108 million to lay on additional crossings. As we have heard, the Department for Transport spent £800,000 on consultancy services when evaluating Seaborne and was warned of significant risks that came with the tender. Despite that, Seaborne was awarded the contract.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has pointed out time and again, concerns were also raised that the EU procurement rules had not been followed in the awarding of the contract. That has been brought home by the Eurotunnel action, which has been settled out of court. Eurotunnel had said that it would take legal action, and it did. The Department argued that because this was an emergency there was legal justification, but there was doubt about that, because the emergency scenario of a no-deal Brexit had been raised well in advance. This was a disastrous decision. The cost to the taxpayer of the Transport Secretary’s incompetence is now well beyond any joke.
Alan Brown
My hon. Friend is making a fine point. Does he share my surprise that when the Government have effectively been shown to have broken a law of competitive tendering, the Transport Secretary’s defence is, “I am really disappointed that Eurotunnel took me to court.”? He breaks a law, and then blames the company that was wronged in the first place.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend, who, along with other colleagues here, has been at this since the beginning, has made the point that the Transport Secretary takes no responsibility. He is willing to accept none of the criticism. I would say that he is Teflon, but the public know that he is not, because all this sticks to him. However, he has not had his just deserts: either being sacked from his job, which should have happened, or resigning from it.
Andy McDonald
The point about the Transport Secretary’s intervention in his other lives is well illustrated by his attitude to judicial review. He did not like people taking the Government to court, so he made it more difficult for them to do so. Is that not consistent with his attitude to this matter?
Drew Hendry
I agree with the shadow Transport Secretary. It is indicative of the way in which the Transport Secretary has performed throughout his ministerial career, and, indeed, it is now indicative of the Government themselves.
The Government’s settlement with Eurotunnel confirms what everyone except, it seems, the Transport Secretary knew: that flouting EU law on the basis of so-called unforeseen events was a completely untenable position. The only development that was foreseeable was that he would make a hash of anything that he touched. He now even has his own website, tracking how much money he is costing the taxpayer. That becomes a great deal less humorous when we see the amount: £2.7 billion as of this morning, although—as we know from the Transport Secretary—that may have gone up while I have been speaking.
Before the Government’s settlement last week, Eurotunnel said:
“It appears …that the secretary of state is seeking to maintain extensive claims to confidentiality in relation to large numbers of disclosed documents and appears to intend that large parts, if not all, of the trial should be held in private.”
Moreover, we have again seen a failure to disclose answers to the questions asked in the Chamber.
Let me end by asking some more questions. The Transport Secretary says that there has been a changed assumption. No, there has not; there has been complacency and arrogance. There was an urgent question about this issue yesterday, following a weekend of silence from the Transport Secretary. Why did he duck it, and send the Health Secretary to answer it in his place? Has he any shred of respect for the principle of ministerial accountability?
The question remains why Eurotunnel was overlooked in this first place. As I have said, the secrecy is of real concern. How much documentation is still hidden from public view? If the no-deal contract is not invoked, how much money will still be paid to Eurotunnel? With engineering firm Bechtel set to sue the Government over the HS2 tender process, what other departmental procedural risks still exist? Is it not the case that any other individual working on a business deal would have been sacked by now for wasting the amount of money the Secretary of State has wasted to date? What message does that send to the public? The message it sends is that failure, waste, ignorance, complacency, arrogance and contempt for the public are to be rewarded by the Tories.
Alan Brown
Once again, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate. I also thank all Members who have taken part, particularly the two Conservative Members, whose contributions in trying to defend the Transport Secretary unwittingly made our case for us in terms of how big a farce this has really been. There was a ludicrous defence of the Transport Secretary by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who stated the whole Government were to blame for being too late in undertaking contingency planning. With the Transport Secretary also advising us suddenly of a collective Cabinet decision, we now know we have collective Cabinet incompetence, which says all we need to know about this Government and the leadership of the Prime Minister.
Despite having had nearly three hours of debate, the reality is that we still have no clarity about what the £33 million to Eurotunnel gets us and what, if anything, is being withheld by the Government in event of a withdrawal agreement being reached. We have had no reasons for the court climbdown on Eurotunnel’s challenge; nobody has been able to answer the questions on isotopes from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan); and we have had no justification for how this whole procurement exercise is suddenly a medicine-led exercise. We have had no clarity or justification on the rationale for pursuing an exemption in competitive tendering on the basis of the regulation 32 exemption for unforeseeable circumstances, and no answers to the detailed questions from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
Many Members have called for the Transport Secretary’s head, although, as I said earlier, it goes much wider than this. There was a classic oxymoron from the Transport Secretary: in defending his approach to the contingency planning he said that sometimes risks have to be taken. It undermines the point of contingency planning if he is actually willing to take risks. I will finish with this: the longer he stays in post is a risk too far for the United Kingdom. Again, I thank Members from across the House for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the latest developments in the UK Government ferry contract awards for no-deal preparations.
Chris Grayling
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to inform the House that the annex containing the requirements for Eurotunnel to spend money on improvements at the borders has now been published on the Government website.
Mr Speaker
That is an extremely helpful point of order from the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him. It is by way of being a public information notice and I take it very much in that spirit.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I have a brief announcement to make. I have received a letter this afternoon from the Registrar of Criminal Appeals informing me that Fiona Onasanya’s application for leave to appeal against her conviction has been refused. This notification triggers the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015, and I will accordingly be writing to the relevant petition officer to inform that person that Fiona Onasanya is therefore subject to a recall petition process. It will be for that officer to make the arrangements for the petition. I am sure the House will understand that I will not take points of order on what I have just said, which I think is clear, and I thank the House for its courtesy in listening to that announcement.
Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill (Business of the House)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill:
(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill and, accordingly, the Bill is amended in accordance with Standing Order No. 83N(6)), and
(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(19) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(21) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.—(Wendy Morton.)
Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 5th March 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019 View all Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House amendments as at Tuesday 5 March 2019 (PDF) - (5 Mar 2019)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As I have stated to the House on a number of occasions over the 14 months that I have been in this role, and as my predecessors did previously, the UK Government have a responsibility, in the absence of a functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland, to ensure good governance and to protect the interests of all parts of the community. We have a duty to safeguard public services and public finances. The Bill before the House today upholds that duty by giving certainty to Northern Ireland finances for the 2018-19 financial year and by enabling Northern Ireland Departments to continue to deliver public services into the first half of 2019-20.
Last year, the UK Government had to step in and ask Parliament to legislate for the 2018-19 budget for Northern Ireland. This was not a step that we wanted to take, but it was a necessary step to give a clear, legal basis to Northern Ireland Departments to enable them to manage resources and perform the important work that they continue to do in the absence of an Executive. I want to put on record once again my admiration for the work that the civil servants in the Northern Ireland civil service do in the absence of political leadership. The legislation that we passed, the Northern Ireland Budget Act 2018, did not set out any direction for how spending decisions should be made. Instead, it set out in law departmental spending allocations within which permanent secretaries could deliver on their respective responsibilities. That Act was passed in July. Since then, the Northern Ireland civil service has continued to assess where pressures lie across the system, and it has reallocated resources as required. As we approach the end of the financial year, those changes need to be put on to a legal footing, as is a standard part of any annual budgetary process, and that is what this Bill does.
In addition, the Bill will provide for a vote on account for the first half of next year, to give legal authority for managing day-to-day spending in the run-up to the usual main estimates process. This is a normal part of the estimates process. This year, however, following discussions with the Northern Ireland civil service on the pressures it faces in the year ahead, I am proposing in this Bill to provide a higher than normal level of vote on account of 70%.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Secretary of State will be well aware that, in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, a considerable amount of criticism has been expressed of the budget allocation to the Education Department. In particular, we have heard evidence that primary schools have had to ask for donations of toilet roll, in addition to pencils and the other things that one would usually expect. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that, following the increase in the budget to the Department of Education—many other Departments are in the same situation—we will not see a repetition of primary schools in Northern Ireland asking for donations of toilet roll?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady makes a number of important points, the first being that we have rightly increased spending for the Department of Education. This is an area in which there is a clear need for increased spending, and the permanent secretary at the Department was keen to ensure that the Government were aware of that. That is why, in the allocations for 2019-20 that were set out in the written statement last week, there is an increase in spending power for the Department of Education. The hon. Lady also makes a point about how that spending happens. The difficulty in the absence of Ministers in Stormont is that spending cannot be directed from this House. She also refers to issues within education in Northern Ireland. There is an undoubted need for reform of the system to ensure that money is spent appropriately and gets to the frontline and to the children and students who need it most, but we need Ministers to do that, which is why Stormont must be restored as soon as possible.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I am interested in what the Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I am looking at the Secretary of State’s written statement and the announcement of an extra £140 million for education, health and, as it happens, justice, but she says that it was provided
“in recognition of the lack of opportunity for more fundamental service reconfiguration over the last 12 months”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 23WS.]
This may be new money, but it will provide no new services and it comes as a result of a failure of the political process in Northern Ireland to reconfigure those services.
Karen Bradley
The additional funding for health and education is partly down to the new money that the Treasury has found—the £140 million—but it is also down to Barnett consequentials and other reasons. We have worked to ensure that the money that is needed by Departments, as requested by the permanent secretaries, is given to them, but the shadow Secretary of State is right that it is for business as usual activities. Major policy decisions cannot be taken at this stage because that needs political leadership.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to say that this is not simply a matter of uplifting the amount of funding to education or healthcare; this is also about trying to work out how best to spend that money. Will any of the £4 million in transformation funding that she identified last month be used to try to work out how the footprint of the education and healthcare estate might be better utilised?
Karen Bradley
We are keen that the Northern Ireland civil service does the necessary work to prepare for the transformation of health and education and for the urgently needed reforms but, to be clear, the actual reforms can only be made once Ministers are in place in Stormont to make the decisions and give political direction.
Returning to the vote on account, the reason why it is 70% in this Bill, rather than the normal 45%, is that that recognises the increased spending pressures facing public services and the lack of Ministers in place to take reactive and decisive steps to respond to emerging or escalating pressures. It also recognises the uncertainty of the political situation in Northern Ireland in the months ahead. In the light of that context, such a level of vote on account is reasonable and provides the practical and legal certainties to protect public services in any circumstance and up until the point that Northern Ireland budget legislation for 2019-20 is taken through to secure funding for the full year. It goes without saying that I genuinely hope that a new Executive will be in place to take their own budget legislation forward for 2019-20, but this Government stand ready to take it through if needed.
To be clear, this Bill does not represent a budget for the year ahead. It does not seek to set out in legislation the departmental allocations that I outlined in my written statement on 28 February, because the headline allocations will require legislation later in the year. However, until that point, the vote on account in this Bill and the draft Northern Ireland budgetary position for 2019-20, as set out in my written statement last week, give the necessary clarity and certainty to Northern Ireland Departments to enable them to take decisions and plan and prepare for the year ahead.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene for a second time. She has said twice in quick succession that the Bill is to allow a budget that takes into account any circumstances in Northern Ireland—that allows Departments to plan ahead. May I just mention Brexit to her? Can she actually tell us how much has been allocated in the Bill towards Brexit preparations and does that allocation take into account—heaven forbid—the possibility of a no-deal Brexit?
Karen Bradley
I repeat: the Bill is about putting on a statutory footing the spending that has already taken place. I will be happy to furnish the hon. Lady with information about money that Departments in Northern Ireland have spent on planning for Brexit, which covers all Brexit planning. The allocations in the written ministerial statement do include moneys that have been allocated from the Treasury for planning for Brexit, so that is in the written ministerial statement, but the budget today is about the money that has already been spent. I will be happy to give the hon. Lady full information about money that has been spent to date and up till the end of the month. We are putting that on a statutory footing today. The hon. Lady looks as if she is itching to intervene again.
Lady Hermon
I am extremely grateful; it really is very generous of the Secretary of State to give way again. I am reading the legislation before us, which we are asked to give our consent to. Under the allocation for the Department of Justice, it says in black and white —I have not invented this—
“expenditure on activities that are required as a result of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union”.
As that appears to be expenditure on activities that are required as a result of Brexit, I have asked the Secretary of State how much has been spent. That is a clear question; I just want a clear answer.
Karen Bradley
There may be information on certain departmental spending, but, on the total, this is a number that is owned by NICS, not by the Northern Ireland Office, and I would not want to give the hon. Lady just one bit of the jigsaw. I would like to give her the full picture, including all the money that has been spent on preparations this year. On the allocations for the future, this is to enable the vote on account to happen, but actually the departmental allocations will be properly done, through a budget next year. In the same way as we had a budget Bill last July, which put the 2018-19 spending on a statutory footing, this is the completion of that process for 2018-19. Another Bill will do that for 2019-20. However, I will of course write to the hon. Lady and ensure that she has full information about all the spending across all Departments, because as I say, that information is held by the NICS; it is not owned by the Northern Ireland Office and I want to get it absolutely correct for her.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I think it would be very useful for the House to have the information that the Secretary of State just mentioned. Given that, regrettably, we do not have a functioning Executive and Parliament in Northern Ireland, it would be useful for the House to have the information that the civil servants have given her on why there should be a budgetary increase in individual Departments—such as Justice, Education or Health—so that we have some way of understanding in this House what the budgetary pressures are and what influences are leading to the decisions that the Secretary of State is making. I think that would be very helpful to us all.
Karen Bradley
The written ministerial statement sets out the departmental allocations. Those are the moneys that the permanent secretaries have asked me to deliver to them. I cannot direct the spending within those Departments. I also cannot ask them exactly which work streams or programmes they will spend the money on, because in this House we do not have the Executive power to do that. However, I am making it possible for the spending that has already happened to have the statutory footing that it needs, and I am making possible the vote on account for next year, as agreed with the permanent secretaries of each Department.
It is not a satisfactory process. I do not deny that this is not the ideal way to do it. The ideal way to do this would be to have Ministers in Stormont who are able to direct departmental spending and to have a budget process that is done in the same way as the overall budget is done for the United Kingdom in the Treasury; but we are not in a situation where that can happen, so unfortunately, this is where we are.
Karen Bradley
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again, and then I will make progress.
Vernon Coaker
I am not trying to criticise. I am not complaining or saying that the Secretary of State is wrong. All I am saying is that, for example, her statement states that £16.5 million goes to the police for EU exit preparations. So, somewhere along the line, the police have decided that they would like those additional moneys to help. All I am saying, as somebody who takes a keen interest in Northern Ireland, is that with that, or with the schools, or with health, it would be helpful, as far as possible, to have some idea about the reasons that that money has been requested—not to criticise it, but just to understand it better.
Karen Bradley
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. He has significant experience in Northern Ireland and will know a great deal about it. The police put in a specific bid for additional resources for Brexit preparations. It went through the proper processes in the Treasury and this has been paid. I recognise his frustration about wanting more information here for parliamentarians, and I have supplied the information I am able to supply in my capacity as Secretary of State. Clearly, we are not looking at the future spending and, when we do the budget for 2019-20—I hope we will not have to, as I hope it will be done by Ministers in Stormont—I will bear in mind the points he has raised.
Emma Little Pengelly
At which point will the Secretary of State accept that this is an entirely unsustainable position? As has been outlined, there is no scrutiny in this process. I do not believe that such a process would take place anywhere in a democracy in the western world. This process is taking place completely behind closed doors in terms of what bids are being put forward and what bids are being accepted. The people of Northern Ireland are in a difficult position; they are between two positions. The first is that Sinn Féin is boycotting the Northern Ireland Assembly, so we do not have the right mechanisms in place to scrutinise and make decisions. The second is that the Secretary of State and this Government are refusing to put in place direct rule, which, although not desirable, is necessary. We have now had several years of this type of process where there is no scrutiny and no democratic accountability. When is that going to change?
Karen Bradley
Of course, there is full scrutiny of the Northern Ireland block grant—that is the estimates process that we went through last week in this House; this House is able to scrutinise the block grant. I well accept the point the hon. Lady makes about the undesirable level of scrutiny and about how the allocations are made between Departments. I do not disagree with her on that. It would be much better to have the full scrutiny process that a devolved Executive would be able to deliver. We are in a very unsatisfactory position. I would rather we were not doing this in this way, but to ensure that public services continue to be delivered and that public servants—the civil servants in Northern Ireland—have the statutory underpinning they need for the spending, we are taking forward this budget Bill. I would really rather we were not.
Karen Bradley
I will take one final intervention and then I will make some progress.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State is right about the difficulty we are in because Stormont is not sitting, but that does not obviate the need for the process that this House should be engaged in. There is no need for this Bill be done through emergency procedures—there is no need for it to be fast-tracked. The explanatory memorandum says that the Bill is being fast-tracked because there was a hope that the Executive would have been restored to make the provisions. When in the past two months was there any genuine prospect of the Assembly being restored to go through this process? Our Committee stage is to be constrained this afternoon—we might get an hour or we might get 45 minutes on the Floor of this House. That is not satisfactory; we have the tools and the mechanisms in Parliament for full Bill Committee consideration of the estimates and future allocations. There was also the opportunity for the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs to get into these discussions. The Departments are very good at appearing before the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). We should have used those processes, rather than this constrained, fast-track process today.
Karen Bradley
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but we have to be aware of the constitutional precedents that are set by changing the way we scrutinise these Bills. The way this Bill should be taken through is not as primary legislation; it should be an estimates process done in Stormont, in the same way as we vote on our Budget in this House. We do not have scrutiny of the Budget resolutions upstairs; we have a Finance Bill that puts them into legislation, but we vote on Ways and Means resolutions on the Floor of the House. Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to do that in Stormont, for well documented reasons. What I want is to see those politicians in Northern Ireland doing the right thing, coming back to Stormont and forming the Executive, so that all those proper processes can be applied. We should not kid ourselves that some substitute arrangement will offer a different approach; we have to see devolved government restored in Stormont.
Karen Bradley
I know the right hon. Gentleman wants to come in, but I want to make some progress, because I am conscious that others want to speak and we want to make sure everyone has a chance to be heard.
Let me go back to the work we are doing today. Like last year, the draft budget sets headline allocations only. It will remain for Northern Ireland permanent secretaries to use the powers of this budget legislation and the draft budget position to take decisions to maintain public services and live within their means. Also like last year, the Bill does not propose any new moneys to be voted on for Northern Ireland. The totals to which it relates are either raised locally or have been subject to previous votes in Parliament, most recently in respect of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill, which has passed through this House and is now in the other House. Instead, the Bill looks back to confirm spending totals for 2018-19, to ensure that the Northern Ireland civil service has a secure legal basis for its spending in the past year. Taken as a whole, it represents the minimum necessary intervention to secure public finances at this juncture.
Let me turn briefly to the Bill’s contents, which largely rehearse what I set out to the House in spring last year when I introduced the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2018. In short, the Bill authorises Northern Ireland Departments and certain other bodies to incur expenditure and use resources for the financial year ending on 31 March 2019—this month.
Clause 1 authorises the issue of £16.8 billion out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. The allocation levels for each Northern Ireland Department and the other bodies in receipt of the funds are set out in schedule 1, which also states the purposes for which the funds are to be used.
Clause 2 authorises the use of resources amounting to some £20 billion in the year ending 31 March 2019 by the Northern Ireland Departments and other bodies listed in subsection (3).
Clause 3 sets revised limits on the accruing resources, including both operating and non-operating accruing resources in the current financial year. All are largely as they appeared in the Northern Ireland Budget Act 2018. The revised totals for Departments appear in schedules 1 and 2.
Clause 4 sets out the power for the Northern Ireland civil service to issue out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund some £11.8 billion in cash for the forthcoming financial year. That is the vote-on-account provision that I have already outlined. It is linked to clause 6, which does the same in terms of resources. The value is set at around 70% of the sums available in both regards in the previous financial year. Schedules 3 and 4 operate on the same basis, with each departmental allocation simply set at 70% of the previous year, and clause 5 permits some temporary borrowing powers for cash-management purposes.
As I have already noted, all these sums relate to those that have already been voted for by Parliament, together with revenue generated locally in Northern Ireland. There is no new money in the Bill; there is simply the explicit authority to spend in full the moneys that have already been allocated.
Lady Hermon
May I record my serious disappointment that in the allocations we are going to approve today there appears to be absolutely no money at all set aside for the victims of historical institutional abuse? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, David Sterling, indicated that the Government would have a moral obligation, after the consultation on the Hart recommendations had ended, to bring the legislation through this House if the Assembly was not sitting? Will the Secretary of State honour that moral obligation to the victims of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady has raised this issue on several occasions and I know how strongly she feels about it. I have met survivors of historical institutional abuse and what they went through is shocking. As she will know, the consultation the Northern Ireland civil service started is still open. Once that consultation has been completed and the recommendations from it are clear, we will consider them in the normal way. To reassure her, the vote on account that we are talking about is merely on 70% of the previous year’s spending. We are not doing anything in this Bill other than giving the Departments in Northern Ireland the ability to continue to spend money up to the level of 70% of the spending in the previous year. We are not directing them on how they spend that money.
Sammy Wilson
May I take the Secretary of State back to where she started, before she began going through the departmental allocations and the detail of the Bill? The whole point—it has been made time and again by Democratic Unionist party Members—is that there is no scrutiny of how the departmental allocations were reached. She is right that that scrutiny would normally be done through Stormont, but Stormont is not operating. A mechanism is available here, but there seems to be reluctance to use it because of the possible reaction from Sinn Féin. Not only is Sinn Féin stopping scrutiny in Stormont; the fear of how it will react is stopping scrutiny here. When will the Secretary of State realise that Sinn Féin cannot block the scrutiny of how money is spent in Northern Ireland by keeping the doors of Stormont shut and causing fear here about how it may react when we try to do the job in this place?
Karen Bradley
I know how strongly the right hon. Gentleman feels about that point, which he has raised on several occasions. He will know that we consulted on the process with all five main parties in Northern Ireland, with the Opposition and with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to allow some prior scrutiny of the figures. All parties had full sight of the figures that we published in last week’s written ministerial statement. He is absolutely right that normal scrutiny procedures are not in place—they will be in place only with the restoration of devolution—but I caution him against trying to create artificial scrutiny processes that might well set a precedent for the future across all the devolved nations. The right scrutiny processes are available to respect the constitutional arrangements across the whole United Kingdom and all the devolved Administrations.
Civil servants are taking decisions—not major policy decisions, but the decisions that the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 enables them to make and that we want them to be able to make. We have to be very careful about the civil service’s separation and independence from scrutiny by political masters. It is the political decisions that need scrutiny, not the decisions of civil servants. We would like to see Departments given full scrutiny in Stormont, as happens in this House, but we have to be very careful about the constitutional arrangements.
That brings me back to my point that the Bill would ordinarily have been taken through the Assembly. Clause 7 therefore includes a series of adaptations that ensure that, once approved by both Houses in Westminster, the Bill will be treated as though it were an Assembly budget Act. That will enable Northern Ireland public finances to continue to function, notwithstanding the absence of an Executive.
Alongside the Bill, I have laid before the House, as a Command Paper, a set of supplementary estimates for the Departments and bodies covered by the budget Bill. Those estimates, which have been prepared by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance, set out the breakdown of resource allocation in greater detail.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
When I was over in Northern Ireland recently, I realised to my horror that childcare is not widely available there, as it is in GB. People told me that some money had previously been allocated for childcare, but it seems that all the money for education, early years and childcare in the Bill is being allocated towards equal pay claims rather than provision to help women go to work, so this is a cracking day for women in Northern Ireland. To go back to the scrutiny conversation, the details seem to be very cloudy about where the previous money has gone and why there is no childcare in Northern Ireland. Could the Secretary of State answer that point?
Karen Bradley
This is a very technical Bill to put on a statutory footing the moneys that we have already voted through the House or that have been raised locally. The departmental allocations that the hon. Lady questions are in line with the advice that I have received from permanent secretaries about the moneys that they need. How they spend that money is for them to determine, based on previous decisions of the Executive and on the previous draft programme for government. That leads to perverse outcomes: things not being as we would like them to be in Northern Ireland, differences in Northern Ireland and the end of programmes that we might otherwise have wanted to continue. Without a Minister to direct them, those programmes finish. The answer is devolved government in Stormont. That is the way in which there will be proper scrutiny and proper political accountability, and there is no alternative.
Emma Little Pengelly
In Northern Ireland, we have a childcare strategy called Bright Start, and a significant amount of money was allocated to each of its themes and actions. I concur with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that we do not have the 30 hours’ free childcare; the Department of Education in Northern Ireland was supposed to work on that. This illustrates two issues. First, we do not know what further allocations are being made under the childcare strategy. There has been no information on that thus far, and nor has there been any information about whether those allocations were bid for. Secondly, there cannot be a decision about 30 hours’ free childcare, despite all the work in the Department, because there is no Minister to take that decision. Sinn Féin are boycotting the Northern Ireland Assembly, so we cannot make the decision there. Will the Secretary of State please step up and start making those kinds of decision for Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley
As I have said, there is no good alternative for the people of Northern Ireland other than the politicians that they have elected making the decisions on their behalf in Northern Ireland, fully scrutinised and fully accountable to the people who elected them. There is no alternative, and that is why we want to see politicians back in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I can hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) making noises from a sedentary position.
Karen Bradley
I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is capable of moaning.
Karen Bradley
As hon. right and hon. Members will note, this is a different process from that which we might ordinarily see for estimates at Westminster, whereby the estimates document precedes the formal Budget legislation and is separately approved. That would also be the case at the Assembly. If it is Westminster that is passing the main Northern Ireland budget Bill later in the year, that Bill would contain modifications to the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 to reflect the departure from the usual process.
As I hope hon. right and hon. Members will agree, this is very much a technical step that we are taking as we approach the end of the financial year. It provides a secure legal footing for the Northern Ireland civil service and demonstrates that this Government will uphold our responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland.
As I conclude, I will set out once again a point that I have made several times before to this House. The UK Government are steadfastly committed to the Belfast agreement. Legislating on Northern Ireland budgetary matters at Westminster is not a step I want to take; nor is it one I want to take again. I am determined to restore the political institutions set out in the 1998 agreement and its successors at the earliest possible opportunity.
The people of Northern Ireland have now been without a power-sharing devolved Government for over two years. They need their representatives back in Stormont, taking decisions on the issues that matter to them. I know that an agreement to restore the Executive is achievable. I met the party leaders of the five main parties on 15 February at Stormont House, and I spoke to them again last week to discuss a further period of intensive talks to restore the Executive. In those discussions, all parties bar one—which was not able to meet me, rather than anything else—reaffirmed their commitment to a restored Executive and said that they wanted to continue to work towards that aim. I am absolutely determined to bring this about, and that is my focus and priority. I will do everything I can to support parties in coming together to find an agreement that can restore the power-sharing devolved government that is so needed. In its absence, this Bill is a reminder that the UK Government will always uphold their responsibilities for political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland, and I commend it to the House.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
May I begin by offering a small prediction that, sadly, there will be very little coverage of this debate in the Northern Ireland media or beyond? That is a tragedy, especially when I compare it to a debate that might take place in a large local authority—in my city region, for example. There would be massively more local media interest in such a debate for a particular reason: there is engagement with the political process. At the moment, people are becoming disillusioned with the political process in Northern Ireland, and that is beyond a matter of regret; it is a matter of danger for us all, and we should recognise that.
As the Secretary of State said, there has been no functioning Stormont for over two years, as the Stormont Executive and Assembly collapsed on 9 January 2017. The Secretary of State has a unique role, in that at no point other than when the present Lord Murphy introduced a budget to establish the Assembly has a Secretary of State delivered a budget. This Secretary of State has now delivered two.
This is set against a background of a seeming lack of action on re-establishing the Stormont Executive and Assembly. I know that the political parties in Stormont will argue about who is responsible. However, the reality is that during the more than two years that have gone by, the level of activity has been low. The Secretary of State has met the political parties, but not regularly. A little over a year ago, when the Prime Minister went over to be part of this along with the Taoiseach, people thought and hoped, rightly, that there would be a resolution to the situation. The Prime Minister has not been engaged consistently since then. I am bound to compare that with John Major when he was Prime Minister before the Good Friday agreement was signed, with Tony Blair during the years when he was Prime Minister, and with David Cameron when he was Prime Minister. I have to say to the Secretary of State that we must see more concerted action. We have to see some ambition for real change.
I know that this will not please everybody in the Chamber, but let me quote Michelle O’Neill, the leader of Sinn Féin at Stormont, who said, when talking about a serious and meaningful talks process that removes obstacles to proper power sharing and delivers a successful outcome in restoring the Assembly, that
“we have yet to see Karen Bradley prioritise such a process”.
The Secretary of State may be cynical about Michelle O’Neill. I know that other hon. Members in the Chamber certainly will be. However, the same message is coming through to me from all the political parties that this Government have not been properly engaged in re-establishing the Stormont Assembly.
The Secretary of State has said to me:
“This Government will continue to observe all our commitments under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 906.]
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman quoted the leader of Sinn Féin’s explanation of situations that had to come about in advance of the talks process. Does he agree that that sounded remarkably like a precondition to talks as well as a precondition to going into Stormont?
Tony Lloyd
When John Major was engaged in the talks process leading up to the Good Friday agreement, and Tony Blair even more intensely so, there were many preconditions on the table—of course there were. That is the nature of a talks process. Anybody who has ever engaged in meaningful negotiations knows that people do not walk in with no agenda, but the talks process has to get them together and iron out the differences. It has, in the end, to say what is held more in common and what is more important.
I will go through some of the things that, in the end, are more important when we look at what is not taking place in Northern Ireland now—some of the things that hon. Members have already raised. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) mentioned the Hart inquiry. The Secretary of State has heard the demands in this Chamber, on a regular basis, that she take action. We have to look at the people across Northern Ireland. The politicians from all sides say that they want to get back to Stormont. Yes, we have to test the competence and the willingness of politicians really to negotiate, but the trade unions, the business community and civil society are also saying, “Let’s get Stormont back working.” That is so important, because without it the decisions are not being made that can make a material difference.
The business community and the trade unions have recently said to me that they cannot get decisions made on infrastructure investment. I know that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will agree that the Derry and Strabane city deal is fundamental, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) will talk later about the pressing importance of a decision on the medical school there. Decisions are required on the upgrading of the A5 and the A6 and on higher and further education. This might sound like a trivial issue, but decisions are required on sewers in Belfast. The sewerage system in Belfast requires £800 million. People may wonder why that matters, but from 2021, no new facility will be connectable to that water and sewerage system. We want to see the Belfast city deal bring in new offices, industries and hotels, but that will not be viable if the sewerage system is not capable of taking them on board. That is not a joke; it is very serious.
Gavin Robinson
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I want to give another example, which is the Belfast power plant. When the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill went through the House, we indicated the need to get planning consent for that, so that it could form part of our capacity auctions and the Utility Regulator could factor it into our future energy requirements. Without it, we will not be able to keep the lights on. Four months on from that Act being passed, we still do not have a decision, and we need decisions where they can be taken.
Tony Lloyd
The hon. Gentleman is right. Electricity is fundamental to our way of life. It is not a bolt-on extra, and it is not just a question of keeping the lights on; it is a question of keeping hospitals working and the world of work functioning. That is fundamental.
I want to touch on one area of progress. I am delighted to see that £55 million has been put into the budget for the legacy coronial process, which is a really important step forward. That is a decision by the Department of Justice, within the framework of this budget. However, there will be a consequence of that coronial process. If it is successful, which we all hope it will be, it will put pressure on the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the police ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service. Those bodies will all need a resource base that allows them to complete the work of the coronial process. Otherwise, we will be giving an illusion to the families of victims of crime.
In that context, I also want to mention pensions for the victims of violence. There are issues to be resolved, but nobody in the Chamber would disagree that those pensions are necessary. All these things are urgent, because we have an ageing population, whether it is Hart victims or victims of the violence during the troubles. They will die without resolution of these issues unless action is taken.
I am bound to compare this issue to what we will discuss tomorrow, which is the contentious issue of tariffs under the renewable heat incentive. That is urgent, and the Government are acting—even though it is outwith the norms of Government power, according to the Secretary of State’s definition—because it is about money. The issues relating to the Hart victims and victims of terrorism are human issues, and they are just as urgent. If we can act on one such issue, we should think seriously about acting on others.
Sir Mike Penning
I have listened carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State has said, and he has made some very reasonable points. I would like to ask him two questions. First, it seems that there is little movement, and we can blame a lot of different people, but at the end of the day it takes two to tango and Sinn Féin needs to come forward and be part of the process. If there is no movement, does he think that direct rule is the answer, two years on? Secondly, he talked about victims. Has he forgotten the victims who were our soldiers, our people and our policemen on the streets of Northern Ireland, who are now being dragged before the courts? Does he not think that they need a mention?
Tony Lloyd
On the first question, it is very reasonable to ask what happens next. We simply cannot allow this vacuum to continue—decisions are not being made. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that, from my perspective at the moment, I still think we have to say that the hope is for a restoration of the Stormont structures, because if we give up on that, we are giving up on at least the principle of what the Good Friday agreement delivered.
Democracy matters. The right hon. Gentleman would not accept the situation—I say this to him seriously—if I said that we were going to abrogate his local council’s need to function. This is not about getting two to tango, but probably about getting at least five parties in Stormont to tango, plus the Government here in London and, actually, the Government in Dublin. We have to see a much more concerted effort to get people around the table to try to break the logjam. If we start raising the spectre of direct rule at this point, we are saying that we are giving up on power sharing.
Sir Mike Penning
I do not quite understand the point the shadow Secretary of State is making. If a council is failing to deliver the services we would expect from it, the Government step in and deliver them, as we have seen in Northamptonshire. We have a situation in the Province where there is no governance. We cannot question what civil servants are doing, quite rightly, because they are civil servants. However, they are running the show, which is not a democracy. I ask again: if not today or next week, when, for Labour, does direct rule come in?
Tony Lloyd
I simply repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not want to see direct rule—I genuinely do not—and there are massive issues with it. Some of my hon. Friends served as Ministers during the period of direct rule, and it is a very difficult and undesirable thing. I will say this, and it may give him a small hint: the Labour Government did bring in direct rule, so none of us can say that it will never happen. We are not there yet, but we are in a position where we have to see greater activity from the Secretary of State and—yes, of course—from the leaders of the political parties. I will return to that theme in a little while, because I want to make another point in that context, but I am definitely not giving up yet on Stormont being brought back into operation.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me a totally separate question. By the way, let me make it clear to him that there were soldiers who were victims themselves, members of the then Royal Ulster Constabulary were victims. Many of them take the view that the justice process has to continue because they want justice or, very often, the families of soldiers and serving police officers want to know what happened to their loved ones. I think that is still a legitimate case to make, and it is one I will continue to make. We will no doubt debate this on other occasions.
Dr Murrison
As always, I am following all the hon. Gentleman has to say with a great deal of interest. He has mentioned victims, and he is right to do so. Will he say whether he would include within his definition of a victim those who are victims by virtue of actions by their own hand?
Tony Lloyd
I am afraid—to give the hon. Gentleman the answer he does not want to hear—that, yes, I think so. We have to cut through this very difficult situation, and we cannot delay payments to victims. It is controversial, and I am very well aware of that, but if we are going to delay payments to victims across the piece to get the perfect, then we may be waiting forever, and that would be at the expense of the ageing population of people who are now dependent on seeing some real progress.
Dr Murrison
I do appreciate that this is a sensitive point. In saying that, however, does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is condoning criminality, because that is what compensating criminals would be? It is an extraordinary thing—indeed, I would say, an unprecedented thing in this country—that the state should seek to compensate those who damage themselves by their own hand while engaged in terroristic activities.
Tony Lloyd
I do understand the difficulties. Let me simply say that this is probably not the right time to pursue this debate, although I am more than content that we ought to pursue it, because bringing to a conclusion the question of victims’ payments is clearly right and just, and it is important that it is done in this era, not simply deferred forever. However, it is probably not for today. I hope I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question as directly as I could—I think it was a clear answer —and we will continue the conversation.
Sir Mike Penning
It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not want to talk about this issue, but it is vital, when we are talking about money that will go to schemes to develop the whole argument about victims, that we address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). We have plenty of time to do it now. How can it be right that someone who has attempted to kill a civilian, a member of the police force or soldiers on active duty gets compensation from the victims fund? I used to administer the victims fund when I was at the Ministry of Justice, and it is not perfect, but, for sure, one thing that I would not allow was that.
Tony Lloyd
It is rather interesting that the right hon. Gentleman says that I do not want to discuss the issue. I did. I answered the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) very directly. I do not know what the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) wants me to say beyond what I have said. If he wants to check the record, he should please do so. I am happy to continue the debate. If any Member wants to apply for an Adjournment debate, I will certainly turn up. They can ask the Secretary of State the same difficult question. It is a difficult question, but what we cannot do is freeze the process for victims, who, as I and the right hon. Gentleman agree, are absolutely worthy of compensation. We have to get on with it; that is the issue today. We need progress on all these issues, the difficult ones as well, then let us debate the finer points.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
There needs to be a comprehensive settlement, but are we not coming up against the same problem that was discussed earlier? The question of transparency in the Bill and the limits that the Secretary of State sets for disclosure of all items confine us equally when we talk about any one element of the Bill. We need to look at it globally—at all of it. We need some way to get through the lack of transparency to find out where the expenditure is going, how it is being asked for, and what is being sought.
Tony Lloyd
My hon. Friend makes a similar point about the lack of transparency to that which has already been made by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). They are right to make that point.
Any local authority would have a far more dignified debate than the one we are having today about the length of time involved and the capacity to scrutinise. The Secretary of State says that we would create a new precedent were we to change these things, but we are in very different circumstances because we do not have direct rule and we do not have a functioning Stormont structure. We are already in unprecedented terrain, and we have to find ways to make sure that transparency and scrutiny are done far better.
There are specific questions I want to come on to, but it is probably worth making the point that a lot of people in Northern Ireland are already concerned about the lack of engagement with the budgetary process. I know that they are not represented in this House, but I want to quote the Ulster Unionist party’s finance spokesman, Steve Aiken, who said:
“It’s a disgrace…that the NIO handled the engagement on next year’s budget so appallingly. The Secretary of State said in her budget statement that she has discussed the budget situation with the political parties—she has not. Tokenistic efforts do not constitute actual engagement.
Over the last ten days there have been three NIO budget meetings. The first ended in farce as the political parties were asked to consider options without being told what those options were, the second ended with only minimal information provided, and the third—just two hours before her statement was published—lasted minutes with again only bare information provided.”
That is not good enough to reassure the wider public or even people in this House that the process is transparent and accountable or has any processes for scrutiny. They simply are not there.
I have some specific questions and I hope that the Minister of State will pick up on them in his response. The Secretary of State said that this was retrospective, and of course not all of it is, because it sets out the budgetary headings for the coming year. It is important to recognise that. There is a real question. If Stormont were to begin to operate again at the beginning of April, would this budgetary process be transferable and amendable by an elected Stormont? Would it be able to change the budgetary headings?
Karen Bradley
That is absolutely the case. The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right. The Bill puts on a statutory footing the spending that has already happened and that which will happen in the next three weeks up to the end of March. It also allows for a vote on account of 70% of the previous financial year’s spending in the following year’s spending, but nothing about this budget puts on a statutory footing any of the departmental allocations as set out in the written statement. That has to be done in a separate piece of legislation, which we hope will be done at Stormont. It could be amended and changed at Stormont, as seen fit by Ministers in Stormont.
Tony Lloyd
I very much welcome that reassurance. Will the Secretary of State also consider this point? The frame of reference in previous budgets is that 45% of the spend has been moved forward. That would take us up to September, roughly. This year, unusually, the Secretary of State has put in 70% of next year’s spend. That speaks to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast East, who made the legitimate point that there is no emergency. The original ambition was to put this through using emergency powers, but there is no emergency whatsoever. This could have been done at any other time, whether in March, April or May—well, the retrospective part cannot, but the part for next year could be.
Karen Bradley
It is probably helpful if I clarify that point. We have to put on a statutory footing, by the end of March, the spending for the financial year 2018-19—the year we are in. That is what we are doing. The vote on account of 70%, rather than the 45% we did last year, is because of the recognition of the pressures on the Departments in Northern Ireland as a result of having no Ministers, and because we have additional moneys coming through. If an infrastructure decision is taken, money will need to be spent. What I did not want to do was constrain Departments to be legally able to have only up to 45% of the previous year’s spending. The 70% reflects the fact that, because there are no Ministers and because of the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland the fact that there may well be decisions on infrastructure and on other issues that may require accelerated spending in a Department, I wanted to provide flexibility so we do not have to come back sooner and bring forward the legislation required to put that on a statutory footing for the next year. We will of course have to do that at some point; what we hope is that it will actually be done in Stormont.
Tony Lloyd
I think the Secretary of State is confirming that this is not an emergency and that the procedures to allow everything to be forced through so quickly are not absolutely necessary. The different parts of the Bill—the retrospective definition of what was legal spend and the anticipatory spend for next year—could have been separated. The second most certainly could have been done more slowly. There could have been capacity for much greater and lengthier scrutiny of those processes. That is important. The suspicion about the 70% is that it anticipates that there will not be an Executive or an Assembly back in operation. It allows the situation to ride over and ride over. The concern is that there is no ambition to see the restoration of Stormont.
Karen Bradley
I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Gentleman again—he is being very generous with his time—but I just want to be absolutely clear on the record: this has nothing to do with a timetable around the restoration of devolution. It is recognising that last year we were under pressure to introduce, before the summer recess, the Northern Ireland Budget Bill for 2018-19. We did that in July—I think in the last week of July—to put it on a statutory footing, because there was a risk that if we had not done so, some Departments would have run out of the ability to spend money over the summer recess. There would have been no legal basis for spending on schools, hospitals and so on. The reason for the 70% is that, in the absence of Ministers and with additional spending pressures on Departments, I do not want us to be in a position where we are urgently having to take that legislation through here again. I would much rather we gave civil servants the comfort they need. I accept that it is unusual, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is nothing to do with the timetable around devolution.
Tony Lloyd
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that assurance.
On a different issue, the Secretary of State’s colleague, the Communities Secretary, made it clear that the stronger towns initiative would extend to Northern Ireland, and hon. Members from across the Chamber will welcome that. However, given that it is a UK Government initiative, it is not clear how the decision-making capacity will be implemented. It is important that people can make decisions. It would be farcical if money were gifted to Northern Ireland—I do not know whether it would be Barnettised—but were not spendable because nobody can made a decision. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is considering that proposition.
Some have claimed that the £140 million is new funding that has resulted from the political pressure that Northern Ireland parties have put on central Government, but it is important that I repeat what the Secretary of State has already confirmed. Although it is new funding, and is welcome for that reason, it is actually a result of the lack of opportunity for more fundamental service reconfiguration, as she said. In other words, it is money for failure. The problem with that—the House must look at this very closely—is that my constituents, the Secretary of State’s constituents and the constituents of all Northern Ireland Members are paying for it. That is unacceptable. It is a tariff resulting from the failure of the political process. Once again, we come back to the recognition that, because there is no Stormont Assembly, we are all paying the cost in worse services, financially, and in the erosion of democratic values.
We do not intend to divide the House on budgetary items. It would not be appropriate do so because they give permission to spend or are the legal ratification of spending processes. However, this shakes us all to say that there must now be real effort put in to restoring Stormont. I have never doubted the Secretary of State’s sincerity in wanting to see Stormont restored, but I doubt the Government’s capacity. That is the real issue that divides us. I repeat what I have said previously: if the Prime Minister is so preoccupied with Brexit that she has no time to look at devolution to Northern Ireland, that is a fundamental political mistake that we will rue in time to come. We need ambition. Those talks must take place, and the Government in Dublin must be involved.
Some time ago, when I arranged the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference with the Secretary of State, she said:
“I remind him that that body has met twice in the past 12 months.” —[Official Report, 13 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 906.]
That is true, and those occasions were the first in 145 months. That is not acceptable.
Karen Bradley
It is worth putting on the record the fact that the last time the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference had met was in 2007. Clearly, although the institutions were running and Stormont was fully running with full power sharing, the appropriate east-west conversations could happen through other bodies. It is clear that that has happened, but it is a consequence of Stormont’s not operating and there needing to be a forum for east-west communication.
Tony Lloyd
As the Secretary of State knows, I have asked for the BIIGC to be convened regularly. Back in the day, it sometimes met three or four times a year, particularly in the days of direct rule, when there was an ambition to get us back to a functioning Stormont. I have asked her in the past when it will meet again. Those meetings need to be timetabled and put on a regular basis so that we know it will meet and continue to be an active partner with the British Government in achieving the ambition of a restored Stormont.
I am aware that I have spoken for some time—I have given way a lot—and although we have the time, as the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead reminded me, it is probably time I devoted it to other people.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s hard work over the past several months in trying to resolve the impasse at Stormont. She has worked tirelessly. If I may be ever so slightly critical of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), I think he is being a little harsh—uncharacteristically —about the efforts of the Government to restart this process and about the Prime Minister’s efforts. I do not particularly appreciate shuttle diplomacy of the sort we have seen in the past—there are other more effective ways of achieving the same end—but he has to accept the extraordinary difficulty that currently pertains in Northern Ireland and the intransigence of some of the actors therein.
Like the Secretary of State, I hope that we restore the Executive in the near future—more in hope than expectation—and I understand why she is behaving as she is in trying to keep the ship on an even keel while trying not to interfere in matters that are properly devolved. It is a dilemma she faces on a daily basis. She well knows that the longer this goes on, the more the people of Northern Ireland suffer and the more their lived experience deteriorates. In that context, I congratulate once again the Northern Ireland civil service and David Sterling. It is important to do that. This is unprecedented, and Northern Ireland should be very proud of its civil service. I also thank and commend the work of the Northern Ireland Office under the strong leadership of Sir Jonathan Stephens. It is often forgotten in this mix, but it has done an excellent job in trying to keep things going.
Clearly, I welcome the Bill, which is largely of a technical nature, but I share the concerns expressed about scrutiny. I am not entirely clear that this measure should be dealt with as an urgent matter, as referred to in paragraph 27 of the guidance notes. It could have been far more elective than that. Scrutiny is important. I accept that the Secretary of State is avoiding at all costs making decisions on important matters relating to Northern Ireland that are properly devolved, but this place has to assume some responsibility for scrutiny of these important matters, and I am not sure we are doing justice to that process.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend says the Bill is of a technical nature, and I agree in some respects, but ultimately it authorises the spending of billions of pounds in Northern Ireland. Can it really be called merely technical when it is so substantive in nature? On scrutiny, despite all the money going to Northern Ireland, there has been very little progress in getting it directed in a way that meets the needs of people in Northern Ireland since the priorities were first set. If we are to be in this situation again in 12 months, we will need to reflect on how we can do this better.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are in uncharted waters. It is difficult to hold to account Ministers who are not making decisions. It is not clear where accountability lies in this process. I hesitate to say we are making it up as we go along—clearly that would be unfair—but it is difficult to know precisely whom to hold to account, which is the job of this place.
Of course we have organisations such as the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which does its best to ensure that public funds are being disbursed in a reasonable manner, and there are other mechanisms for Members to attempt to shed light on the position and hold the Executive to account. Ultimately that process may end up in the courts through judicial review, but the Secretary of State is very keen for that not to happen, hence the guidance that she issued recently. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) that the whole thing is unsatisfactory. I suspect that if the Secretary of State were answering his point, she would say that the solution is very straightforward, and it is the restoration of the Executive.
I must say that I worry about the state of Northern Ireland and where it is going, given the lack of Ministers. The public are often rather cynical about us politicians, but I think this process has shown that Ministers have utility in improving people’s lives. David Sterling himself has referred to “slow decay and stagnation” in Northern Ireland. Those are strong words, and I take them very seriously: I think he is absolutely right. Very few of us who have anything to do with Northern Ireland will not be impressed by the sense there that people are being let down by their political class, and that is an indictment of us all. I will not pin the blame on any one party or set of politicians, but it is incumbent on us all to ensure that proper governance is restored to Northern Ireland at the earliest available opportunity.
I accept the arguments for the uplift in the vote on account for the financial year 2019-20, because that strikes me as a pragmatic way ahead, but it is quite unusual. Of course I accept everything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to say—she is a person of great honour and integrity—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire pointed out, surely the job of this place is ultimately to scrutinise, and this 70% uplift is somewhat unusual. I therefore particularly regret the lack of opportunity that we are having—and, if I may say so, my Select Committee is having—to delve into why the uplift is needed. It may be expedient, but expediency is not necessarily sufficient.
I also accept that the Bill does not imply any particular decisions, political or otherwise, except, of course the so-called flagship projects to which the Secretary of State referred in her written ministerial statement on 28 February, which include the A6, the York street interchange and the mother and children’s hospital. Those projects are unobjectionable and I believe that everyone in Northern Ireland wants to see them, so I think that the Secretary of State is on very safe ground. Nevertheless, they are big infrastructure projects, which, in the normal course of things, would be subject to intense scrutiny one way or the other. That scrutiny clearly cannot come from Stormont, as Stormont is not working, but it falls to someone, and it really falls to us, because we are the default position. I am not clear in my mind that those big projects, and the planned expenditure on them, are being given the scrutiny that they deserve.
At the risk of being accused of being a pedant, I should like the Minister, when he sums up the debate, to clarify what the £4 million allocated to transformation is being spent on. I alluded to that earlier in a brief intervention. “Transformation” is very politically loaded, because it implies that something is being transformed into something else. It is important to know what is in the minds of those who are doing the transforming. I know that £4 million is not a great deal of money, but it would be useful to know what it is being spent on, because it implies a particular direction in terms of the outcomes that are being sought. I understand from what has been said previously that it is intended to make public services more sustainable. “Sustainable” is one of those words that sound innocuous, but it does imply change, and when change impacts on public services, it becomes politically contentious and, again, politically loaded. We therefore need to be told in a reasonable amount of detail how that relatively small sum is being disbursed.
I welcome the real-terms increase for health and education. My Select Committee has taken the view that it should get involved in both those areas. They are both areas that in the normal way of things we would be firmly told to set aside since they are devolved matters, but nobody else is looking at these particularly important areas of public policy at the moment and we have taken that as licence to exert some level of scrutiny. It has been very clear to us that not only is transformation needed in both areas, but that we need to look at making root-and-branch changes particularly in relation to footprint, to ensure that public money is spent properly and outcomes are improved.
In healthcare in particular, outcomes in Northern Ireland are really not good at all. The people of Northern Ireland deserve much better. We have heard in our Committee about issues to do with education, and I think we will be drawn to conclude that the footprint is part of the problem. All these things in all our constituencies up and down the country would ordinarily be matters of acute political interest in which politicians would be heavily involved, and there would be public meetings and all manner of things. The hon. Member for Rochdale who speaks for the Opposition was absolutely right to draw that comparison in his opening remarks, because were this to happen in my constituency I know I would be attending public meetings and doing all sorts of things that simply do not happen in Northern Ireland because of the absence of normal politics there at the moment. What is important however is that, wherever we can, we make sure we have some level of scrutiny, and that is why in its small way my Select Committee has taken upon itself investigations into health and education, and will be reporting very shortly.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State, or the Minister who replies, can update the House on what the £130 million transferred from capital for the next financial year to deal with public service resource pressures is being spent on. It has been referred to already and is a substantial sum of money. We really do need some level of granularity to ensure that money is best spent on areas where it will have the biggest impact. It is of concern, obviously, when money is transferred from capital to revenue, because it implies that there will be a backlog in due course of capital spend not being done at the moment that will have to be made good in the fullness of time.
Will the Minister say why the Executive Office vote is being uplifted by 4.4%? On the face of it that seems remarkable, and, knowing how eager the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is to scrutinise these areas, she might have it in mind to press Ministers further on this when she speaks. It is remarkable that when we do not have an Executive in place, the Executive Office should be having an uplift of 4.4%. I would have thought the reverse would be the case.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most heartbreaking pressures brought to the attention of his Committee is that of special educational needs children in the education sector, and that some of the money he has identified would be far better allocated to addressing that particular and acute need that affects everyone on these Benches, and indeed those who do not even come to this House?
Dr Murrison
Yes, I very much do, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to attend my Adjournment debate tomorrow on the subject of special educational needs in Wiltshire, perhaps he will find some commonality between his situation and my own as a constituency MP. [Interruption.] I am looking forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I would be very disappointed if he did not contribute to my debate. He will be very welcome, while of course trying to remain in order since I suspect his knowledge of special educational needs in Wiltshire is somewhat limited—not that that will necessarily stop him.
May I press Ministers on how confidence and supply money is being spent? Of course spending in general in Northern Ireland uses guidance set by the collapsed Executive. That is perfectly right and proper, and to use that trajectory to guide spending is perfectly legitimate, but that justification obviously falls away in relation to confidence and supply money; the guidebook is not there, which makes it of particular interest.
For example, under the non-ring-fenced resource departmental expenditure limit—RDEL—£100 million is being allowed for health transformation. Health transformation is surely needed, but it is politically sensitive. We in this place really do deserve to know how that money is being spent, but we are none the wiser. Under CDEL—the capital departmental expenditure limit—there is £200 million for infrastructure. Again, that is highly politically sensitive stuff, and almost certainly involves projects that will be warmly welcomed by the people of Northern Ireland, but our job is scrutiny, and one way or the other, scrutiny must be done. I fear that it is not being done at the moment.
We are sort of being asked to sign this off, although the Secretary of State is saying that she has no input into decision making within this process. Nevertheless, the mere fact that we have a Bill before us today means that we have to accept some level of responsibility. I am left with a sinking feeling that I do not have the information necessary to do this confidently, yet it needs to be done, because the consequences of not doing it would be immense. This is putting right hon. and hon. Members in something of an invidious position, because we do not have the level of detail or granularity that we deserve. Paragraph 27 of the guidance notes claims that the Bill needs to be implemented “urgently”. I think it probably does, and I sincerely hope that it is passed this evening, but this really should not happen at the expense of scrutiny.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
For another year, I rise with a degree of reluctance as we agree a budget that should be debated about 300 miles from here. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that this situation is deeply regrettable. Devolution should be cherished, and its success is vital to the growth and prosperity of Northern Ireland. I believe unequivocally that this budget should not be voted on by politicians in this place representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and England. Also, as others have said, this emergency legislation process affords ineffective scrutiny. I once again urge the Government to redouble their efforts to begin talks in earnest as soon as possible, so that they can be the effective arbiter required to bring an end to this impasse. If they cannot do that, they should bring in someone who can.
The collapse of the Executive and the subsequent failure to deal with the situation have placed huge, unsustainable stress on the civil service in Northern Ireland. I join the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in praising the Northern Irish civil service for all the work it has done in these tough times without an Executive. In our opinion, direct rule can never be countenanced, but as the shambolic Brexit process is now a central reason for the ongoing crisis, the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure that talks progress swiftly.
Amid ongoing austerity, the absence of decision making is straining Northern Irish public services. Decisions are urgently required to provide direction and funding to vital services. The current conditions are placing particular pressures on health and education, which are the most important services that a Government can deliver. It is for this reason that I want to make it clear that I do not begrudge the additional money that is going to be made available for public services in Northern Ireland—far from it. We have been calling for additional public spending from Westminster for years. However, it must be said that, under our agreed devolved settlement in this precious Union of equals, both Scotland and Wales should also receive additional funding. Successive UK Governments have inflicted brutal austerity measures on Scotland and Wales, as well as on Northern Ireland. That extra funding could be a small step towards repairing this recklessly inflicted damage. Indeed, if the Barnett formula were applied as it should be, Scotland would receive an extra £400 million for its budget.
Last year, the economy of Northern Ireland did not keep pace with the rest of the UK and it lagged far behind that of the Republic of Ireland, which was growing around four times faster. That just shows what a small independent country in the EU is capable of.
I firmly believe that investment in good public services and infrastructure is vital to the success of any economy. There is £140 million of new funding in recognition of the lack of opportunity for more “fundamental service reconfiguration”—a nifty wee phrase with which the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Office are attempting to circumvent the regular budgetary process. We cannot forget that that is in addition to the £333 million of funding that comes from the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist party. Some of the money seems to be allocated effectively, with £100 million to support health transformation, £3 million for broadband and £200 million for capital spending on key infrastructure projects. I particularly welcome the £30 million to tackle poor mental health and severe deprivation. However, despite my jealousy at that extra investment, I would never countenance the SNP selling its soul to prop up a Government who do so much harm to our citizens and are hellbent on ripping us out of the EU, for which neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland voted, and the reasons behind the positive spending are more than a little suspect. In fact, many say that the extra funding is just a Brexit bung to buy off the DUP.
The extra revenue allocation falls outside the normal budgetary processes deliberately to ensure that Scotland and Wales are denied their rightful Barnett consequentials. That raises huge questions of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said unequivocally that he
“was not going to agree to anything that could be construed as back-door funding to Northern Ireland”.
He has been written to this week, but he had not replied by the time that I stood up to speak, so does the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland know when the Secretary of State for Scotland was informed that the additional moneys would not be subject to the Barnett formula? Did he agree to that? Most importantly, did he even argue that Scotland should be entitled to its fair share of budgetary increases? If he did not, he must simply go.
Gavin Robinson
I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to make an elaborate political point, but he is not a churlish individual and will have heard this afternoon that we do not have devolved Ministers who are able to take account of financial pressures and make decisions accordingly. That is the rationale for the additional funds. Scotland is blessed with a functioning Government, and we wish we had one, but he should not try to extrapolate this proposal into some cheap point.
Gavin Newlands
I do not accept that I am making a cheap point, but I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s central point. We would not be strong Members of Parliament for Scotland if we were not here to represent Scottish interests, and the Barnett formula is there for a reason.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should have used his position in Cabinet to stand up for Scotland and protect the Barnett formula, but he did not. If he did, the Scottish budget could have increased by £400 million. Moreover, if he had stood firm regarding the confidence and supply agreement in its entirety, Scotland would have had an extra £3 billion to mitigate this Government’s policies, to prepare for Brexit and to invest in infrastructure, but he either failed or did not bother. He has abdicated his responsibility to Scotland and, despite various promises that he would resign with regard to protecting Scotland interests vis-à-vis Brexit, he has bottled it each and every time.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution. Does he agree that the Secretary of State for Scotland has promised to resign so many times that we have lost count? It is clear that the Secretary of State does not have the ability to have any effect in Cabinet and is becoming the boy who cried wolf.
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more. The Secretary of State for Scotland’s promises to resign in defence of Scotland have become like white noise, which just highlights how Westminster does not work for Scotland. If the Scottish Secretary is actually arguing for us in Cabinet, he is not being listened to. The alternative is that he is not bothering at all, which is even more troubling. If ever there were proof that the Scottish Secretary is the Tory Cabinet’s voice in Scotland rather than Scotland’s voice in Cabinet, it is now.
The SNP believes that new talks should be established immediately to restore the Executive and the Assembly. However, with the UK Government rather distracted by internal Tory party infighting, I say again that an independent mediator could and should be brought in to speed up progress. It has been over two years since Northern Ireland had a functioning Assembly, which is far too long. The people of Northern Ireland deserve reassurances that they will have a responsive and functional devolved Assembly and Executive as they face Brexit—one of the biggest policy challenges that any of us will ever face. Nothing must be done that would undermine the Good Friday agreement. Therefore this, in my opinion, must be the last budget to be delivered in this manner. A paralysing political vacuum in Northern Ireland must not become the new normal state of affairs.
The UK Government, in this Parliament, to a degree are in chaos, but that absolutely cannot be used as an excuse for the lacklustre attempts since last February to re-establish Northern Ireland’s political institutions. The Government are consumed by their own civil war, but that should not distract from all our duties to steadfastly defend and protect the peace process. The SNP understands that decisions are badly needed to direct and fund public services in Northern Ireland, but the absence of political decision making, amidst ongoing austerity, has placed an intolerable burden on the health and education systems and on the Northern Ireland civil service and the people of Northern Ireland.
The broader instability caused by Brexit is a central reason why it is proving to be so difficult to restore the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. The Executive and Assembly may have collapsed for various reasons, but Brexit and the threat of new borders or regulations have prolonged the dangerous political vacuum. The threat of new borders can, however, be removed. There would be no need for new economic borders in the Irish sea or across the island of Ireland if the whole UK pursues the SNP policy of staying in the European single market and customs union. It is important to remember that Northern Ireland, like Scotland, voted to remain in the EU by 56%.
Since the 2016 referendum, we in the SNP have engaged with businesses and civic leaders across Northern Ireland, all of whom have consistently made the point that the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain, and that their future economic prosperity will be put at risk by Brexit in any form. According to the Government’s own figures, a no-deal Brexit could end up resulting in a 12% GDP decline in the Northern Ireland economy. The UK Government’s analysis states that a no-deal Brexit
“would affect the viability of many businesses across Northern Ireland”,
and would therefore be tantamount to economic vandalism.
We in the SNP want to see Northern Ireland flourish. We want to see political and economic stability, partnered with strong, inclusive economic growth. We want to see that so that our neighbours—only a few miles across the Irish sea—will have effective public services, growing businesses and better livelihoods for their families. A prosperous Northern Ireland is in Scotland’s interests. A prosperous Northern Ireland is in the interests of England, Wales, the Irish Republic and our friends across the European Union.
We in the SNP fully support the Good Friday agreement and the maintenance of an invisible border that people from all over Ireland can freely cross, whether to visit family, to work, to study or to conduct business. Let me be clear: we would never stand in the way of Northern Ireland achieving a special relationship with the European Union, if that was what was required. All that we ask is that correct, and equitable, budget procedures are followed and that any increases in spending across the UK result in the rightful Barnett consequentials for Scotland.
The final point that I want to make about the budget is on the Hart recommendations. I appreciate that those are sensitive topics and have been raised already, and I concede that the Secretary of State’s position has softened somewhat of late, but the Scottish Government have already announced that they are taking action in this area. The Secretary of State and the Minister will be aware of the victims’ group SAVIA—Survivors and Victims of Institutional Abuse. The group was pleased that the Scottish Government confirmed that they would be making advance payments to elderly and infirm victims and survivors prior to the passing of legislation, and is calling for that model to be adopted for Northern Ireland. So many of those who would have been entitled to compensation are now deceased, and SAVIA believes that the initiative shown by the SNP and the Scottish Government shows that where there is a will, there is a way. The group asks that the Secretary of State follows the leadership, courage and compassion shown by the Scottish Government to make compensation payments to elderly and infirm victims before it is too late.
In conclusion, the Government must give Northern Ireland, and restoring its Assembly, the attention that it requires. Delays in establishing effective talks can no longer be accepted. The institutions of the Good Friday agreement must be championed by all across this House, for the sake of the peace process and for the people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than this. However, if the Prime Minister’s promises about governing in all our interests are to ring true, she must respect the agreed devolved settlement for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. The people of Scotland and Wales deserve better than this and, believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker: they are watching closely.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I did not expect to be called first, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you have caught me off balance. [Interruption.] I am never lost for words.
I am pleased to be called in this debate and I want to start by thanking the Secretary of State for introducing this essential Bill today. It is important and it is why we are all present. I thank Members for the contributions that have been made up to now. We all know that the Bill contains parliamentary approval for in-year adjustments to Northern Ireland departmental budgets and for certain other bodies to incur expenditure and use resources for the remainder of the financial year ending 31 March 2019. Its importance has been highlighted by everyone who has made a contribution, including in interventions and by Northern Ireland’s representatives in this House. On behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, we are here to make that comment. The Bill further seeks approval for a vote on account of an amount equivalent to 70% of the 2018-19 allocation to allow those Departments and public bodies to continue to deliver public services for part of the 2019-20 financial year. This finance, what it sets out to do and what it does is so important.
We all understand how necessary these steps are to take. We have the information before us and I had a quick look through it earlier. I wonder whether the Minister summing up will be able to indicate what the responsibilities will be in respect of the fisheries enforcement vessel we have in Bangor and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs when we leave the EU on 29 March. On the Monday a week or so ago, I had the opportunity to meet the fisheries officers to discuss that. I said to them that that fisheries enforcement vessel does not seem to do very much. That seems to be the case, from the evidence I have. Will it be more active after 29 March? Will the resources be made available to ensure that it can enforce the fisheries rules that we will have for our seas at that time?
I do not want to be critical about Departments, but sometimes I wonder exactly what happens. I brought the matter of packaging to the attention of Ministers at the Department for Exiting the European Union last week. There is a responsibility here to the agri-food sector, and a number of businesses in my constituency depend on that. The packaging issue has not been addressed. For some reason, DAERA has not responded to the companies in my constituency. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is one of those who contacted me about this. I understand that this is a simple matter of addressing the packaging. DAERA has not done it and has referred the issue to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is like musical chairs; they are pushing it about as much as they can. They must get it done. That is the issue we need to get sorted out for our agri-food sector.
The explanatory notes state:
“This Bill is a minimal step to ensure that public services continue to be provided in Northern Ireland.”
Therein lies the issue I have: the people of Northern Ireland have had the bare minimum for too long. The acceptable level of governance has been emphasised by other Members and we simply are not getting it.
As for 70% of the moneys allocated to Departments being used for projects, I have to say that I have some concerns about delays on some of the things we are all waiting for. I am sure Members will not be surprised if I give them a list of what I am waiting for in my constituency. I could spend half an hour going over all the ones that need to be done, but I will just spend a few minutes highlighting the issues. The first thing we need is the Ballynahinch bypass—we are still waiting on it. All the papers are in order; everything is ready to go; the land has been acquired—but, guess what, the Department just cannot make that decision. Everybody in Ballynahinch wants to see the bypass in place. Even my colleagues and friends do. Why is that? It is because then I will not be bringing this issue up every time we have a parliamentary meeting, but that is by the bye. The point I am trying to make is that everything is in order for it to happen but it is not happening.
Secondly, we have a coastal erosion programme for the Ards peninsula. Again, the deliberations are done and the recommendations have been made. There are 96 coastal erosion locations to be addressed, but we have not got to the place we want to be in addressing that. Again, that highlights how we need to get the moneys through to where they need to be.
The problem with these minimal steps is that they are going to produce a minimal health service and minimal education for our children. The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, referred to its ongoing inquiries on education and health. We will shortly be doing one, which we hope will be less complicated, on the benefits system, which the hon. Member for North Down and I wish to see addressed, too. There are lots of things happening that we need to address.
The DUP has taken action. The fact is that without the supply and confidence agreement, which boosted the budget by some £300 million, and the successful party representation to the Chancellor, which has secured an extra £140 million, Northern Ireland simply could not function. People talk about green cheese in this House all the time. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) sees somebody getting something good and he wants it as well. They are unbelievable, they really are.
We need to take action to tackle the pressures in education and health. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is trying to address some of the important issues as and when it can and make recommendations, which we hope to see shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referred to special needs education. How important that issue is. It comes up in every inquiry, deputation and presentation that we get. I have people in my constituency saying almost every week that we need to address those issues. The highest levels of depression in Northern Ireland are among schoolchildren, some of them under the age of 10. There are levels of depression that we were never aware of before, but we have them in our area and in our constituencies in Northern Ireland. We really need to address those critical issues.
The referrals are also part of the issue. I met the chair of the local primary schools less than a month ago. All those primary schools’ budgets are squeezed. They are really at crisis point, so we have to address the issues. Last week, I had the opportunity to speak to the principal of Movilla High School to catch up and find out what is happening there. Movilla High School needs some help. I sit on the board of governors of Glastry College, which needs that new building. These things are coming across throughout the constituency.
The money would not have come without my colleagues having outlined the fact that frontline services are at breaking point. I am thankful for the funding that the DUP has secured, but we must be clear that even with the additional money, frontline services are struggling; A&E services are literally at capacity. We need ministerial intervention, and that is not happening at Stormont, so I ask again for something for which I have advocated consistently: a compulsory return to Stormont with no red lines, or the Secretary of State’s rolling up her sleeves and beginning direct rule procedures.
We have tried to address the issues relating to rare diseases in the Chamber. I am a member of the all-party group, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, and we have tried to address the issues with getting funding through, because rare diseases involve minimal numbers. We need to address those issues. On access to medicines, Orkambi is very important. Those with diseases and problems who need help will understand that access to drugs is important. Diabetes is a growing time bomb in Northern Ireland, among not only children but adults, too. We have the highest levels of diabetes among children in the whole United Kingdom, with Scotland second. We need to address such issues, if we can.
A long time has passed and Sinn Féin’s intransigence is slowly killing hope and seeing people needlessly die on waiting lists throughout the Province. It is effecting professionals’ mental health as they try to cope in situations that have been described as war-zone situations in A&Es. We need to act on behalf not simply of patients but of the staff who are being asked to do the impossible. Minimal steps are not good enough for the elderly lady lying in a corridor in the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald, and neither are they good enough for the four-year-old about to start her schooling career in a school where the teachers are advised to ask parents—this has been said in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—for toilet paper and told by unions that they cannot run after-school clubs. Not only the principal of the school that I visited but the chair of the primary schools in my area have told me that if it was not for the parent-teacher association and the moneys that it raises every year, they could not afford to have the classroom assistant teaching in those schools. They could not afford to have the stationery if it was not for the good will of others who are helping out. These are the critical issues.
Of course I welcome the additional money for frontline services—£20 million in 2017-18 and £410 million in 2018-19—but it was a sticking plaster. That plaster has now come off, revealing a wound that needs dedicated, specialised attention but is not getting it. The DUP wants a return to devolution, because we believe that that is the most democratic future for Northern Ireland, but we cannot afford to wait any longer.
I believe it is time to consider a new political process for Northern Ireland with all the parties at Stormont that want a devolved Administration, which Sinn Féin continues to thwart. It is time to consider a different and more direct approval process. If Sinn Féin does not want to participate, or wants to put down red lines to stop the political process, let us move forward with the parties that do wish to participate and form a Government who can look after the affairs of Northern Ireland. I believe that that would be a way forward; it might be different from what we have done in the past, but maybe it is time we did it now. Even if a party does not want to be part of the process, we should move forward, because we need regional government.
I will finish soon—as you will probably be glad to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I do not know why Members are saying that.
Minimal steps are not enough. That is what this debate is about: we are very pleased to have a budget approved, but we are also clear in what we are saying. I ask the Minister of State to take the appropriate steps towards direct rule, not because that is my first option or that of the DUP—we want a regional government in place that is accountable to the people—but because it is our only option to stop the wound seeping before we bleed out.
Please, Minister of State, hear our call. Yes, we need the Bill, but we need more than these minimal steps; we need decisive action. We need to start the process and send a message to Sinn Féin: “If you won’t return to Stormont, fine, but decisions will be made in this place for the education and health of all people in Northern Ireland.” Nevertheless, I welcome the budget, and I welcome where we are today.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
General disappointment has been expressed that, for the third year now, expenditure in Northern Ireland is being approved through this unusual process in the House, with little or no scrutiny or knowledge of how the allocations to Departments have been decided. We do not know what arguments were made for giving 3.8%—or whatever it was—to health and 1.1% to education, while other Departments suffered an overall reduction and others’ budgets were kept static. We have had no opportunity to ask civil servants what cases were made or whether they were valid. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) pointed out, it is not that there is no mechanism for such scrutiny; it is simply that a choice was made not to use the mechanism that is available through this House.
Of course, this should all have been done at Stormont. During the budget process, its committees ought to have brought civil servants in, asked them what bids were being made and what arguments were being employed, and then made a judgment on the merits of each case. However, we are not in that position—not because parties in Northern Ireland do not want the opportunity of scrutiny at Stormont, but simply because they have been prevented from carrying it out.
Using the terms of the arrangements for setting up a Government in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin has been able to prevent the coalition arrangement that was forced through in the Belfast agreement from being implemented. Because including the two main parties in the Executive is a compulsory imposition rather than a voluntary arrangement, if one of those parties throws a hissy fit and decides that it does not want to be in the Executive, everybody is kept out—not just from the Executive, but from Stormont and from all the roles and responsibilities that they were elected for and would normally be entitled to carry out.
The Secretary of State quite rightly says that this process should be done at Stormont, but she knows that it cannot be done there. Like the shadow Secretary of State, I do not place the blame totally at the door of the Secretary of State. She has to operate within the rules, and the rules state that if one party decides to veto, not a great deal can be done about it. For reasons that I will explain in a moment or two, no powers of persuasion will persuade Sinn Féin to go into Stormont at this particular time; they have made that quite clear. Sinn Féin have thrown up every barrier. Whatever magic wand the Secretary of State might wave, she is not going to persuade them otherwise. However, there is one way in which she could put pressure on them, which is by making it quite clear to them that, through their inaction, the very thing that they do not want to happen—that is, rule by London—will happen, unless they are prepared to accept their responsibilities in Northern Ireland.
We find it difficult to understand why there has not been a willingness to take Sinn Féin on in that way, but I suspect that it is because of the advice given by the Northern Ireland Office, known colloquially among Unionists in Northern Ireland as the nest of vipers. The position of the Northern Ireland Office seems to be, “Don’t annoy Sinn Féin and don’t annoy the Irish Government.” I suspect that a large part of the reason why we have not moved to greater scrutiny and greater decision making by Ministers here is the advice of the Northern Ireland Office: “Don’t rock the boat.” But if we don’t rock the boat, we are going to stay on the path that we are on at present, which does not provide scrutiny of the most important issue for politicians—the expenditure of resources for the benefit of the community.
Not only do we not have scrutiny of the overall budget allocation, we do not even have scrutiny of the efficiency of current spending. Looking through the various headings for expenditure last year, or through the proposed 70% expenditure for next year, we can see many areas where there is great concern about the way in which money is spent. I will pick out just a few. Take, for example, the Department for the Economy. We have been trying to increase connectivity in Northern Ireland, yet despite all the evidence that supporting access to air services to other parts of the world helps economic growth, we have found an unwillingness to spend money in that area. One of the reasons that the Department has given is, “We don’t have any direction from a Minister. It’s not a decision that the civil service can make.” My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) has lobbied hard on this issue because Belfast international airport is in his constituency and there could be huge opportunities there.
Petroleum licensing is another example. There are huge opportunities in Northern Ireland but we cannot even get consultation on licences that could create hundreds of jobs in mining and oil exploration in rural areas in the west of the Province, where high-paid jobs are hard to come by. Money for broadband has been reprofiled because, despite the fact that £150 million was made available, decisions have not been made about spending that money. Hopefully, with the start of the money that has been allocated this year, we will find that the programme will be accelerated over the next number of years.
We allocate money to Tourism Ireland, and many people query whether that money is used effectively. When people travel into Belfast international airport, what hits them in the face when they come off the plane? An advert to send tourists who arrive at that airport down to Dublin—and our money pays for it. Yet there is no scrutiny of whether that is an effective way of spending public money to promote Northern Ireland.
I could go on with lots of other examples, but that is the kind of vacuum we are left with because of the lack of scrutiny not just of the general allocations of money across Departments but of the specific allocations within Departments.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
As members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we hear at first hand, nearly every week now, about how the lack of an Assembly and an Executive is affecting ordinary people, whether it is money not being spent on healthcare, schools where parents are having to bring in toilet rolls, or the Police of Service of Northern Ireland not knowing whether it can pay its staff at the end of the month. This is impacting the real lives of real people.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady mentioned education. In the year for which we are now finalising the accounts, additional money was secured for education. That money was meant to go to frontline services in education—that is, the classrooms—but the Department of Education decided to allocate it to finance the education authority, which was running a deficit, and was leaning on schools that were running a deficit in their budgets. That is the kind of thing that would never have been allowed to happen if we had a functioning Assembly and a Minister rather than civil servants making these decisions. It is not just about the total amount of money that is allocated; we also have to be looking at how effectively that money is spent, and we do not have the means for doing that. If it cannot be done in Northern Ireland, then there should a means for doing it here.
The Secretary of State gave an explanation why she had allocated 70% of the expenditure to Departments for next year as opposed to the usual 45%—because there might be heavier expenditure at the beginning of the year than at the end of the year, and she therefore wanted to make sure that Departments did not run out of money. Given that most of the revenue expenditure has to be spread over the year because a lot of it goes on salaries and so on, I do not think that is a credible explanation. I think the Secretary of State knows full well that we will not have an Assembly up and running by June, because she knows what the problem is. She has talked to Sinn Féin and she knows the attitude of Sinn Féin. I suspect that 70% has been allocated so that she has the flexibility maybe even to bring the final budget to this House in September or October rather than be forced to bring it early in June because there is no Assembly up and running.
That brings me to one of the reasons why I believe we are having to do this again this year. Many people have said that it is about Brexit, or the fact that Sinn Féin cannot get agreement with the DUP about certain matters like an Irish language Act. Having said that, I do not know how anyone justifies tens of millions of pounds of expenditure on an Irish language Act at a time when we have the pressure on budgets that we have now. Certainly, it should not be a priority for expenditure or getting Stormont up and running again.
I welcome the additional money. For the information of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), this is not a result of the Barnett formula not being properly applied. The Barnett formula is properly applied. Barnett formula allocations for Scotland and Northern Ireland are based on the expenditure decided for Departments in England. If there is an uplift in areas of spending in those Departments, it also comes to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
This is money over and above the Barnett formula. Scotland has experienced that on occasions, but we did not complain about it. It is wrong to suggest that this is a result of the Barnett formula not being properly applied. Some of the changes to the allocations that we are authorising for 2018-19 are a result of Barnett formula applications during the year, with additional money put into the budget since we discussed it last June having to be spent by Departments.
This is a challenging budget. The real reason why Sinn Féin are not prepared to enter the Assembly is that they do not have the political courage to make the decisions that a budget of this nature would require them to make. There is plenty of evidence for that. First, why did the Assembly collapse? Despite what people say about the renewable heat scheme and everything else, the Assembly would have collapsed anyhow, because the then Finance Minister had not even presented a budget to the Assembly. If it had not been presented to the Assembly, the Government would have collapsed because there would have been no money to spend. Why did he not present a budget two and a half years ago? Because he knew that there were hard decisions to be made, and he was not prepared to make them. His party was not prepared to go through the Lobby to back those decisions because it was looking over its shoulder at People Before Profit, which had taken votes off it in its heartlands in West Belfast and Londonderry.
If that was the problem then, it is still the problem today. Sinn Féin do not want to have to put their hand on the tiller and guide Northern Ireland through the difficulties of budget considerations. Governments here and in Scotland and Wales have to do that, as indeed do Governments in the Irish Republic. Sinn Féin would rather strut around the Irish Republic telling people that if they vote for Sinn Féin, the Government down there will not have to impose austerity measures. Of course, the one way to expose the nonsense of that claim is by Sinn Féin having to make decisions about budgets in Northern Ireland, but they do not want to do that.
That means that we have not been able to look at new areas of expenditure, and that is significant. Members have talked today about new pressures. For example, there is greater pressure on school budgets because of rising populations and a change in the distribution of populations, which sometimes expand and sometimes decline. There are greater pressures on mental health, which my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about. This budget reflects the decisions and priorities of the Executive of more than three years ago. Indeed, if we look at the heads of spending for 2018-19 and 2019-20, we see that it is a cut and paste. There are no new things, because that is not possible.
We pass legislation here to allow top civil servants and permanent secretaries to take decisions that could redirect some spending, but civil servants—wrongly, I think—have refused to use those powers on many occasions. It is frustrating that they have not been prepared to make decisions on even simple things, because they fear that if something goes wrong, they will be called before the Northern Ireland Audit Office or finish up on the front page of the Belfast Telegraph. It is not a great way of doing it, but at least some of these decisions should be made by civil servants.
We have a lack of scrutiny of the overall budget and of the detail of the budget, and we have no mechanism for deciding new priorities, all of which we are going to need in a dynamic economy. That is why this process is so damaging to Northern Ireland. It is damaging politically because it allows people simply to opt out of the political process. They entered that process, stood for election and got elected, but then they do not do their job.
I know there will be debates about how to do this, but I think one of the ways of pushing into doing their job properly those who are holding back our ability to do the job—we are doing it, and doing it very poorly, here today—is to make it quite clear that the stark choice is either to have local rule or to have rule from London. I believe that would be a huge embarrassment to Sinn Féin. It has been able to avoid that embarrassment because the Government here have refused to make such a decision.
We want to see devolution and we want people to be pressurised into going back into Stormont, however difficult that may be. Let me just say to the House that it is difficult. Look at the difficulties the Government have with the disparate views they have on their own Back Benches in this place. It is an indication of the skill that was used by politicians in Northern Ireland that, for many years, we ran a coalition that included people who would very happily sit on the Government Benches as well as people who might be uncomfortable sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition on the Opposition Benches because they are even to the left of him. We ran a coalition on that basis, but it has now collapsed, and following its collapse, this is an inadequate way of doing business for Northern Ireland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I am afraid, as far as the Northern Ireland Office is concerned, I will continue on the issue of the lack of transparency and scrutiny. At the nub of this—it is felt across the House and I know it is shared in Northern Ireland—is the fact that these are important matters that need to be dissected and examined, but the level of scrutiny we are able to subject them to will be minimal indeed.
I want to begin with the political outlook. Unfortunately, we are in the position we face today only because we do not have a devolved Government in Stormont, and we have now been in this limbo for two years and several months. Part of the reason why we continue to be in this limbo is that Sinn Féin, which brought the Stormont institutions down by the resignation of the then Deputy First Minister, has for some considerable time established a series of red lines in relation to going back into government.
However, as indicated by the Opposition spokesperson on Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), Sinn Féin, in the words of its leader, Michelle O’Neill, has now copper-fastened that approach. I have to say that part of the reason why it has copper-fastened that approach is that the lack of decisive action from the Government in this place in confronting its previous intransigence has only emboldened it to be more intransigent.
Not only do those in Sinn Féin say, “Well, we’ve gotten away with two years of saying we’re not going back into government until we have certain unreasonable demands met, and we must have them met, pocketed and banked before we go in”—they have got away with that, and we have simply continued this limbo period—but they have now established yet further red lines in relation to even going in to talk about how we get the Government up and running. I am afraid that a considerable amount of blame can be landed on the desk of the Northern Ireland Office for not confronting the Sinn Féin approach.
We are in a situation that is neither fish nor fowl, with neither direct rule nor local rule, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim put it. Our constituents are talking about education, health and a whole series of local projects that could be delivered and asking what we are doing to try to help deliver them. Our answer is that we can do very little and that we want to get Stormont up and running. I know colleagues of mine met a series of principals in the education sector just a few weeks ago, and the principals were unanimous in their demand that something had to be done to rescue their sector from an impending crisis, as we hear in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee week after week. Yet my colleagues had to say, “We’re ready to enter Stormont today, tomorrow or next week, but unfortunately others are not.”
We find ourselves in this bind, without either direct rule or devolved government. We are stumbling into a crisis week by week, month by month. Although there are a number of local issues, people are also demanding action on broad, encompassing issues. I know that the Secretary of State made it clear that certain matters of departmental spend were not her prerogative or that of the Minister of State, and I understand that, but nevertheless we are left in a bind with something that cannot deliver and that is inadequate in what it does deliver.
Many parts of Northern Ireland are teetering on the cusp between the crisis that is ahead of us and a remarkable breakthrough. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is not in his place at the moment, talked about his constituency. For the first time in 70 years, the Open golf tournament will return to my constituency and the Royal Portrush golf club. There will be almost 200,000 visitors to that tournament, 30% from outside Northern Ireland and the Republic. A considerable number of that 30% will be high-net- worth individuals.
I have been pressing Invest Northern Ireland to ensure that when those people arrive, we do what we can to maximise any inward investment potential. At this point, I pay tribute to the outgoing chief executive of Invest Northern Ireland, Mr Alastair Hamilton. He has spent 10 years in his role and has performed a manful, dutiful task over and above what would have been expected of someone in his position. So much more could be achieved in the next few months. The Open golf tournament takes place in July, and I would hope that Invest Northern Ireland would be campaigning and pressing inward investment buttons for opportunities that could be opened up as a result of it.
I have referred in this House to the private sector Heathrow logistics hub process, which is taking a further step forward. If it is a successful operation in the part of the United Kingdom that is Northern Ireland, it will deliver thousands of jobs. Here we are on the cusp of a breakthrough, with a combination of things that could deliver. Others have mentioned connectivity, and I think of the potential at all of our airports. Londonderry airport can expand, and we have a public service obligation that could help to deliver additional routes. That can only happen if we have ministerial direction and ministerial cover to ensure that all the possibilities are taken advantage of. We have other rail routes and road routes. All can help to deliver job infrastructure developments, which are there now but cannot be fully developed because of the lack of a devolved Government.
As I said, there are two overarching sectors that pervade the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee week on week—education and health. We hear the messages of complaint. We hear the dire consequences that are ahead of us. I do not want to unduly be a prophet of gloom, but the health sector came through the current winter crises and pressures because of the relatively mild winter. It came through it in a poor state, but not in a crisis. Next winter, however, if emphatic action is not taken either at Stormont or here, I am absolutely certain that we will not come through unscathed in the way that we have in the winter that is hopefully just ending. The overall Bengoa-style review is required to give emphasis and impetus to an overarching exchange and development of our health service to meet the demands of the 21st century. Without taking that into account, we are facing an impending crisis in the health sector.
Every one of us, every week, hears from schools, principals and vice-principals about the escalating catastrophe that is the education sector. That will worsen and deepen in the coming weeks and months unless we have ministerial involvement either in this place or in Stormont. Unfortunately, to date, Sinn Féin’s feet have not been held to the fire. We want to get a devolved Government back up and running. We know and accept that the process for that devolved government is not ideal. It is not our No. 1 priority in terms of what we would like to see, but it is the only show in town, so either we deliver a mechanism through Stormont or moves will have to be made here in the Westminster Parliament. One thing is for sure: we cannot and we must not—the people will not allow us—allow the position that currently pertains to go on for very much longer.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
We have heard a wide range of speeches on the Bill, but they have a similar theme. Before entering this House, I was a manager in the NHS in England. I have been a school governor and a non-executive director. I have served on finance committees, audit committees, and, since joining this place, I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Like many people in this place, I take seriously the issue of spending taxpayers’ money. I believe it warrants scrutiny, analysis, challenge and, critically, accountability. As has been noted in all the speeches we have heard this afternoon, we should not be discussing the Bill, but, as we are, we should be doing it properly, and we cannot.
Paul Masterton
The hon. Lady mentions her role on the Public Accounts Committee. Does she think that, for as long as Stormont continues to not sit, there would be any merit in having the reports of the Northern Ireland Audit Office reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee?
Karin Smyth
I understand that the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland are currently not being scrutinised in the way that we would expect here. If the Public Accounts Committee was to undertake that role, it would be a very serious change to constitutional arrangements. The actuality discussed by the Chair of Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and others is that there needs to be some sort of process. I am not sure whether this is the right process, but I agree that there needs to be some sort of process for the reports already coming out of Northern Ireland that are highlighting some serious problems.
I make no judgment about the work of the Northern Ireland Office, the civil servants in Northern Ireland and the many public servants trying to continue to deliver services, but the lack of scrutiny and analysis of that money, and our incapacity to challenge, means that that huge area of spend, involving UK taxpayers’ money, is receiving less attention than school budgets get when we audit them. We know—this has been reinforced—that there are huge problems under the headings of this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, the Opposition want the Department to make progress on the Hart inquiry, victims’ and survivors’ pensions, and the medical school at Ulster University. I recently visited the team behind the project to progress the medical school in Derry/Londonderry. The scale of the work to date, and their ambition for their city and region, is to be commended, and the Secretary of State must find a way to support them. We have the ridiculous situation in which civil servants can support the business case but not agree the funding, because that is beyond their powers and would be considered a reallocation.
Why is a medical school important? The Government are proud of their announcement of new medical schools in England. The areas chosen need those schools because we need the recruits. As the chief executive of Health Education England said when the announcement was made—MPs in those areas know this—
“studies show that doctors tend to stay in the areas where they train so it means more doctors for the region to deliver high-quality care.”
In Northern Ireland, the locum bill is more than £80 million per annum and rising—an increase, according to the Bengoa report, of more than 78% in five years. It is clear that Northern Ireland needs to be training more of its own doctors and other clinical staff. It also needs to pay them properly, but the rates of pay of those staff are falling behind those in the rest of the UK.
Mr Gregory Campbell
I commend the hon. Lady for raising the issue of the medical school. Does she agree that there is an urgent need to develop not only the medical school in Londonderry but the veterinary school in Coleraine for precisely the same reasons, albeit in a different sector?
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I have not been able to visit that project, but I would very much like to. I agree that investing, training and keeping people local is an important and valuable symbol.
I recently visited the stunning new Omagh Hospital and Primary Care Complex, which is part of the Western Health and Social Care Trust. It is doing great work across the area to manage the challenges of rising demand and costs, which all health systems face. Its top issues of concern are the availability of medical staff and the huge amount of money being spent on locums. To ensure cover across Northern Ireland, precious resource is being spread far too thinly. I ask the Minister to tell us whether the Government will direct the Ministry of Justice to support the Lord Chief Justice’s call for funding, and whether he will progress the medical school, which is time-critical.
Some 46% of the Northern Ireland budget is for healthcare, and the history of reports and recommendations is decades-long. Most recently, Professor Bengoa’s report referenced the renowned academic Professor John Appleby, who found that Northern Ireland’s spending is roughly 11.5% higher than in England, but there is roughly an 11.6% higher level of need. The service is broadly funded as well as the rest of the UK, but there are significant disparities. In particular, mental health need is recognised to be about 44% higher than in England, but per capita spending is sometimes 10% to 30% lower. That led to the conclusion that the problem is not the level of funding but how it is being used to deliver services. Today, we are no further forward in addressing that problem. Spending on the acute sector continues to grow. Having a large number of small buildings is expensive and, most importantly, is not fit for the high quality, 21st century care that we should all be expecting across the United Kingdom.
The Bengoa report opens with a quote from the former chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson:
“A proportion of poor quality, unsafe care occurs because local hospital facilities in some parts of Northern Ireland cannot provide the level and standards of care required to meet patients’ needs 24 hours a day”.
What action are the Government taking to address that problem?
The Minister of State and I share a health geography in the south-west. His local hospital is undergoing difficult and controversial changes. He understands the safety issues and the need to make difficult choices about changes to small hospitals and the transformation to different models of care and to greater specialisation at large acute trusts. In his remarks, he needs to reassure people in Northern Ireland, just as we seek to reassure our constituents here in England, about quality of care. He needs to assure us today that the extra money for health is not just covering continuing inefficiencies and deficits, but is doing something to improve services and, above all, that patient safety is paramount.
Previous allocations as part of the confidence and supply money are of course welcomed by people in Northern Ireland, but one-off payments are no way to transform a health system. I recently heard about a preventive cardiology pilot working upstream with GPs. Money for successive years is not known and the trust is expected to continue funding it as part of its mainstream budget. It is not possible to transform healthcare to meet demands in the 21st century on one-off moneys, and it is a very poor use of taxpayers’ money as well as of the staff time spent proposing and developing new bids.
The next greatest area of spending is education, which has dominated today’s debate. As mentioned, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has had an informative session on education spending in the last few weeks, and last week again discussed the much reported recommendations to improve education outcomes in Northern Ireland. Sir Robert Salisbury, who gave evidence last week and reported in 2013, told us six years ago that the system was living beyond its means, and he gave the example of the six post-primary schools in Omagh, which has a similar population to his native Nottinghamshire, which has two.
The Education Authority, which has been referenced this afternoon, has a £90 million deficit largely because of special educational needs spending, which has also been addressed this afternoon. Schools are managing very high levels of mental ill health and, sadly, of suicide and self-harm among children, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted. As I mentioned earlier, the poor funding of mental health services as part of the overall health budget is exacerbating the problem.
There is a large deficit in schools, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) just said, and the budget is an escalating catastrophe. There are also high levels of achievement, as referenced in the Select Committee last week, and what is described as a long tail of underachievement. There are an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 empty desks in Northern Ireland, two teacher training colleges and two separate statutory planning authorities. The Integrated Education Fund, which I have visited recently, has called the system divided and costly.
I hope that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report will shine more light on education spending, but many of the calls have been for a Bengoa-type review. As noted, however, we already have a Bengoa review of health, and without the political oversight and will, it will not make the change. The end of the Committee’s session finished on a depressing note, as the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People reported that there needed to be an honest conversation about the allocation of funding within the Department of Education but that there was no appetite for that.
We in the Labour party continue to support the need for integrated education as part of the long-term route to reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and I know that the Integrated Education Fund hopes to visit here in the summer to share with Members the work it does and the challenges faced. It would be good to see some of its thoughts put to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its final report.
Beneath the figures that we are rushing through tonight—without proper process and security—lies the future of Northern Ireland’s children’s hopes, dreams and aspirations and of the people needing treatment and care from the NHS who now find themselves on record length and totally unacceptable waiting lists. We will of course support the budget tonight, so that public services can continue, but the people of Northern Ireland deserve much better than this.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
Let me pick up from where my opposite number, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), left off and say that I am pleased to hear—from, I think, everyone—that there is limited opposition to the Bill and that Members are willing to support it on a cross-party basis. That is incredibly welcome. This is perhaps an unusual example of cross-party unanimity and consensus; there have been some pretty stroppy debates in the last couple of weeks on a variety of subjects. It is lovely to be here on a day when agreement is breaking out across different parts of the House.
However, I do not want to overstate that degree of cross-party consensus and agreement because what was also widely shared was a sense of frustration. There was frustration at the lack of a Stormont Executive—we heard that from pretty much every speaker this afternoon—and inevitably, because it matches that lack of a Stormont Executive, frustration at the limits of the Bill. As we have heard repeatedly, the Bill is there to keep the wheels turning in Northern Ireland, but not to bring about much-needed reforms, because those reforms require a functioning Stormont Executive. We have also heard repeatedly a litany of things that are either not being done and need to be done, or are not being done as efficiently as they could be, simply because there is not the political air cover in Stormont that would enable much-needed decisions to be made to change what is happening.
I echo many Members—including the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—in saying that that is no criticism of the civil servants in either the Northern Ireland civil service or the Northern Ireland Office. They are honour bound to make decisions based on the last set of policy decisions available to them, some of which are two or three years old. They must try to draw a line between those policy decisions and remain true to them.
Vernon Coaker
May I repeat what I said earlier? I agree with what the Minister is saying and this is not meant to be critical. I accept that, given the lack of a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, we cannot scrutinise the decisions of civil servants. May I, however, ask the Minister to reflect again on the fact that changes are being made in this budget on the basis of the advice of civil servants? While we may not want to scrutinise or criticise those decisions, no information is available to the House about why the changes should be made. Will he take on board what the Secretary of State has said and look again at what information is provided to the House so that we can base our decisions on more information than we have now?
John Penrose
I do take that on board, especially because I think that the hon. Gentleman was one of the last Ministers who had to deal with the issue of direct rule.
John Penrose
So I am giving the hon. Gentleman responsibilities that he never had to bear. Let me also mention to him that a Command Paper is currently available in the Library which gives a very detailed breakdown—it is well over an inch thick—of the way in which money has been spent in Northern Ireland during the financial year that is about to end. There is a huge amount of detail, but it is backward-looking. While it is helpful and, I am sure, welcome to all Members to ensure some degree of accountability, I think that all of us, including the Secretary of State, have agreed that we all hanker after a better process than this, but also that the fundamental and central problem is the lack of a functioning Executive in Stormont.
I was delighted to hear the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), clearly say that he did not think direct rule is justified at this stage. He is also right to say that, because of that and because of the shortcomings we have all been enunciating, there is a tariff for political failure at Stormont: I think that that was the phrase he used. The Chairman of the Committee quoted a reference to the “slow decay and stagnation” that is happening in Northern Ireland politics as a result, but rightly levelled the balance a little by referring to the restoration talks efforts made by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and—again, rightly—was positive and full in his praise of both the Northern Ireland civil service and the NIO, and their unstinting efforts to do a professional job in an extremely difficult and increasingly challenging political environment.
Sir Mike Penning
Can I, in all fairness, challenge the Minister on the way he congratulated the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) in relation to direct rule? If direct rule is not the answer today, when will it be and, if it is not the answer soon, why?
John Penrose
A number of Members have said today that they would regard it as a last resort. I agree because we have to be incredibly careful about what we wish for here. We have to be extremely cautious about the notion of starting to take the drug of direct rule because it very swiftly leads to a very difficult and very precarious political position. I say to my right hon. Friend that there is a process laid out in primary legislation passed by this House—the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018—that says we have, first, five months and then, potentially renewable, a further five months in which to find a consensus and get an Executive re-established at Stormont. At that point, to answer his point about “If not now, when?” there are statutory obligations on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that will require decisions to be made at those various different waypoints, but it is extremely dangerous and extremely difficult for us all to prejudge, or indeed to wish that those talks, stuttering though they are, but attempted though they definitely are, should not be given enough time to come to a sensible conclusion. I think everybody has been clear that that is what we want them to do; we want them to be successful if they possibly can be.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), was of the same mind. He spoke about a paralysing political stalemate in Stormont that must not become the new normal, and I agree.
Lady Hermon
I am sure I am not the only one who blinked and drew breath when I heard the Minister use the words “the drug of direct rule.” Perhaps I misheard him, but I will give him the opportunity to pick a more appropriate noun to describe direct rule.
John Penrose
It was certainly not my intention to cause the hon. Lady to draw breath. The point I was trying to make is that direct rule is potentially extremely dangerous and can lead to a very difficult political situation if we are not all collectively very careful. It is not a step to be taken lightly, simply or frivolously at all.
Tony Lloyd
In agreeing with the Minister, it is probably worth pointing out that the last period of direct rule lasted five years. This was the total antithesis of the ambitions of the devolved Administration.
John Penrose
I strongly agree and I think there has been pretty much unanimous agreement across the House during this debate about that point.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Essentially, what the House understood by the Minister’s first remark and his reformulation is that short-term temptations can lead to situations that are adverse and undesirable.
John Penrose
Indeed.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had a long list of local projects that are not happening and that he thinks could and should happen were there to be proper government led in Stormont, and so did the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson); he had a list of all sorts of missed opportunities—everything from mining to tourism was mentioned. Both of them had some interesting suggestions, which I will take away rather than react to now, about how we might perhaps exert more pressure through potentially changing rules in Stormont. I will treat them with the care with which they were offered, I am sure.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) was passionate in saying that Northern Ireland is on the cusp of a breakthrough—the economic performance and indeed the social cohesion in Northern Ireland are out-of-sight better than 10 or 20 years ago—but that it is being frustrated and that further progress could be made, but we are caught. I think he said that the governance of Northern Ireland is neither fish nor fowl—it is neither London nor local—and should this be solved, that would make a huge difference.
My opposite number, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), spent some time talking about important issues to do with public services—health transformation budgets, for example—and how that money could be used to make some of the changes, because they were already agreed in policy before the Stormont Executive changed. But she was also right to point out, as others have done, that the amount of transformation that can be done is limited by the political constraints that everybody here has been describing.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On the issue of health transformation, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health has made it clear that £100 million went into health transformation funding last year and another £100 million will go in this year as a direct result of confidence and supply money. He has welcomed this greatly, because it gives us an opportunity to roll out multidisciplinary teams and other things that can actually save money. These are not insignificant amounts of money. They are substantial amounts that are going to transform the health service as a result of the confidence and supply deal.
John Penrose
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a significant transformation going on, and a significant amount of funds is going in to let that transformation happen, but it is also true to say that more transformation would be possible if there were political leadership as well. The civil service is limited not so much by the money at the moment; it is about the ability to take fresh policy decisions that would allow further progress to be made. That is the frustration under which we are all labouring during this Second Reading debate. On that basis, I plan to let us move on to consider the remaining stages of the Bill. I am delighted that there is cross-party consensus that it should proceed.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In my remarks, I specifically asked, given the progress that the Government made on the Lord Chief Justice’s proposals, whether the Minister would give us an answer on progress towards having a medical school as part of Ulster University. The project is not only time critical but critical to the future provision of training places for doctors, particularly, in Northern Ireland, which would help to reduce the locum bill. We would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.
John Penrose
I shall respond swiftly, as I do not want to hold up the rest of the process. The hon. Lady is right to say that she asked that specific question. Let me make two comments in response. First, the judicial changes are not a Westminster Government decision. They are taken, rightly, by independent judiciary in Northern Ireland. Secondly, her question on the medical school needs to be addressed as part of the city deal discussions that are currently getting under way, and I would be happy to discuss that with local people and, if necessary, with her as well. With that, I propose to do something unusual for a politician: stop talking and sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 5th March 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019 View all Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House amendments as at Tuesday 5 March 2019 (PDF) - (5 Mar 2019)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must inform the Committee that the Chairman of Ways and Means has selected amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). He has not selected the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and he has not selected amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. It will, however, be in order on this occasion to refer to the subject matter of new clause 1 and amendment 1, which have not been selected.
Clause 1
Issue of sum out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending 31 March 2019 and appropriation of that sum
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 9 stand part.
Amendment 2, in schedule 2, page 13, line 7, after ‘offences’ insert—
‘except where such future prosecutions involve alleged offences under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861’.
Schedules 1 to 4 be schedules to the Bill.
Karen Bradley
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship in this Committee, Dame Eleanor. As these matters were debated at length on Second Reading, I do not propose to detain the Committee any further.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to amendment 2, which I tabled with my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield). We recognise that this legislation has been brought to the House at short notice, but we want to put the Secretary of State on notice that the concerns raised in the amendments will endure in every piece of legislation until the issues are resolved, because they speak to one of the first concerns that any Member of Parliament should have: the human rights of the people whom we represent. Amendment 2 seeks to recognise that this Government cannot pick and choose their responsibilities. On the one hand, they take full responsibility for expenditure in Northern Ireland but, on the other hand, they ignore human rights abuses and the suffering that they are causing to UK citizens.
The Bill authorises departmental expenditure to allow the continued delivery of public services in Northern Ireland in the absence of an Executive and the consequent inability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass legislation to provide the same rules. That Assembly has not sat for over two years, which is why this House passed emergency legislation last November. Section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 makes it clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for the guidelines relating to human rights in Northern Ireland. However, amendment 2 relates to the fact that she has failed to take any meaningful action to uphold that obligation and, indeed, has sought to deny it.
In a written ministerial statement on 30 January 2019, the Secretary of State said that
“the current absence of devolved Government in Northern Ireland should not dislodge the principle that it is for the devolved Administration to both legislate on, and ensure compliance with, human rights obligations in relation to such devolved matters.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 40WS.]
However, article 27 of the Vienna convention states:
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
In layman’s terms, that simply means that we cannot ignore our human rights responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland and use devolution as a cover for doing so.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
We have heard from across the House today that a unified approach is the proper answer in Northern Ireland, but that cannot be achieved at this stage. However, when we asked for transparency around finance, we were unable to get it. With human rights, that obligation rests on each of us as an individual, and particularly on the Secretary of State, and it is not restricted by borders. It is a responsibility wherever we see a human rights abuse.
Stella Creasy
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who is a co-sponsor of amendment 2. That speaks to a concern that is shared by many, which is the picking and choosing for political expediency of what human rights means and what action the Government will take. However, we are not the only people to have identified that. Amendment 2 relates to the prosecution of people under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and other august bodies have recognised the problems created by the Government’s approach to human rights.
On 23 February 2018, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women carried out an inquiry into abortion law in Northern Ireland under article 8 of the optional protocol to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, to which the UK acceded in 2004—just as we are a party to the Vienna convention. The report stated that the
“delegation of government powers did not ‘negate the direct responsibility of the State party’s national or federal Government to fulfil its obligations to all women within its jurisdiction’. Thus, the United Kingdom cannot invoke its internal arrangements (the Belfast Agreement) to justify its failure to revise the laws of Northern Ireland that violate the Convention.”
The laws that violate that convention were written in this place, because the 1861 Act was written by the United Kingdom. It was written here, but it still has effect in Northern Ireland. It is the reason why, to this day, a woman who is raped in Northern Ireland and seeks a termination as a result would face a longer prison sentence than her attacker. That is the human rights abuse that we are talking about today, violated in this country and the responsibility of this Parliament.
Amendment 1 was not selected, but Madam Deputy Speaker said that it was in order to speak to it. We are concerned, not just about abortion and human rights abuses, but about human rights across the piece and the importance of equality to our values and to our country. Amendment 1 spoke to the same situation that arises as a result of our failure to give equal marriage to the people of Northern Ireland—a failure to treat people who are married as married under the law, not as civil partners but fully married, as anyone else would be. I am not married myself; I am sure that after today I might even get the odd proposal. [Interruption.] Well, a girl can live in hope. However, the proposal that I would really like to see the Secretary of State picking up on is represented in articles 8, 9, 12 and 14 of the European convention on human rights. Even the former Minister has noted that the prohibition on marriage in Northern Ireland is “simply not justifiable”. Just as with those laws on abortion, it is this Parliament legislating today that is perpetuating the prohibition on same-sex marriage for couples in Northern Ireland, even when those who are lawfully married in England and Wales visit or reside in Northern Ireland.
Martin Whitfield
Is not the real test of a politician their conduct—not when something is easy to do, but when it is hard? This may be a hard decision, but it is the honourable, right and historically correct decision to make.
Stella Creasy
Yet again I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend, because that Vienna convention must mean something. The fact that we have signed those treaties gives rights to all our citizens—not rights to some of them when we need to do a deal with some other citizens to stay in power, but rights that should transcend party politics, rights that should mean something, rights that we should all be proud to uphold. Because we do not do so, our fellow UK citizens in Northern Ireland are treated as second-class citizens. Women are not allowed to access basic rights of control over their own bodies, and people are not allowed to love who they love and see that celebrated without fear or favour and equally.
It is because the Secretary of State has done nothing about those issues, and tries to deny her fundamental responsibility for upholding those rights on behalf of all UK citizens, especially in Northern Ireland, that we are in this position today, and that is where amendment 2 has come from. It is about the mess that has been created—about the fact that UK taxpayers’ money is being used to perpetuate those human rights abuses by funding prosecutions and defending claims that are having to be brought by Northern Irish citizens to uphold their rights—because this Government will not act. This is a very live issue.
Lady Hermon
May I ask the hon. Lady to take a few moments and reflect on the very significant Supreme Court decision in June 2018, in a case brought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and the very critical comments that the judges made about the lack of appropriate legislation in Northern Ireland? I think I am right in saying that the situation in relation to the abortion legislation in Northern Ireland in the cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality was described as “deeply unsatisfactory”. When Supreme Court judges describe such things as “deeply unsatisfactory”, this country will have to legislate at some stage to comply with that.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Lady. I am only disappointed because I was sort of hoping for a proposal; but I completely agree with the point that she makes. Indeed, she prefigures something that I shall come on to. We are spending money because of our failure to tackle those human rights issues—money that could be going into public services in Northern Ireland, but instead will be spent upholding the situation that she describes. I want to come on to that, and what that practically means for the Secretary of State.
We know that cases are currently going through the courts as a direct result of this situation. In 2013, the mother of a 15-year-old was prosecuted under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for procuring abortion pills for her under-age daughter. The mother was prosecuted following the appointment with her daughter and a GP. That decision is now being judicially reviewed, so there is a live case, which the UK Government will spend money to defend as a result of the provisions of the Bill before us.
Today, we know that the UK Government have been formally notified that A and B, a mother and daughter from Northern Ireland, are taking their battle to the European Court of Human Rights. They are challenging the refusal to allow women from Northern Ireland access to abortion services free of charge in England and have issued legal proceedings against the English Health Secretary. Six years ago, they were forced to raise £900 to travel from Northern Ireland to Manchester in order for B to be treated at a private clinic. I absolutely share the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) about the importance of value for money within our politics. On the public purse, the crucial thing in this case is that an offer was made to settle with the Government. There was an offer not to proceed with this kind of spending, but the Government have refused. They have ignored the requests to settle this case, even though the law has subsequently changed. That means that public money that could be going on public services in Northern Ireland will be spent contesting that case.
Martin Whitfield
When we look at the cases travelling through the courts and those we can anticipate are going to come forward, we see that there will be only one inevitable conclusion when the judgment comes out. What we have seen over the past few months is pure delay, which has cost money and drawn away from services in Northern Ireland. We know where this is going to end up and it would be better for us to make the change now, in control, and with credit being given where it is due, so that we can move forward and invest properly in Northern Ireland.
Stella Creasy
Again, I do not disagree. I believe that these are issues for the people of Northern Ireland, but I recognise that this situation arises in the first place because of antiquated legislation written in the United Kingdom, so it is right that this place takes responsibility for the antiquated legislation that is causing these human rights problems in Northern Ireland.
The trouble for me with all this is that I know that the Secretary of State agrees, because as she said to the Women and Equalities Committee last week, she agrees that the situation with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is untenable. She agrees that it is an error that the commission is not able to bring cases directly. Right now, because of her Government’s failure to act on these issues, we are in the position that it would take a rape victim coming to court and having to explain their situation to address the laws that we have.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is absolutely right when she points to that Supreme Court ruling, which is what should really matter today, because that is where that public-purse money is going. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission took the Government—our own Government—to court. How can we lecture on human rights around the world when our own Government are being taken to court? The Supreme Court ruled that the situation in Northern Ireland was “incompatible” with human rights; that it treated women—UK taxpayers—as “vehicles”; and that it was “untenable” and in need of “radical reconsideration”.
The Court stated:
“Those responsible for ensuring the compatibility of Northern Ireland law with the Convention rights will no doubt recognise and take account of these conclusions, at as early a time as possible, by considering whether and how to amend the law, in the light of the ongoing suffering being caused by it”.
That was June 2018, months and months ago—months of continued suffering for the people of Northern Ireland, and yes, in relation to today’s debate, months of continued expenditure from the public purse to keep these laws in place for women like Sarah Ewart, who went for a 19-week scan and was told that the baby she was carrying had a fatal defect, that the brain and skull had not developed properly and that it would inevitably die, either before it was born or moments after.
The horror about these laws is shown by the horror for Sarah Ewart and her family in the treatment that they then experienced, having had that devastating diagnosis. Mrs Ewart said that she was refused advice on how to seek a termination. When she asked about having an abortion at a hospital in Belfast, doctors informed her that it was not an option in Northern Ireland. When she inquired as to where she might be able to go to seek a termination elsewhere, they said they were not even able to give her any information to help her. They said their hands were tied: “We can’t tell you anything. We would be prosecuted if we give you that information.”
Some days later, having consulted as many people as she could and certain that hers was one of the rare and exceptional cases in which an abortion could be performed in Northern Ireland, Mrs Ewart met a second consultant. That woman banged her files on the desk and said:
“I’m not going to prison for anyone.”
That is the chilling effect of this situation on the human rights of the woman of Northern Ireland in 2019.
The High Court has told us that the situation is untenable. We know that the same egregious distress is caused by the situation around equal marriage. So when I see the Secretary of State saying that it is a devolved matter and trying to deny basic Vienna convention rights, I also see the mess we are in today with this legislation, whereby money will be wasted. There are rights that she should be upholding and acting to protect, but instead we will put money into prosecuting people—into raids and court cases. It is denying people their basic rights—rights that other courts will have to uphold. What a waste. What a waste of time, effort, money and, above all, dignity for the people of Northern Ireland.
These amendments and this debate are about the dignity of the people of Northern Ireland and about treating them as equal citizens of the United Kingdom. They are about not shirking our responsibility to those men and women to uphold their rights, not matter how uncomfortable that may be and no matter how difficult some in this Chamber may find it. The sight of Government-funded lawyers defending the denial of somebody’s right to love who they love must stop. The sight of public prosecutions of women trying to help other women have control over their own bodies—other Sarah Ewarts—has to stop.
The Secretary of State may tell me that the Bill is not the right vehicle to address these issues, or that they are all matters for devolution. What she has to tell me is how much longer the people of Northern Ireland will have to wait before their human rights are seen as equally important to the rights of the coalition. I put her on notice: she may not support our amendment, but we will not stop fighting for equality across the whole United Kingdom. I wager that history is on our side, not hers.
Sir Mike Penning
I say this with all due respect: I enjoyed the passionate speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I may not have agreed with every word, but frankly I agreed with the vast majority, even though I am a passionate believer in devolution.
I have sat in the Chamber for nearly five hours today, apart from the odd trip to powder my nose. I have intervened on a few Members, but I have made no speeches—I turned up five minutes into Second Reading, too late to speak. That is my fault and no one else’s, but I will try to make up for it now.
I have several points to make about the Bill, but there is one in particular that the hon. Lady might agree with. The first page of the Bill includes a compatibility statement:
“Secretary Karen Bradley has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
In my view the provisions of the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
I am not convinced that the provisions are compatible with convention rights, nor am I convinced that the Bill will do what we were sent here to do. Representation through taxation, the principle that Parliament stands for in this democracy of ours, was set out 900 years ago: we are supposed to look at how the taxpayer’s money is being spent. In passing a Bill because there is no devolved Assembly in Stormont, frankly we are offering a sop to Sinn Féin, which will not participate either in this Chamber or in the Stormont Assembly—that is why it has collapsed.
We cannot say that on the one hand we are willing to pass the Bill, but that on the other hand this is a devolved matter; I think that that is the hon. Lady’s point. This type of Bill will keep coming back—she certainly will. If we believe in devolution, in the Union of this country and in the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to be represented not only here but in their Assembly in Stormont, at some stage we will have to bite the bullet and say that enough is enough. If a political party is not willing to participate, we—the Parliament of the Union of this great nation of ours—will have to step up to the plate and do something about it.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Mike Penning
Will the right hon. Gentleman give me two seconds? I am in a flow.
I have raised the issue with shadow Front Benchers and my own—I was a Northern Ireland Minister for a considerable period—because we have to address it. Perhaps I will come back to that point after the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The right hon. Gentleman puts forward the proposition that the only longer-term alternative to the current stalemate is direct rule. One understands that, but it has been argued today that the provisions of the Good Friday agreement and the concept of devolution are not sacrosanct and that they can be overridden. That is an interesting comment, but surely there is another solution. Of the five parties in a position to form a Government in Northern Ireland, four are prepared, on a cross-community basis, to form a Government without precondition. Might this Parliament stepping up to the mark finally lead us to recognise the need for democracy to move on in Northern Ireland, instead of a single faction being allowed to veto the people of Northern Ireland having their own Government?
Sir Mike Penning
I cannot disagree with a single word that my right hon. Friend has said. This cannot continue; we cannot sit in a situation where there is no way of looking properly at how civil servants are spending taxpayers’ money. That is not the principle of this democracy, and it is not the principle on which I was elected to this House. We must have a methodology. If this House voted to go forward with four parties instead of the five, somewhere along the line Sinn Féin would suddenly wake up and smell the coffee. But at the moment we are not challenging Sinn Féin. We are accepting that they have this veto. We are accepting that this House, in this great Union of ours, is not going to challenge the convention whereby Sinn Féin can say, “No, there is no devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland.”
Gavin Newlands
It is a pleasure, Mrs Laing, to see Renfrewshire represented in the Chair.
I rise to speak very briefly at this stage, although perhaps not quite as briefly as the Secretary of State. Despite some disagreement from the Northern Ireland branch of my fan club on the Benches behind me, I stated clearly on Second Reading the SNP’s view, at least, of the commensurate funding that Scotland would be able to receive as a result of the additional Northern Ireland budget allocation.
It should be noted that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have just simultaneously debated, voted on and passed a motion calling on the Prime Minister to rule out no deal and to extend article 50. That is the first time that this has happened in the history of devolution. But I digress—I just wanted to put that on the record.
I made my point, notwithstanding the comments by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), on the clear and distinct issues present in Northern Ireland, which I wholly accept. But no Scottish MP worth their salt, or Scottish Secretary for that matter, would accept this situation without at least trying to ensure that Scotland received proportionate funding, and it is not cheap to attempt to do so. I outlined my reasoning at length on Second Reading, so I will curtail my remarks at this stage. Suffice it to say that the extra funds announced for this budget, which would amount to £400 million if Barnettised, could amount to 4,100 police officers, 4,500 nurses and 4,400 junior doctors. At this time when the Scottish Government are doubling childcare funding, an extra 5,000-plus nursery teachers could be paid for by Barnett consequentials from all the £140 million, or an entire borders railway with the £106 million change. Or, taken in the round, the extra £3.4 billion flowing from the DUP’s confidence and supply agreement, in addition to the new moneys, could be transformational. It could fund another three Aberdeen bypasses or nearly three additional Queensferry crossings, should we ever need such things.
Sammy Wilson
I am just wondering why so many people would want to bypass Aberdeen that it needs three roads round it.
Gavin Newlands
I pass no comment on Aberdeen, but this road has been a long time coming. The Scottish Government have just ordered it; thankfully there was an opportunity to say that. Sadly, even though the £3.4 billion could cover the cost of almost three Queensferry crossings, it would not even cover the cost of two Chris Graylings.
Clearly, we are unable to pursue this issue any further during the passage of this Bill, but the Scottish Secretary, the Chancellor and the Northern Ireland Secretary can rest assured that pursue it we will.
Tony Lloyd
This has been an interesting debate so far. I will not name the hon. Members, but some unfortunate references have been made to civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. I deplore those remarks. I deplore remarks about people who have no capacity in this House to answer for themselves. I deplore the remarks for another reason. Whatever people think about the institution of the Northern Ireland Office, ultimately it is politicians—I make no criticism of politicians when I say this—who make the decisions. Civil servants are there to advise and implement. I want to put that on the record, because it is important that the House knows, and in particular that those who work for us know, that those criticisms are not a uniform view of their behaviour.
Emma Little Pengelly
I know that things can be said, and there is a range of views, but I think that I can certainly speak for everybody on the DUP Benches when I say that over the last number of years, our civil servants in Northern Ireland and across have been working incredibly hard in very difficult circumstances. I can say that because I see it on a week-to-week basis—I wish it was a day-to-day basis, but I am stuck over here most of the time—because my husband is a senior civil servant. I think I speak for us all when I say that we recognise the incredible, hard work that they have done under difficult circumstances, and we applaud them for that.
Tony Lloyd
I strongly thank the hon. Lady for her helpful remarks, which correct the record.
I thought that giving a direct answer to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) was the direct answer. I am not quite sure what more I can do to amplify no, when no means no. Nevertheless, I am always happy to continue to debate these issues. This debate, by its nature, is not necessarily the most appropriate time, but we will continue the conversation anywhere, any time, within reason.
Importantly, I want to refer to the very imaginative amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said that he agreed with nearly every word she uttered; I agree with every word. It is important to say that, because there are issues of practical humanity involved. I have met Sarah Ewart and other women from Northern Ireland who have sought the safe, legal abortion that women in the rest of the United Kingdom hopefully take for granted, whatever criticisms we make of our health service. That is really important, because the devastation caused to people’s lives by their inability to access things that are taken for granted elsewhere ought to be brought to a conclusion.
People have different views. I am well aware that people in this Chamber have different views on the issues of equal marriage and abortion, but these are basic issues of human rights. It is right and proper that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has raised these issues tonight, because they need airing.
I will not repeat everything that my hon. Friend said, but any woman who loses a wanted baby is already part of an individual tragedy and a familial tragedy, and many people in this House will know that from their personal experience. For a woman who conceives in hope but finds that the baby she conceives is born, sadly, to die is an immense tragedy. For that to then be compounded by an inability to seek the help and basic guidance that I hope members of my family and people living in the rest of the United Kingdom take for granted is not a tragedy; it is a disgrace. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
There is an irony in this, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) pointed out. Our Supreme Court’s decision was interesting. It was not a judgment, because the Court was not capable of making a judgment, but its analysis and recommendation was absolutely unambiguous on where the law stands. Nobody can doubt what the Supreme Court said. However, the odd thing is that the Supreme Court’s judgment was a narrow one. It said in that case that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission had no competence to take the case forward. Because it was taken on behalf of a real human being, it now falls back on that individual to refight the case through the lower courts, with all the time that will take and all the personal trauma it will cause. In the meantime, many other women will, of course, be denied access to safe and legal abortions that would be available anywhere else.
Ian Paisley
I appreciate the point the shadow Secretary of State is making, and we respect the difference that exists on those views. Will he confirm that the views he has expressed are diametrically opposed to those of his sister party in Northern Ireland and to many members of the Social Democratic and Labour party?
Tony Lloyd
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that this does not obviate the absolute necessity for this House to recognise that, whatever people’s views, we have to look at our obligations under the European convention on human rights. We have to take that on board: human rights are the human rights of a person in North Antrim just as much as they are of someone in my constituency of Rochdale in the north end of Greater Manchester.
Let me also say that, ultimately, I would of course sooner that this was done in Stormont. Of course we would sooner see Stormont Members take it forward. In the meantime, however, it is not Stormont or Northern Ireland that is in breach of its treaty obligations, but the United Kingdom. Because it is the United Kingdom, the obligation is on this UK Parliament to be the one that now resolves the issue.
I will not go on at any greater length, but I hope I have made the Labour party position very clear. We would support any action in this Chamber to resolve the two issues of equal marriage and of the safe and equal abortion for women in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State, emboldened by that commitment, will recognise that justice can now be served only by moving forward to prevent the experiences of the Sarah Ewarts of this world, to prevent a mother facing potential criminalisation because she wants to help her daughter, to help women who try to obtain the morning-after pill and are under investigation by the PSNI and to move our world forward and put those in Northern Ireland in the same position as I would expect for my own constituents.
Karen Bradley
This has been an interesting debate with some passionately held views clearly expressed.
Let me touch briefly on the comments made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who talked about the moneys allocated in the written ministerial statement. Clearly, we are not voting on those today; we are voting on the vote on account. Let us be very clear what the Bill is. He needs to recognise the unique pressure that Northern Ireland faces, particularly because of the lack of Ministers for more than two years. These matters need to be resolved, but they need to be resolved in Stormont by a devolved Executive dealing with these budgetary pressures. I am sure that he will understand why the written ministerial statement included the additional money—it was because of the unique pressures faced by Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) was thoughtful, as always, and passionate about the matters he cares so desperately about. I know of his support for our veterans and retired police officers who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles, and he has campaigned for them long and hard for many years. I assure him that I want the situation to change. I want things to be different, because none of us wants the current situation to continue. That is why we have consulted on how we can best take forward legislation in this place, as agreed in the Stormont House agreement, which he will know so well having served in Northern Ireland just before that took place. Of course, the Stormont House agreement happened when my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office.
We want to take that work forward, and I would very much like to work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead on the responses to the consultation. We have had more than 17,000, and we are still working our way through some traumatic, difficult and individual responses. I would like to work with him personally to get his expertise and wisdom fed into the process so that we can ensure that those brave service personnel and retired police officers who made sure that peace was possible are treated with the dignity they so rightly deserve.
I turn now to amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who told me that she has put me on notice. I do not think it is the first time she has done so, and I am sure that it will not be the last. I know how hard she campaigns on this issue and how much she cares about it. We have debates on it and I will not rehearse the conversations we have had. She knows my personal position, but she also, I know, understands the constitutional situation and that what we all want to see is a restored Government in Stormont that can then take forward the measures that she has talked about and those brought to the Supreme Court when the Executive were taken to court.
The shadow Secretary of State talked about the UK Government. Clearly, legally the UK Government are always the defendant in such cases. We are the member state that is signed up to the treaties. However, it was the position of the laws of Northern Ireland as set out by the Executive and the Assembly that was challenged following the 2016 vote when a push to change the law on fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest was defeated in the Assembly, with the majority of the then Assembly Members voting against that change.
The shadow Secretary of State also talked about the legal standing of the Human Rights Commission, and I have said on the record on a number of occasions that what came out from the Supreme Court judgment was an anomaly in the law that nobody knew was there. In 1998, when the Northern Ireland Act was passed and the Commission was established, everyone believed it had the same legal standing as commissions in other parts of the United Kingdom that were established at around the same time as devolution happened around the UK. Clearly, that is not the case and steps therefore need to be taken to address that point. I agree that we do not want women who are victims of the situation having to come to court and make the case themselves.
Gavin Robinson
Just on that brief point, which I raised with the Secretary of State last week: in the interests of clarity, transparency and the scrutiny that the Chair of the Select Committee has asked for, will the Secretary of State provide details, after this evening, to confirm the point about an error in the grounding legislation for the Human Rights Commission? She knows that in Northern Ireland, unlike in England and Wales, we have a separated Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and Human Rights Commission, and that the Equality Commission does have standing. Will she provide detail and clarity to confirm the position she has taken, which is that it is an error in the law?
Karen Bradley
I will of course be very happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with more information on that point. Everybody believed that the Human Rights Commission had legal standing. The HRC took the case believing it had legal standing, but it was only during the Supreme Court judgment that that point was clarified. I am very happy to share the information on that point with him.
Returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow about the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 and the amendment to section 4 that she pressed to a vote and that this House accepted late last year, clearly the Act cannot change the law in Northern Ireland. The guidance I have issued on what I expect the Northern Ireland Office to do is very clear, but it cannot in itself change the law. I do not have the power to do that through that Act of Parliament. However, I do keep under review the obligations we have on the matter.
I want to be very clear and to state very clearly that the UK Government remain committed to their obligations under international law, including the European convention on human rights. It is important to recognise that it is for the devolved Administrations across the whole UK to ensure that their domestic laws and actions are compliant. The observance and implementation of international obligations, and obligations under the European convention on human rights, so far as they are otherwise within the competence of the Assembly, are matters for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
If I can make one final important point, I support the principle of the amendment on same-sex marriage, which was not selected today, and I have been clear on the record that I want changes to the legislation relating to abortion in Northern Ireland. However, those are matters for a restored Executive. We want a restored Executive to progress legislation on that issue as one of the first things they do.
Maria Caulfield
Given that this is the second year that this place is bringing forward a Northern Ireland budget Bill—there is another Northern Ireland Bill tomorrow—and given that the debates we have had with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and on the veterans issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), does the Secretary of State not think that passing all the stages of a Bill in one day does a disservice to the people of Northern Ireland? We need proper scrutiny of the Bill through the normal process that any other Bill would have.
Karen Bradley
What we are doing today is effectively the estimates process. The moneys we are voting on today have all been voted for and properly scrutinised in this House. We are confirming the departmental spending in 2018-19, so for this current financial year. That spending was done on a proper statutory basis, with the moneys having been properly voted through this place and properly scrutinised in this place in terms of the block grant given to the Northern Ireland Office. What would happen normally is that the Northern Ireland Assembly would hold an estimates day, which would probably be about the same length of time. At the end of it, it would vote on the estimates. We are therefore effectively doing the same thing, but we have to do it through primary legislation because we are unable to do it in any other way in the absence of the Assembly sitting.
I know that that is not satisfactory and I know it does not feel right to those of us who are used to the full scrutiny of Bills, but I gently say that we are probably giving the Bill about the same amount of time it would have had in the Assembly if it was sitting. This is a very technical Bill. It is about making sure we agree that the spending that has already happened has been done on the proper legislative statutory footing and that we agree that more spending can take place next year without going into any further details about the allocations, merely that we accept that 70% of prior year spending can be spent by the Department without the need for further legislation. I hope that clarifies the point further.
Tony Lloyd
The Secretary of State is touching on an important point. Of course, the retrospective nature of the Bill and the estimates comparison are significant. With other departmental budgets that come through the House, there are different mechanisms of scrutiny, which do not apply here. The Secretary of State has heard the profound argument from both sides of the House that if this happens in the future—like her, I hope it does not—we should begin to think about a better way of separating the Second Reading process and the detailed scrutiny.
Karen Bradley
I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I gently say that this is a very technical Bill that is putting spending that has already happened on a statutory basis. It is about money that has been scrutinised in this House, which we have voted to be allocated to Northern Ireland in previous debates. We are talking about putting the decisions that civil servants took and the money that we have agreed that they can spend on a proper statutory basis. I absolutely understand the frustrations about a lack of scrutiny—I want more scrutiny. However, the right, constitutional way to do that—the way this House has agreed we should do that—is to have an Assembly and Executive sitting in Stormont doing the appropriate scrutiny.
I return to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I know how strongly she feels about this issue, and I know that she wants to see change, but this is not the Bill to do it in. This is a technical Bill. She wants success in what she is trying to achieve, and I therefore urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Stella Creasy
The Secretary of State, by refusing to recognise her responsibility to uphold the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland, is creating a situation by which public money will potentially be spent on cases like the one that Sarah Ewart was involved in. What is her message to Sarah Ewart and all the other women she is letting down by refusing to stand up for their human rights?
Karen Bradley
I do not accept what the hon. Lady said. We have appropriate and proper separation of the judiciary and Parliament. The prosecuting services in Northern Ireland, the police and others must decide what investigations they undertake, based on the law as it stands. Her concerns are with the law, and I understand that. I very gently say to her that I and the UK Government are committed to all our obligations under international law, including the European convention on human rights. It is for the politicians whom the people of Northern Ireland elected to do the right thing by those people. I understand how strongly the hon. Lady feels about this issue, but this is not the right vehicle for what she wants to do. I urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Stella Creasy
I recognise that this is a spending Bill and is not the right place for this, but I want to put the Secretary of State on notice that until she recognises her responsibly for human rights, this House will take every single opportunity to speak up for the Sarah Ewarts of Northern Ireland. She clearly will not, but we will.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Karen Bradley
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will keep my remarks to a minimum, as we have had a long day and considerable debate on the matters raised. We have heard some very passionate and heartfelt contributions from right hon. and hon. Members. I thank them all for their contributions. I also thank the Minister and the Whips for their work, the Opposition and SNP spokespeople and all the officials who helped to put the Bill together.
This is not something any of us wished to do again. We want to see a devolved Government in Stormont because many of the matters raised today should rightly be dealt with by politicians elected by the people of Northern Ireland—that is what we want to see—and I very much hope that I will not be back doing a budget Bill again for Northern Ireland. That said, I am grateful that the House has supported the Bill so far and I hope that it will now support its Third Reading.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I place on the record our appreciation of the Secretary of State, her officials and the Minister for their co-operation in discussing the detail of the Bill and our appreciation for the additional funding, which is greatly needed to address issues in Northern Ireland.
I echo the comments of the Secretary of State. DUP Members sincerely hope that this evening will be the last time the House will need to deal on this temporary basis with the budget for Northern Ireland. We truly hope that by this time next year we will have a functioning devolved Government and Assembly that can do the job, provide the scrutiny and bring forward proposals for public expenditure in Northern Ireland. We agree that this is not a desirable way to do things—it is not our wish that it should happen this way—but we appreciate the time the House has devoted to it. I wish we had more time for scrutiny, but we understand why we are where we are. The DUP is committed to working towards the restoration of devolved government. The sooner it happens the better.
Tony Lloyd
Some of the principles in this debate do not divide the House. Some are clearly matters of enormous importance. What has come through time and again is that the process of examining the competence of the budgetary process is not written into the procedures of the House, and I urge the Secretary of State to think about how we can make accountability and transparency more efficient, even in this coming year, because there will be further stages of the budgetary process for 2019-20. That is my first point.
Secondly, while I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for not pressing her amendment, I think that she raised an enormously important issue. Let me say gently to the Secretary of State—I hope she will take this on board—that at present the remedy for the United Kingdom’s failure to honour its obligations lies with the United Kingdom Government, and it is the United Kingdom Government who must search for that remedy.
My final point concerns something on which the whole House is agreed. The people who are being let down by the lack of a Stormont Assembly are not the people of Rochdale or the people of the Secretary of State’s Staffordshire Moorlands constituency, but, ultimately, the people of Northern Ireland. With that in mind, I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that a real effort and a real emphasis are directed towards all-party talks to bring that situation to a conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Police force funding
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition on the topical issue of inadequate funding for police forces, signed by Mr Tony Weafer, residents and business owners in Southampton; it has been signed by 956 constituents in total. The business owners and residents of Shirley in my constituency have expressed concern about cuts in police funding and the inability of the police force to secure sufficient funds from central Government to protect people in this country adequately from the frightening increase in crime.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The petition of residents and business owners of Southampton in Hampshire, declares that the Police Force is unable to secure sufficient funds from Central Government in order to adequately protect the people of this country from the frightening increase in crime. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Police have the resources they need to adequately protect the people of this country.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002433]
Families of Commonwealth Soldiers
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. Let me begin by paying tribute to all the men and women who serve in our armed forces. They put their lives on the line to protect ours and those of millions of people around the world.
My constituency is home to Fort George, the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion, and 500 soldiers. To them, and each and every one of the others, we owe a debt of gratitude for their service. That, of course, includes more than 6,000 men and women serving in the armed forces from foreign and Commonwealth countries, a number that is set to increase as the Army embarks on yet more recruitment campaigns across the Commonwealth.
In response to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), the Defence Secretary has said:
“We expect up to 1,350 Commonwealth citizens to join our armed forces next year.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2018; Vol. 650, c. 3.]
Like any other soldiers, sailors and aircrew, they will put their lives on the line in our service, and they will do so under the direction of this Government’s Ministry of Defence. Reflected in their service is the sacrifice also made by their families, who will find themselves affected. They are sometimes uprooted, and often left with the anxiety of knowing that their loved ones are doing a difficult and dangerous job.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this debate; I have always wanted to say that right, and I have had the luck to do so. The hon. Gentleman has been very outspoken and diligent in taking this matter forward. Does he agree that we have a duty of care to those who fight for Queen and country in whatever form that takes, that that extends to the family of service personnel and that it is outrageous that it is not currently discharged as well as he and I would expect?
Drew Hendry
Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a great point. As I was going on to say, the sacrifice is also made by the families. They have the anxiety of their loved ones doing a difficult and dangerous job, yet their sacrifices often go untold.
As the Army Families Federation has said,
“Commonwealth members of our Armed Forces make up a significant and vital part of the UK’s Defence capability and, as a nation, we ask them to make significant sacrifices to do so.”
Is it right that the sacrifices they make in undertaking the duty of service should mean being kept apart from their families? No, it is simply not right; yet it is continually happening. The current immigration rules are keeping Commonwealth soldiers apart from their families. The report from the AFF reads:
“The UK recruits soldiers from across the Commonwealth to serve in our Armed Forces. There are currently over 6,000 personnel serving in the UK Armed Forces from foreign and Commonwealth countries, with more being recruited each year to fill technical and specialist roles.
Since December 2013, those who leave their country of origin to serve our nation are subjected to the Government’s minimum income requirements if they wish to bring their immediate family with them.
This requirement means that due to military pay scales, a Commonwealth soldier with a spouse and two children can end up waiting up to six years before they earn over the £24,800 needed for their family to join them.
It cannot be right that those who have signed up to defend our nation by serving in the Armed Forces are doing so at the expense of their family life. The current situation can result in personnel making the heart-breaking decision of choosing which child they bring with them to the UK and which they leave behind until their income has increased. The MIT should be removed as a barrier from those who serve in the Armed Forces.”
Louise Simpson, chair of the Cobseo Foreign and Commonwealth cluster, has said:
“We struggle to engage with recruiters to make sure that soldiers and service personnel understand the financial commitment that they have when coming to the UK particularly around the cost of visas and the minimum income requirements. There was a lot of press…about soldiers not understanding that they may not be able to bring their children in for almost 4 years because they are not earning the right amount of money. As an organisation, we feel that is immoral”.
She is right; that is immoral. This Government must accept that fact.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is doing the armed forces a great service. Does he agree that we must remember that these Commonwealth soldiers put their lives on the line just like British soldiers and therefore should be treated in the same way as British soldiers in terms of family, instead of having this limit of £24,000 and waiting for six years?
Drew Hendry
I absolutely and fundamentally agree. It is a disgrace that people are being asked to put themselves on the line and at risk without qualifying for the same conditions as others enjoy just because they were born in one of the nations of the UK.
In 2011 the Government announced plans to introduce a new policy on family migration. One of the major changes was to make the level of income threshold
“higher than that of the safety net of income support.”
Subsequently, the armed forces immigration rules introduced in the first quarter of 2013 closely aligned themselves to the rules for non-military and introduced the requirement for a soldier with one child to be earning at least £22,400 and a further £2,400 for each additional child. It could be many years before a recruit earns the salary needed to meet the threshold.
In 2011, the Government enshrined the armed forces covenant in statute. The Army Families Federation and the Cobseo Foreign and Commonwealth cluster group have urged the Government to consider the principles of the covenant with regard to the family needs of Commonwealth personnel. Commonwealth recruits find it very difficult to hold down a second job, due to their irregular hours. They also stand alone as a cohort within the armed forces, in that they are forcibly separated from their immediate dependants on recruitment, unlike their domestic peers.
In August 2014, the Prime Minister announced the introduction of a family test to be applied by Departments when devising policy. The guidance and documentation for the test state:
“Strong and stable families, in all their forms, play an important role in our society. Families have a major impact on the life chances of individuals and strong family relationships are recognised as an important component of individual, community and national wellbeing.”
While we think about those words, let us consider the case study of an Army private who enlisted in 2013, just prior to the new rules coming into effect. He had not even had the chance to bring his family to the UK, as he had not finished training. He has two children and a wife back home in Ghana, and he has been separated from them for six years. He is now earning enough to bring his wife and one of his children to the UK, but it will be another two to three years before he can bring his other child here. He is faced with the agonising decision of choosing which child should join him and his wife in the UK. How can that be right?
The family test sets out a number of questions that Departments should apply when devising policies that risk affecting families. Those questions include:
“What impacts will the policy have on all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life, including with respect to parenting and other caring responsibilities?”
The previous Chief of the Defence Staff commented in the Ministry of Defence’s 2016 strategy that our personnel could fully carry out their defence tasks only if they had the support of their families and the confidence that their loved ones would be able to access the right support when required.
In September 2017, a soldier who had been refused a visa for the UK as a result of the minimum income threshold appealed, with the assistance of the Army Families Federation, on the basis of exceptional circumstances. The judge said that the appeal was successful in the light of the compassionate circumstances of the case, particularly noting that the sponsor had a legitimate expectation that he would be able to bring his family to the UK when he signed up to the armed forces in 2017. He said:
“I find that it is not in the public interest to exclude the appellant”.
It is time to amend the existing immigration rules on the minimum income threshold to exempt the families of serving armed forces personnel.
However, the difficulties do not end there. My constituent, Denis Omondi, is a serving soldier in the British Army who, in 2011, found out that he was the father of a little girl in Kenya. He had previously been unaware of his daughter’s existence, but he then sprang into action, meeting and visiting his daughter as often as he could. There was an instant connection between them, and they are indeed a dad and daughter, so when his daughter’s birth mother said that she could no longer look after her, Denis became Ann’s sole custodian. He pays for her education and living costs in Kenya and is proudly responsible for her care and wellbeing. Understandably, he takes the role of being her dad very seriously. He also takes his job very seriously. He is a British citizen and a serving soldier in 3 Scots, Black Watch, stationed at Fort George, where he has loyally served, undertaking tours in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cyprus. Despite the demands of his work, he has used every opportunity to visit and spend time with Ann in Kenya.
With his wife battling cancer and as a dad missing his daughter, Denis set about applying for a visa to bring her to live with them in the highlands. To him, it was simply the most natural thing for them finally to be together as a family. Imagine his heartache when he opened the letter from the Home Office telling him that Ann’s visa application had been rejected. The reason given was that the Home Office considered that this soldier, committed to serving in the British Army, had not spent enough time with Ann to prove the relationship. That happened despite him providing evidence of visits, photos and calls with Ann, correspondence with teachers and care providers and much more. Denis and his wife were in disbelief at the news, and Ann was devastated to be kept apart from her family.
I could not believe it when I heard about their plight so, in this very Chamber, I pleaded with the Prime Minister to right the wrong. She promised that the Home Secretary would investigate personally, and he readily nodded his agreement. I thought that common sense and common decency would prevail, but that has not yet been the case. Since then, the anxiety, cost and pressure has built up on the Omondi family. A promise to look again eventually came, but only after relentless chasing. Confusion and chaos at the Home Office meant that I had to raise the case again, this time with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Incidentally, I thank the Immigration Minister for the apology for saying that Dennis, Shelagh and myself had told lies about the situation with the mislaid paperwork and about the fact that no conversations with the Omondis had come from the Home Office. It has been said to me in writing that the Home Office apologises for that, and I am grateful, but I would rather that it got on with sorting the situation out for the Omondis. Here we are: a Prime Minister, two Secretaries of State, a heartbroken family and still no answer on whether this serving soldier will be reunited with his only daughter.
I found out today that so distrusting is the Home Office that it has arranged with a South African agency to call Ann and her birth mother to check out the detailed information supplied by the Omondis. I cannot believe that we would trust a member of the armed forces to go and put his life on the line for us, yet we cannot trust the information that he and his family are directly supplying here in the UK. What does that say?
“Your Army needs you” is a recruitment call-out, and the website details many benefits of joining, including promises of child and adult safeguarding and support for emotional wellbeing, all of which is sanctioned and promoted by the Ministry of Defence. Those promises will seem pretty hollow if the UK Government fail to do the right thing by someone whom they have called on to serve for them. Let us expedite this case so that this family can be reunited. The Tory Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a former lieutenant colonel in the British Army, said:
“Commonwealth troops should be able to bring their kids to Britain. If they fight for us, they should be able to live with us.”
I agree.
Veterans Aid responded to my note this morning by saying:
“Since 2007 we have interacted with nearly 700 Foreign & Commonwealth veterans seeking help with status issues. These range from regularisation of their own status to complicated appeals to reunite, or keep together, families. Indeed during 2012-14 —well before the scale of the Windrush debacle was revealed—we highlighted two landmark cases that effected a change in the law.”
More recently, in a case remarkably similar to the one that I have described, Veterans Aid
“successfully helped to reunite a father from Sierra Leone with his daughter. It took nine months to resolve.”
That is not Veterans Aid’s core business, but on the basis of considerable experience with a similar case, it was happy to advise if required. The charity continued:
“Behind each ‘case’ there is a tale of human misery and while the details differ, the causes rarely do. Residency and status regulations are complex and inflexible. Advice to those about to leave the Armed Forces is either not given, or not given a priority. Costs relating to residency and citizenship applications are prohibitively high—and well beyond the budget of a typical former infantry soldier with a family.”
When families are in this country, the difficulties do not end, and they continue when soldiers do manage to be reunited with their families. One such case is that of another constituent of mine, a serving Commonwealth soldier who has done tours in Afghanistan, Kenya, Jordan, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland and France. His wife and stepdaughter applied for naturalisation in September 2017, but there is no decision yet.
Jim Shannon
Once again, the hon. Gentleman has advanced a very good, comprehensive case. The soldier in the field who is doing his duty in uniform is always conscious of his family back home. The distress that he obviously experiences because of what is happening is bound to have an effect on him in the field, as it does on his family back home. Is it not really important that the Minister now, in response to the hon. Gentleman, takes this case on personally and sorts it out as soon as possible?
Drew Hendry
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. Absolutely—it is just the right thing to do. There is no dubiety here. He is absolutely right about the effect on people.
As I was saying, my constituent’s wife and daughter applied for naturalisation, with no decision yet. That means that despite his being a UK citizen, his wife and daughter do not have recourse to public funds and are not allowed to work, and the Home Office currently has all their identification documents. They have been waiting well over a year, and are yet another family of a Commonwealth soldier suffering at the hands of the Home Office, which insists that the case is “complex”. When I ask for a timeline for the decision, we are told that it cannot give us one, and so on.
Another case is that of Emmanuel, who is happy to be named. He wanted to bring his auntie over for a visit, but was unable to do so because she did not earn enough in Ghana, and the Home Office would not accept him paying for her visit here. He basically just wanted to see his family before he went off for a tour in Iraq in 2018. He wrote to my assistant, Callum:
“Dear Callum,
Good day and thank you very much for getting in touch.
Even though we felt abandoned in our own case, I will be more than glad for the MP to mention my case as an example and use my name if need be, so Parliament and the Home Office knows that these are real issues affecting real Commonwealth people.
I am sad to say that after two attempts, my auntie never was issued the visa. This is unacceptable, what is happening to Commonwealth citizens serving in the British army and it’s super bad for the recruitment drive!
It’s bad enough that these men and women, having signed blank cheques with their lives for this country, still pay the full cost for their naturalization to become British, and yet their loved ones cannot even visit them to keep them sane. My support for Mr Omondi in getting his daughter is massive, as it affects all of us Commonwealth people, especially when I and my partner have experienced this ill treatment. We are still devastated by what has happened to us, because I was going through postnatal depression then. Extend our thanks to Mr Drew for flying the Commonwealth flag for us in this matter.”
All these cases are simple. We have asked these people to come and do a duty for us—to put their life at risk, and to obviously involve their families, because that is a part of the job. I am asking the Minister now to take this seriously. In the case of Mr Omondi, I would like an answer. In the case of this entire situation for all Commonwealth armed services personnel, there is a big job to do to sort this out. Let us see the changes made that need to be made, and let us see those Commonwealth soldiers and armed forces personnel treated with the dignity that they deserve.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for bringing this subject to our attention during tonight’s debate. As he said, we are all rightly proud of our armed forces and the contribution made to the tri-services, whether it be the Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, by our Commonwealth personnel. There is a long tradition of recruitment from the Commonwealth, which we are all proud to see continuing. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have a military base in my constituency—the School of Army Aviation at Middle Wallop.
In the Home Office, as in all other Departments, we are absolutely committed to upholding our obligations under the armed forces covenant, to ensure that no one who is serving or has served, or their family, is disadvantaged because of that service. The Home Office works closely with the Ministry of Defence and the individual services to make sure that those who choose to enlist in Her Majesty’s forces are well informed and fully aware of what the immigration requirements are for them and their families.
As the Immigration Minister, I am responsible for the borders, immigration and citizenship system, including how it applies to the armed forces. That includes our provisions for foreign and Commonwealth members of Her Majesty’s forces, foreign and Commonwealth family members of our service personnel and members of international armed forces and their families. I am also the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces covenant and veterans’ issues in the Home Office, which means I take a direct interest in the issues affecting our current and former service personnel and their families. I take extremely seriously my role of ensuring that the immigration system operates in supporting the families of our dedicated service personnel who join Her Majesty’s forces from Commonwealth countries. That involves keeping up to speed with the work conducted by the Ministry of Defence and other Departments in delivering our cross-Government commitment to our armed forces covenant obligations. It also includes keeping our policies relating to the armed forces under review, and acknowledging and championing where our policies are meeting our covenant obligations.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about the armed forces covenant. Will she take account of the request of the AFF and Cobseo foreign and Commonwealth cluster group urging the Government to consider the principles of the covenant with regard to the family needs of Commonwealth soldiers?
Caroline Nokes
Well, of course. I think I have already indicated that we have to look at the needs of not only service personnel and former service personnel but their families when considering our obligations under the covenant.
As the subject of today’s debate is families of commonwealth soldiers, I trust that hon. Members will find it helpful if I set out some of the Government’s policy background. From December 2013, a dedicated part of the immigration rules known as “Appendix Armed Forces” was introduced. As the name suggests, it was developed especially for the family members of those who had chosen to enlist as members of Her Majesty’s forces. The purpose of the change was to align dedicated routes with the broader immigration framework. It was also designed, with joint input from the MOD, to ensure that the provisions therein fulfilled our obligations under the armed forces covenant. Although the military sponsor remains exempt from immigration controls for the duration of their service, family members who come to the UK to join them are considered under the dedicated rules for Her Majesty’s forces families in “Appendix Armed Forces”.
As members of Her Majesty’s forces are regularly posted abroad and their families are rightly encouraged to accompany them, the rules make special provisions to account for that. First, a standard grant of limited leave for Her Majesty’s forces family members is for five years, rather than the 30 months that is standard for other family applications. Importantly, that saves them the cost of a second application fee. Secondly, time spent overseas on an accompanied posting is treated as time spent in the UK for immigration purposes. That means that any time spent accompanying their partner or parent on an overseas posting does not prejudice their eligibility for settlement after spending five years with limited leave. We are proud of our continuing commitment to our armed forces and their family members, including Commonwealth nationals who bravely offer their service to Her Majesty the Queen and our country. As I have indicated, I am committed to ensuring we uphold our obligations and do right by all members of the forces and their families.
As the Minister with overall responsibility for immigration matters, I am acutely aware that some of the applications received by my Department fall into what can be called the “complex cases”. I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking the trouble to set out his constituents’ cases in such detail. He will of course know that I cannot comment on the detail of individual cases on the Floor of the House. I hope he will understand that I can speak only in general terms. Without going into specifics, I accept that applications involving families can involve a variety of reasons, as family dynamics themselves can become ever more complex. This is not isolated from marriage or relationship breakdowns, the setting up of new family units and myriad other causes.
Although I shall certainly not speak about specifics, it is important to explain some of the background. These applications can be, by their very nature, time-consuming for decision makers to consider, and I make no apology for that. Although we are striving to have more streamlined processes, we must never lose sight of the fact that one of our primary duties is the protection of the public. That is especially true when we are looking at applications made on behalf of children. In some cases, the application may not have been properly completed, or there might be gaps in the provision of the information that we require to make a sound, well-balanced decision. In some instances, it may well be that we ask for more information, or that we ask to speak to the sponsor. Such additional measures are taken only when it would assist the decision-making process and other options have been exhausted. Understandably, that might be frustrating for some sponsors or applicants, but we will do it only to safeguard the interests of the applicant. All Members will be aware that we have statutory obligations to minors and to others who may be vulnerable for other reasons. Again, I make no apology for officials being assiduous in making responsible decisions.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are conscious of the hon. Gentleman’s point about the income threshold and how it might affect Army families. Although I stand firmly by the principle of the minimum income threshold, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened carefully to the points he has made this evening.
The Government have a proud tradition of supporting our armed forces and recognising the invaluable service that they give to the United Kingdom, and that includes Commonwealth nationals who come to the UK to serve in the forces. That is one reason why we explicitly provide for Commonwealth personnel to obtain settled status after they have discharged, enabling them to remain in the UK permanently and, if they wish, to become British citizens. We also recognise the valuable role that families play in supporting our armed forces, which is why we have immigration rules specifically for forces family members. We greatly value the contribution and sacrifices made by Commonwealth members of the forces, and their families, in ensuring the security of the UK and protecting our citizens. We want them to go on playing an important role in our armed forces, and we are committed to upholding our obligations to them.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT GENERAL FOOD HYGIENE (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
DRAFT CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
DRAFT SPECIFIC FOOD HYGIENE (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
DRAFT GENERAL FOOD LAW (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
For the avoidance of doubt, gentlemen may remove their jackets. As it is the Committee’s wish to take the instruments together, I will call the Minister to move the first motion and speak to all four instruments. At the end of the debate I will put the Question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the remaining motions formally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the draft Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Steve Brine
If one has to be in a Delegated Legislation Committee at 8.55 on a Tuesday morning, this room is a good result. Happy Tuesday.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. The instruments, which all concern food and feed safety, food hygiene and food contaminants, are made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They make necessary amendments to the overarching food regulations so that we can continue to protect public health from risks that may arise in connection with the consumption of food. The instruments correct deficiencies in the regulations to ensure that the UK is prepared to leave the EU without a deal on exit day. The instruments are limited to necessary technical amendments—the legislation does not allow for anything else—to ensure that the regulations are operative on EU exit day. No policy changes are made through the instruments.
As Members know, the Government have negotiated a deal with the EU and are in the process of taking it through Parliament. The deal is designed to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. As a responsible Government, we have been preparing for all scenarios, including the outcome that we leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement. We are committed to ensuring that our regulatory controls function effectively after exit day in the event of no deal, ensuring that public health continues to be protected, which is my priority. It is for that scenario that the instruments have been laid before the House.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene on the Minister, and it is a pleasure to see under you in the Chair this morning, Ms McDonagh. Can the Minister reinforce and clarify what he is saying? Is he saying that if there is a deal next week, the regulations will not be necessary, and that if there is no deal next week, and in the event of no deal, the regulations will be necessary for the protection of public safety?
Steve Brine
Yes. The regulations transpose into domestic law the good public health requirements that we are part of as a member state. If we agree a deal or a withdrawal agreement next week that is subsequently legislated for, everything that we currently enjoy as a member state will roll over during the transition period. If we then negotiate a future trade deal that incorporates all those undertakings, the regulations will not be necessary, but it is about putting the necessary regulations in place to ensure a seamless bridge between membership and being a third country to protect public health, which is what I am interested in.
The instruments will ensure that UK domestic legislation that directly implements applicable EU regulations continues to function effectively after exit day. The proposed amendments are critical to ensuring minimal disruption to general food and feed law, food hygiene and controls on contaminants if we do not reach a deal. The regulations on general food and feed law, food hygiene and controls on contaminants are key to ensuring the safety of food and thereby public health. Consumers in the UK will benefit from a high standard of food and feed safety and quality. The Government are committed to ensuring that the high standards are maintained.
The main changes are that the instruments will transfer responsibilities incumbent on the European Commission to Ministers in England, Wales, Scotland, and the devolved authority in Northern Ireland. They also transfer to the relevant food safety authority the responsibilities currently incumbent on the European Food Safety Authority, the body that provides scientific advice on food safety to the European Commission, the European Parliament and EU member states. That authority will be the Food Standards Agency in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Food Standards Scotland north of the border.
Let me take the regulations in turn, because they start very general and get more specific. The General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that Regulation (EC) 178/2002, which lays down fundamental principles underpinning food law, basic food and feed business requirements, as well as describing certain functions carried out by EU institutions, will function effectively on exit day. The regulation states that food placed on the market must be safe to eat, and it provides for other fundamental food and feed safety and hygiene requirements, including presentation, traceability—we must be able to look one step back and one step forward in the supply chain—the enforcement of regulations, and open and transparent public consultation during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food law. I used the word “presentation”, which is to ensure that we do not mislead consumers. Members may remember that a few years ago there were a lot of concerned constituents because of press coverage about horse meat being sold as certain other meats, and these regulations will ensure that food is what it says on the tin.
The General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ensure that Regulation (EC) 852/2004, which contains basic food hygiene requirements for all food businesses, will function effectively on exit day. It sets out the general requirements for the hygienic production of foodstuffs by all food business operators, through the provision of effective and proportionate controls throughout the food chain to the final consumer. Its farm-to-fork scope covers basic hygiene requirements for food businesses, as well as hygiene requirements relevant for the primary production sector.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. As a former public health Minister, I am interested to hear what the Minister says about this issue, and I feel reassured that as we leave the European Union there is no question of the UK falling behind on food safety standards. In many respects, while being a member of the EU we have been at the forefront of pushing higher standards—in fact, we probably have higher standards than a number of EU member states. Will the Minister say a little more to reassure the public? There have been some wild scare stories out there about how Sodom and Gomorrah will somehow arrive if we leave the EU, and that there will be lightning bolts from the sky, earthquakes, and we will fall off a cliff edge and no longer be able to buy a portion of fish and chips without worrying about our public health.
Steve Brine
I thank one of my esteemed predecessors for that point. When we had a referendum on our membership of the EU, we heard talk of “take back control”. Ultimately, that was about many things—it was about sovereignty, the economy and trade, but I do not think it was about weakening the public food standards that our constituents expect. When I delved into this area of policy as part of my portfolio for these statutory instruments, I realised how much heavy lifting goes on in the European Commission to protect that food security, which we benefited from as a member state. I also realised—the right hon. Lady made the point well—how much we have shaped that. The idea that when we are a third country we will want to diverge from those standards is for the birds. If anything, I want us to increase food safety standards, and the idea that leaving the European Union will leave us as a country, and our constituents and the public exposed, is indeed “Project Fear”, and people should be more responsible in the way they use such language. I thank the right hon. Lady for her point.
Regulation (EC) 852/2004 contains a key requirement that food businesses—except primary producers—must put in place food safety procedures based on the principles of the internationally recognized hazard analysis critical control point procedures. That means that each food business must assess hazards to food safety, and put in place steps to ensure they are controlled, thus ensuring the high level of consumer protection that we all expect.
The Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 relate to Regulation (EC) 853/2004, which covers specific hygiene rules for products of animal origin, and Regulation (EC) 854/2004, which relates to the organisation of official controls for products of animal origin. Let me unpack that. We are talking about meat, fish, dairy and eggs. Regulation (EC) 853/2004, for instance, is the regulation by which we determine what kind of wash we might use on certain products. Our standards, as a member state, say—just to give an example that somebody might be interested in—how we wash chicken after it has been killed. Currently, we wash with drink-water. We will continue to wash with drink-water and the standards that we transpose protect that safety standard, which exists for a reason, and long may that continue. That regulation is about the processing stage—cutting plant standards and standards relating to the wash, for instance.
Regulation (EC) 854/2004, which relates to the specific food hygiene regulations, concerns vet involvement. When I have been to cutting plants, I have seen vets’ involvement at the pre-kill stage, to ensure that the animals have no sign of disease, and at the post-kill phase—which is not to be done after breakfast, I would suggest—to check the carcasses and ensure that there are no signs of ill health. These specific hygiene rules set out the requirements and the specific health standards for establishments on land, or at sea, for the slaughtering process, as I have said, and for the storing or transporting of products of animal origin.
The fourth and final set of regulations in this esteemed grouping, the Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, will ensure that the provisions in the three main pieces of EU contaminants legislation continue to function effectively after exit day. These are Council Regulation (EEC) No. 315/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006, which is the main one, which sets maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. For instance, lead in offal is a possible concern, and that regulation ensures that the maximum level of certain contaminants in that foodstuff is not exceeded.
Finally, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 124/2009 sets maximum levels for the presence of coccidiostats or histomonostats—easy for me to say—in food resulting from the unavoidable carryover of those substances in non-target feed, while associated regulations relate to appropriate methods of sampling and analysis.
The three contaminants regulations protect consumers by ensuring that they are safeguarded from the adverse effects of exposure to contaminants that may be present in food. Chemical contaminants may be present in food from the environment or as a result of growing conditions, which is perfectly natural; it is part of the natural evolution and the natural supply chain. The legislation sets out maximum limits for those certain contaminants in food and provides a clear legal basis on which enforcement action—by local authorities, by trading standards officers or by ports’ health officers—may be taken, where necessary, to protect consumers by facilitating the removal of unsafe food from the food chain.
There are a couple of other points to make. The first is about the impact on industry. I am clear that these instruments do not introduce any changes for food businesses in how they are regulated and how they are run, nor do they introduce extra burdens. These instruments just provide continuity for businesses and the protection of consumers’ interests, and ensure that enforcement of the regulations can continue in the same way—I gave three examples of that. These changes will ensure that a robust system of controls will underpin UK businesses’ ability to trade both domestically and internationally.
It is also important to note that, as with many of the statutory instruments that I have been involved with—in fact, as with all of them—the devolved Administrations have provided their consent for these SIs. We have engaged positively with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of these instruments. That ongoing engagement has been very warmly welcomed, and I place on the record my thanks to all the officials and Ministers who we have worked with.
In conclusion, these instruments are necessary to ensure that our food safety and hygiene legislation continues to work effectively after exit day. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support the amendments proposed in these four instruments, to ensure the continuation of effective food and feed safety, and public health controls, which our constituents rightly expect. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms McDonagh; I hope I give you no trouble.
I thank the Minister for providing a summary of these statutory instruments and for his letter in advance of the Committee, which gave me further details about them. As he has heard me say many times before, this is not the first group of no-deal SIs that we have debated. We are just 24 days away from Brexit day and are yet to agree a deal with the EU. I wonder when the Government might start to become concerned about the clock ticking down. I am greatly concerned, and I know that many others across the country are too. We do not have a deal yet, but we are rushing through so many statutory instruments in such a short period of time that it is deeply concerning for accountability and proper scrutiny. As legislators, we have to get it right, and I deeply regret that we have been put in this position by the Government, but here we are again.
The safety of our food is of the utmost importance to our health and wellbeing. We cannot get it wrong; food safety must be protected at all costs. There is also the element of consumer trust. We must not allow that to break down in any event, particularly if there is any relaxation of regulations, which I hope will not happen. I share the Government’s commitment to ensuring no change in the high-level principles underpinning the day-to-day functioning of the food safety and feed safety legal framework. Ensuring continuity for business and public health bodies is important in the interests of the public. As the Minister would expect, I have questions and concerns about these statutory instruments, which I will set out for the Committee.
When food is found to be unsafe for human consumption, we need a quick and effective mechanism to ensure that it is withdrawn from the market. In 2017 alone, the rapid alert system for food and feed issued more than 3,800 “original notifications”, of which 942 were classified as an alert. It is crucial that any food warnings are communicated quickly and effectively. Will the Minister revise the explanatory memorandum for the General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and ensure that alternative arrangements are made to receive food safety warnings that are quick, clear and effective?
As a result of these regulations, the Food Standards Agency will have additional responsibilities in the result of a no-deal Brexit. I am aware of additional funding being made to the FSA, but is the Minister confident that it will have enough funding and staff to take on those additional responsibilities? Will he outline how many additional staff have already been recruited, when they started work and what roles they are currently undertaking? Will the FSA have the ability to work and communicate with European bodies to ensure that information and intelligence is shared?
Regulation 19(c) of the general food law regulations assigns the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to make provisions considered “necessary or expedient”. Will the Minister say whether there will be any oversight over such decisions and whether the Secretary of State will justify any decisions made under those powers in the House?
All the regulations must be easily amendable, if and when necessary, to respond to any emerging threats or changes in safety standards, but I hope that any changes will be justified and overseen by the relevant bodies. What will the arrangements be for collecting data, monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations and regularly reporting? What bodies will be able to scrutinise performance and delivery, and what assessment has been made of their capacity to take on such work?
Concerns were expressed in the public consultation on these statutory instruments about the additional burden on industry and enforcement authorities to communicate changes. Will the Minister reassure me and the Committee that communications with respect to the proposals outlined in these SIs will be delivered with sufficient time to make the necessary preparations to minimise the impact of any changes?
Businesses and food business operators have raised concerns about the lack of information given to them, as well as about their own understanding of the information. Will the Government make their information clear to the public, and if so, when will they do this by? Sufficient transition periods will be required for these statutory instruments. Can the Minister provide some clarity on the transition periods that will be in place to assist businesses and industry in complying with any changes? The explanatory memorandum states that there will be
“an Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business…of…£600,000.”
Can the Minister explain how those costs will be accrued and by whom, and if they have been communicated to those affected?
Respondents to the consultation on the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 raised concerns about the cost of changing their labels. Some respondents estimated that that could cost between £200,000 to £500,000. Has the Minister made any assessment of the impact that that could have on businesses?
In the public consultations, local authorities expressed concerns about the need for them to make the required updates to legal references in official documents and online, which will take significant time and effort and will naturally have cost implications for local authorities, which is concerning in the light of budget cuts. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will fund any additional burdens on local authorities, especially in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
It is estimated that it will take local authorities less than 60 minutes to read and familiarise themselves with the new regulations and to disseminate them to staff and keyholders—they must be able to read a lot faster than me. Is the Minister convinced that that is a realistic assessment?
Is the Minister confident that, from day one of Britain’s exit from the EU, the high standards of food safety will be maintained? Can he explain what implications a no-deal Brexit would have on the future monitoring of food safety standards and legislation in this country? As I have said, the safety of our food is hugely important and we cannot get it wrong.
Caroline Flint
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we agree a deal, there will be no change to any of the systems that we currently share and enjoy? Does she also agree that more should be said publicly about how many of the regulations that we enjoy and support in the House—I have sat on many of these Committees—will continue to be in place as we leave the EU?
Mrs Hodgson
I do apologise. If we leave with a deal, all this will have been for naught. We have some of the highest food standards and regulations, and they would continue to exist. That is all the more reason why it is such a disappointment to us all that we are at the eleventh hour and the 58th or 59th minute and we still do not have a deal. I sincerely hope that one is brought before the House next week that a majority of the House can vote for.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that the pages of regulations that we are trying to transpose into UK law have never had parliamentary scrutiny. They are regulations, so as soon as the ink is dry in Brussels, they become the law of the land whether we like it or not, with no debate in this place. Uniquely, in future, we will have the opportunity to shape our regulations.
As the hon. Lady is aware, the EU operates a precautionary principle. Many think that the standards that come out of Brussels are somehow gold-plated holy writ, but she will be aware of the problems that we have faced in past years, such as the Fipronil scandal in August 2017, which affected eggs. That happened under the regulations that are meant to be the gold standard, but I certainly hope that the UK will be able to do better in future. Can she comment on the fundamental principle that it is better that this place decides food safety, rather than it being decided by regulations over which we have no authority?
The Chair
Order. I would like us to concentrate on the detail of the regulations, rather than straying into the territory of whether we should be leaving the EU.
Mrs Hodgson
With that advice in mind, Ms McDonagh, I would say that, given that the hon. Gentleman had quite a lot to say, perhaps he should have considered making a full speech and graced us with his further thoughts on these matters. I am sure that we would all have enjoyed that immensely. However, I disagree with the fundamental principle of what he said, which is that these regulations were passed in Europe with no scrutiny here.
As a new MP, as I am sure a number of us were at one time or another, I had the huge pleasure of serving on the European Scrutiny Committee. Week in, week out, we would be sent reams of documents containing EU directives and regulations that our esteemed Clerks would have rated as politically or financially sensitive. They gave us advice, but we had to read all those documents and sit and scrutinise them all, week in, week out. We could then refer them for further debate in a European Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House, if we thought something needed scrutiny. I know for a fact that we scrutinised all EU directives that came to this House. Nothing was passed without proper scrutiny. It is a shame the hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to serve on that Committee, because he might never get a chance.
Mrs Hodgson
Oh, he has; because I was going to say, the hon. Gentleman has missed a treat.
I hope the Minister will respond to my concerns, either now or in a letter. I know he always sends a letter if he is unable to respond on the day. I know, too, that many others, not only in this room but across the country, will be looking forward to his response.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.
I will be brief. Regardless of the SNP’s opposition, in principle and in its entirety, to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, we recognise and understand how important it is that these statutory instruments are established and that we preserve the framework around the status quo. Food standards post-Brexit will be a critical issue. It is crucial that neither food safety nor standards are diluted or diminished. Scotland has a great record in food exports, and our great Scottish food is recognised across the world as being of a particularly high standard. We all want that to continue.
The stockpiling of food in preparation for Brexit demonstrates the drastic effect that the Brexit process has had on the most basic of human requirements. It is important to emphasise that the review of these instruments should ensure the retention of the highest standard of food safety. The Government could avoid all this administrative burden if they simply ruled out a no-deal Brexit. It is especially important to small businesses that any additional requirement placed on them, or any financial burden, no matter how small, is recompensed by the Government.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. I cannot compete with all her questions to the Minister and will not repeat them. I will simply say to the Minister, please answer them, because we are interested in these matters too. Given that no policy change is being enacted and these instruments are required to ensure food standards, I will abstain if they are put to a vote.
Jim Fitzpatrick
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley—or, for that matter, the Minister—I was not a public health Minister. However, I was the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responsible for food. Food security in all its aspects—continuity of supply, quality, safety and sustainability—was absolutely critical to the Department. That was very much the case for producers, suppliers and retailers big and small, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw mentioned.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, the shadow Minister, for raising her questions with the Minister. As I mentioned in my brief intervention earlier, I oppose no deal and I do not think that there is a majority for it in the House. Therefore, I do not think that the regulations will have to apply. However, the Government must make contingency plans, and perhaps the Minister can reassure us that, in line with what my hon. Friend said, the regulations are a straight transposition of the existing arrangements and regulations that apply to the British food industry.
I would be reassured by that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for indicating that we will not oppose the regulations. I would find it difficult to oppose them, on the public safety and health basis that she outlined. I look forward to getting that reassurance from the Minister, as well as some reinforcement of the points he made in his opening remarks.
Steve Brine
I shall work in reverse and begin with the comments of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, who is a good man. He may not have been a public health Minister, but if he had been, he would have been a very good one. We have engaged with certain issues many times in Westminster Hall and I know exactly where he would place his focus if he were in my job. Hey, he might be one day—who knows?
To begin with the point about transposition, the simple answers is yes. As I said, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 allows us only to do the housekeeping. That is effectively what these constant fun Tuesday mornings about. They are about the housekeeping and transposing regulations into domestic law. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose them, because it would be to oppose the status quo, which, I think everyone agrees, keeps the public safe.
There were lots of questions from my dear friend and shadow, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. She started where she always does, and I shall start where I always do, with the withdrawal agreement. Let us remember, we are not discussing a deal, or a future trade deal, but a withdrawal agreement—a divorce, if you like. Yes, there is no withdrawal agreement yet, and there are 24 days, but the hon. Lady knows what I am going to say. She has a golden chance next week, on or before next Wednesday, to change that.
As to scrutiny, we have spent quite a lot of time in Committee sittings scrutinising SIs together, and in some ways it has been an interesting spring cleaning process, has it not? We have delved into some regulations that I suspect have not been discussed in this place for a long time. The hon. Lady rightly says that we cannot get this wrong, because we have to bear in mind consumer confidence always. That is why we are so keen to get things right.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of relaxation, but that would not happen under the present process, because, as I said to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, this is a process of transposition. Any relaxation—or indeed increase—of rules in the area in question would be subject to discussion, consultation and approval by this place. That is when we finally find out what “take back control” means.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
This follows on a little from what the Minister has been saying, but I understand that rates of food poisoning in the US are 10 times those of the UK, and the death rates from food poisoning are also much higher. Whatever happens next week, will the Minister assure us that any trade deals negotiated with the US and elsewhere will involve the same standards of food safety that we require now?
Steve Brine
What I can do is repeat the words of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have said that there will be no diminution of food safety standards in pursuit of trade deals with the US or anywhere else; and even if such changes were proposed, Parliament would have the final say. Hon. Members can read the paper that was set out last week, on how the Government would conduct future trade negotiations and engage with Parliament. I think we know where Parliament would stand on the matter of diminution of food standards.
Steve Brine
I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady a second time, but then I must make progress.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister is always very kind. Can I assume, then, that he and his Secretary of State have sent a letter to the US ambassador, giving short shrift about our agricultural farming methods?
Steve Brine
I do not think that we have sent a letter. I am not sure that it would be my place to do so anyway, but the British Government have been crystal clear that we do not expect any degradation of food standards in pursuit of a future trade deal. That has been said by the Prime Minister, down to those at my lowly rank.
To go back to what the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said about maintaining high standards of food safety, leaving the EU does not change our top priority, which is to ensure that UK food remains safe, and that the label says what it is. The Food Standards Agency is working very hard to ensure that high standards of food safety are maintained. We are committed to having a robust regulatory regime in place from day one that will mean that businesses can continue as normal. That is why we are transposing the legislation word for word.
The hon. Lady talked about RASFF, the rapid alert system for food and feed, to which the UK is a major contributor. RASFF facilitates vital food and feed safety data sharing. It is clearly of mutual benefit to the UK and our EU partners to share food and feed safety information quickly, so securing continued access to, and participation in, the system after leaving the EU is one of our top food safety priorities. We continue to press for full access to that vital data-sharing system in our negotiations with the EU. Even as a third country, the UK will continue to receive information from the EU as required by EU law—it is worth putting that on the record—where a food or feed subject to notification under the rapid alert system has been dispatched from the EU to the UK. However, not having full RASFF access would mean less data than is currently available, which may affect UK timely communications on food safety issues.
With regard to actions that we will take to mitigate the loss of full access, the FSA has been building on proven mechanisms, such as the monitoring of key data sources and a new strategic surveillance programme, to enhance its capability and capacity to respond effectively to any food-borne contamination or outbreak incident that occurs in the UK, for the protection of our consumers. In terms of other international engagement, the FSA is implementing an enhanced programme of bilateral engagement and surveillance that focuses on the exchange of information on risks to the food chain. It is engaging with competent food safety authorities across Europe and worldwide, building on its strong reputation and established contacts to develop a mutually supportive approach to information sharing on food safety incidents.
There is no getting away from the fact that we have decided to leave, and are leaving, the EU. We therefore will leave some of its processes, one of which is the RASFF. However, as I have said, we will do our utmost to secure continued access to it—we were, of course, a huge contributor to establishing it in the first place. If we cannot, some of the mitigations that I have outlined will be important.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked about the FSA. Her Majesty’s Treasury has made significant extra funding available to the FSA to increase staff, for instance, some of whom are in the room. The FSA’s resource has expanded to ensure that it can undertake the assessment and the risk exercise, to ensure food safety. In answer to a direct question, I am satisfied that it has the new resources that it needs.
The hon. Lady asked about the additional burden on industry for enforcement. We do not expect any additional enforcement burdens. The law and the regulations remain exactly the same, which is why I addressed the transposition point first in my response. She also mentioned the need for clarity on the transition period for businesses to implement any changes. As I have said, the transition period will involve the continuation of the existing standards, so businesses will not need to adapt to any extensive changes.
I was asked whether we will fund local authorities for additional burdens. We are providing support to enforcement officers in local authorities to allow them to continue to enforce the legislation. However, no policy changes are being made in practice. For labelling changes domestically, the transition period will be considered. We may talk about such statutory instruments in future happy moments, but today’s legislation is not about the labelling of products. Of course, we will have a whole new freedom once we leave the European Union in terms of labelling. I have talked about that in other policy areas—around obesity, for instance, with traffic light labelling.
The hon. Lady talked about 60 minutes of familiarisation not being realistic. Were there substantial changes, I suppose that that would not be realistic, no matter how fast one reads. However, businesses will need little familiarisation time, for the reasons that I have said.
Finally, the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, talked about the importance of Scottish food exports. They are indeed very important to the country, including within the UK single market. That is why there is some level of consistency, and why we expect to have convergence across the four nations of the UK. That is very important for the internal market, and for Scottish food exports to the EU. I know what I would do if I represented a seat in Scotland and the Scottish food industry: I would ensure that we have a smooth and safe transition out of the EU at the end of March. There will be a golden opportunity for the hon. Lady to do that next week.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Contaminants in Food (amendment) (EU Exit) regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Steve Brine.)
Draft specific Food Hygiene (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Steve Brine.)
Draft General Food Law (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Steve Brine.)
DRAFT MERCHANT SHIPPING (PASSENGERS' RIGHTS) (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
DRAFT MERCHANT SHIPPING (STANDARDS OF TRAINING, CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING) (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Ms Ghani
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship on this bright morning, Mr Bailey.
The two sets of draft regulations will be made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Act retains directly applicable EU legislation in UK law and preserves EU-derived domestic legislation. Section 8 also makes provision for Ministers to correct deficiencies in retained EU legislation that arise from the UK leaving the European Union. To ensure that the retained legislation remains operable, both sets of draft regulations change references to member states and the Commission to the Secretary of State or the United Kingdom. The draft regulations also change definitions and other wording to reflect the UK’s position outside the EU.
The first set of draft regulations deals with the certificates that seafarers need to hold to demonstrate their competence to perform certain roles on ships. The international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping sets the standards of competence for seafarers internationally. Through two directives, the EU harmonised the way in which member states implement the requirements of the STCW convention. The EU directives and our international obligations are implemented by the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2015, which will be amended by the regulations under consideration. The Government have decided to continue to recognise seafarer certificates from EU and EEA countries. The UK will also continue to recognise the certificates from those non-EU or EEA countries that are approved by the EU and currently recognised by the UK. The draft regulations enable the Secretary of State to maintain the recognition of certificates from such countries.
The draft regulations allow the Secretary of State to recognise additional parties to the STCW convention and the certificates that they issue. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that any such country complies fully with the requirements of the convention. The regulations also enable the Secretary of State to remove recognition from any country if he is satisfied that the country no longer complies with the convention. The regulations replace a requirement to report to the European Commission on compliance with the STCW convention with a requirement to report on compliance to the secretary-general of the International Maritime Organisation.
The 2015 regulations that are being amended are about the seafarers who work on UK-flagged ships. With the support of Nautilus International and the Chamber of Shipping, we are working with EU countries to ensure continuity for the UK-trained seafarers who work on EU-flagged ships.
The second set of draft regulations deals with passenger rights and other issues involving the carriage of passengers by sea. Under EU regulation 1177/2010, UK passengers travelling by sea and inland waterways benefit from a comprehensive set of rights and entitlements. The regulations put in place consumer protections that, among other things, allow for redress in respect of delayed and cancelled journeys. They also define the standards that industry must uphold in respect of disabled passengers to provide them with the same opportunities and assistance to travel as they have in other transport sectors at no extra cost. Furthermore, the International Maritime Organisation’s Athens convention requires shipowners to maintain compulsory insurance, which must be sufficient to cover third-party claims in respect of death or personal injury to passengers and the loss of or damage to luggage and vehicles.
The draft regulations amend EU regulations 1177/2010 and 392/2009 to ensure that they continue to function correctly as part of UK law. The changes will not affect passengers in any way and will serve to ensure that they continue to enjoy the rights and entitlements available to them today. The regulations also amend the EU-derived domestic legislation that implements EU law in that area.
So that the UK continues to meet its international obligations under the Athens convention once the UK leaves the EU, the draft regulations will transfer power from the European Commission to the Secretary of State. That will enable the UK to keep up to date with changes to the compulsory insurance requirements and liability limits for shipowners, as and when they are adopted by the International Maritime Organisation. That will not create a burden on shipowners, as state certificates are easily obtainable from state parties to the convention, including, for example, from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the UK. The proposed change will therefore not have any significant impact on industry. It simply ensures that we are complying with our international obligations under the convention without exemption.
The changes made by the draft regulations will ensure that retained EU law operates effectively, so that we have an effective system for ensuring that seafarers working on UK ships are qualified to do so, and that passengers can continue to rely on the rights and entitlements they currently enjoy. They are also important for ensuring that the UK can continue to meet its international obligations and passenger safety commitments. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey, and it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
The instrument relating to passenger rights ensures that current provisions relating to rights and entitlements of passengers when travelling by sea and inland water are legally operable when the UK leaves the EU. They are entirely sensible and the Opposition support them.
The instrument relating to standards of training amends the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2015—the STCW regulations. The amendments made by the instrument, as the Minister has briefly outlined, will broadly maintain the existing policy position. The UK will continue to recognise seafarer certificates issued by parties to the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers that are currently recognised, and a new mechanism will be established enabling the Secretary of State to recognise certificates from other parties to the convention in the future. The Opposition will support this instrument.
I have one brief question. I believe the EU is looking at tightening up the basic training of seafarers. If there are changes to the STCW training requirements at EU level once we are no longer in the EU and are effectively a third party, what will the Government’s position be?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. It is of note that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East is the shadow Minister in the Committee, because I worked with his father, who was a National Union of Seamen official for many years. I am sure he is looking down favourably on my hon. Friend today.
I agree with my hon. Friend on the draft regulations, but I would like to ask for clarification regarding the amounts in euros for which provision is made by article 6(1) of regulation (EC) 392/2009, and articles 17(2) and 19(6) of regulation (EU) 1177/2010. The amounts are in euros. The explanatory memorandum to the passengers’ rights regulations states that the exchange rate used is the average rate for the year ending 31 December 2017. Why is the exchange rate for that period used, rather than a more up-to-date one? I understand that the exchange rate was £1 to €1.14615. These amounts are clearly set at the moment. What is the mechanism for increasing or changing them in the future? Would we just adopt what was put forward?.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I will be brief. So long as the Scottish National party is a party, we are opposed to Brexit, particularly a possible no-deal Brexit, but we accept that the draft regulations are sensible to provide continuity, as a contingency. My main question to the Minister is this: paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum to the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations correctly states:
“These regulations cannot provide a mechanism to ensure other EU/EEA countries continue to accept UK Certificates of Competency once the United Kingdom leaves the EU.”
Can she tell us where the Department has got to in its ongoing discussions on some sort of reciprocal arrangement?
Slightly tangential to that question, where is the Department in terms of supporting non-EU workers’ ability to work in the merchant shipping sector, particularly fishing vessels? There is already a problem in Scotland of labour from outwith the EU not being able to get permits to work.
Ms Ghani
I thank the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and the right hon. Member for North Durham, for their consideration of the draft regulations, which deal with important issues relating to the carriage of passengers by sea and the qualifications that seafarers must hold. The regulations are designed simply to ensure that the EU-derived legislation will be retained in UK law and continue to function as intended. They make the changes appropriate to ensuring that the existing regulatory framework is retained and operates effectively when we leave the EU.
On the question of basic seafarer training, possible changes to STCW training requirements and the UK Government’s position, I emphasise the fact that the UK is party to the STCW convention and it is our policy to continue to apply changes to the convention in domestic law.
On how we will work with countries to ensure that our seafarers and their certificates are recognised, we are indeed working with European countries on a bilateral relationship and working in partnership with Nautilus International and the UK Chamber of Shipping to put in place a simple process for the Commission to recognise UK seafarers in future if we leave without a deal. We are focused on ensuring that the arrangement is reciprocated. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun must know that my portfolio includes responsibility for taking care of our seafarers.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned countries outside the EU and EEA; already within the convention 50 countries are recognised and half of those are third- party countries, so we will continue to work with them. I believe there are about 24 or 25.
There was also a question about euros; I must say I was not expecting that this morning, but I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North Durham for raising it. The exchange rate was set at the beginning of the drafting process, as is normal. I am not sure what more I can say about the financing and the particular point he raised, but if he will allow me, I will write to him in detail to confirm the absolute answer to that. I would not want to give him anything inappropriate right here and right now.
Mr Jones
I accept the Minister’s explanation of why the 2017 figure was used, but I think she ought to remind her officials that when this regulation is laid, the information put before the Committee should be up to date, because there is clearly a more appropriate figure to use than the 2017 one. It is not a great point, but I think it is a point worth noting.
Ms Ghani
It is indeed a valuable point and no doubt it has been noted, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, there are always processes in place and that process has been followed when exchange rates are set. No doubt his point will be noted and there will be a comment on it in future in case it is raised. I am sure my officials have made a note.
I am pleased that the Committee supports the regulations. They are appropriate to ensuring that the retained EU legislation relating to seafarer qualifications, passenger rights and the carriage of passengers by sea continues to work effectively in the UK from day one after exit. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT MERCHANT SHIPPING (STANDARDS OF TRAINING, CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING) (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Ms Ghani.)
Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The draft order having been before the House for some period—it was laid on 30 January—I do not intend to make any further remarks, except that I commend it to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I do not intend to exceed the Minister’s brief introduction. We recognise that the Government acted very quickly in bringing the statutory instrument to the House following the request from Greater Manchester. That is acknowledged and appreciated. We do not intend to divide the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT FORESTRY AND LAND MANAGEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2018 (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS AND MODIFICATIONS) ORDER 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2019.
Mr Tomlinson—sorry, Lawrenson.
Nigel Adams
It is early, Mr Robertson—it is a while since I have been here at five to 9. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This order is made in consequence of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, which for ease of use I shall refer to as the 2018 Act. The Act received Royal Assent on 1 May 2018, having been passed by the Scottish Parliament on 20 March 2018.
The order is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient legislative provision in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, provision is required in consequence of the aforementioned 2018 Act. It was requested by the Scottish Government and has been agreed between the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments.
The 2018 Act and associated secondary legislation will complete the process of the devolution of forestry, which started with the Scotland Act 1998. The 2018 Act repeals the powers and duties held by the forestry commissioners, in so far as they relate to Scotland, and provide new powers to Scottish Ministers. The 2018 Act is due to be commenced on 1 April 2019.
Over the last decade, responsibility for forestry has been increasingly managed separately in England, Scotland and Wales. While forestry policy is a devolved matter in Scotland, the management of forestry, including Scotland’s national forest estate, has to date been undertaken by the forestry commissioners, who were designated as a cross-border public authority on devolution in 1999. In 2013, the functions undertaken by the forestry commissioners in Wales were transferred to Welsh Ministers and Natural Resources Wales. Selected functions continue to operate across Great Britain, including functions relating to forestry science and research, tree health, and common codes and standards.
As a consequence of the 2018 Act, and to facilitate the transfer of powers, it is necessary for the Government to lay two orders. One is made under sections 90 and 93 of the Scotland Act and is subject to negative procedure. The other—this order—is made under section 104, which is subject to the affirmative procedure. Once these orders and the 2018 Act come into force, the forestry commissioners will no longer have responsibility for the management of forestry in Scotland, which will instead be undertaken by Scottish Ministers.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. On the cross-border question, a significant number of forests straddle the Scottish-English border. I looked in vain for a definition of who would deal with those forests, how that would be identified and whether Ministers in Scotland may—probably rightly—be able to influence the management of the forests south of the border, because they are a single forestry unit.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point. For clarification, the order makes provision for cross-border arrangements that may be entered into by Scottish Ministers, the forestry commissioners and the national resources body, in the case of Welsh Ministers. The jurisdictions concerned are England, Scotland and Wales, and a memorandum of understanding is being drafted to agree who will be responsible in these territories.
The order will enable the 2018 Act to be implemented in full. It provides new powers to Scottish Ministers and makes a number of consequential amendments to reserved legislation, with a particular focus on the Forestry Act 1967. Articles 3 and 4, along with similar provisions in the negative procedure order I mentioned earlier, will enable cross-border arrangements to be entered into by Scottish Ministers, the forestry commissioners and various other bodies. While forestry functions and management of the national forest estate will be fully devolved, the order will enable Scottish Ministers to enter into arrangements with other bodies so that each may deliver certain functions on the other’s behalf. This will avoid unnecessary duplication of functions across Administrations and will allow for refreshed and strengthened cross-border co-operation and partnership working between England, Scotland and Wales, as well as for a co-ordinated approach to issues such as the management of plant-based pests and diseases to continue.
Article 5 will confer powers on Scottish Ministers to promote, develop, construct and operate installations for or in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity produced from renewable sources and to use electricity produced by virtue of these powers.
Martin Whitfield
The Minister is being generous with his time. With regard to article 5(4), I have two questions. Fossil fuels are defined as coal and natural gas, including substances
“produced directly or indirectly from a substance”
mentioned in this paragraph. What would the situation be with regard to waste incineration for the production of electricity, given that the majority of the waste that is incinerated originated as a fossil fuel? I am thinking in particular of the plastics.
Secondly, the biomass industry has a great effect on the timber industry because, effectively, it removes elements of that industry that previously went into furniture making and that have now gone to biomass. Has the Minister’s Department considered the effect of removing from the timber industry the product that is now intended to go to biomass?
Nigel Adams
As a former chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on biomass, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that great quantities of the biomass produced are not produced in Great Britain in the first instance. The product that is not used in the timber industry or for furniture tends to be waste product—thinnings and elements of forestry that could not be used anywhere else. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. The order covers renewable sources of energy, not fossil fuel waste. It does not change the situation in that regard, and fossil fuel waste would not appear to be considered as a renewable energy source.
These powers are currently exercisable by the forestry commissioners in Scotland. When the Forestry Act 1967 is repealed, as it relates to Scotland, it is necessary to transfer these functions to Scottish Ministers to ensure they have the same powers the forestry commissioners have under the current arrangements. The order also makes a number of consequential amendments to the Forestry Act 1967, related statutory instruments and other primary legislation to reflect the removal of the forestry commissioners’ functions in or as regards Scotland.
UK and Scottish Government Ministers and officials have worked closely to ensure this order makes the necessary amendments to legislation covering Great Britain in consequence of the 2018 Act. It represents the final stage of devolving forestry to the Scottish Government. It is necessary in consequence of the 2018 Act and demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope Members will agree that the order is a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act 2018 and that the practical result is something to be welcomed.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The order in front of us today makes provisions in consequence of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, and essentially follows on from section 81 of that Act. Section 81 provides that the functions of the forestry commissioners, which are exercisable in or as regards Scotland immediately before the date on which that section comes into force, are no longer exercisable in or as regards Scotland. It would be helpful for the Committee if I give a brief overview of the order before seeking clarity on some issues within it.
First, articles 3 and 4 relate to cross-border arrangements. Article 3 makes provisions for cross-border arrangements between Scottish Ministers and other bodies. Article 4 makes provision for cross-border arrangements between the forestry commissioners and Scottish Ministers for the purposes of carrying out the former’s functions as set out in article 4(2).
Secondly, article 5 makes provision to allow Scottish Ministers to construct renewable energy installations and generate, transmit, distribute, supply and ultimately use the electricity produced from these sources for the purposes of carrying out the Scottish Ministers’ functions, as detailed in article 5(2). Finally, article 6 and the schedule make necessary consequential modifications to primary and secondary legislation as a result of the 2018 Act.
The order is fairly non-contentious and is, as I have detailed, necessary to make consequential provisions as a result of the 2018 Act. However, I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify some areas where I have concerns.
Article 3 seems to contain a fair amount of scope for cross-border arrangements between Scottish Ministers and other persons or bodies, and Welsh Ministers are included in that list of other persons. Is there a particular reason for specifying only Welsh Ministers here, and not Ministers of the Crown in different Government Departments, for example?
As far as I can tell, regulation making is also not devolved as part of this statutory instrument. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that regulations are not being made elsewhere that would hamper the ability of Scottish Ministers to carry out their newly devolved functions?
Article 5 makes provisions for Scottish Ministers to develop, construct and operate installations for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity produced from renewable sources. I would be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on how this works in conjunction with schedule 5, head D of the Scotland Act 1998. Head D deems that the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity shall remain reserved. I understand that the difference here is about generation as part of a renewable energy programme and that these powers are already held by the forestry commissioners, but given that we live in particularly turbulent political times, what processes have been put in place to ensure that Scottish and UK Ministers are aware of the respective boundaries of their powers and do not inadvertently stray into one another's territory? There is a risk of this issue becoming politicised and ultimately confused, as the nuance is rather technical, so demarcation could be better defined.
Finally, I have more of a general query for the Minister. As a consequence of this order, a few changes are made to primary and secondary legislation covering a couple of different policy areas. How does the Minister see these changes fitting into the common UK frameworks agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Government?
Martin Whitfield
My hon. Friend raises the issue highlighted in part 2 of the schedule—on modifications of subordinate legislation—and indeed the frameworks. I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 66, which discusses the Plant Health (Wood Packaging Material Marking) (Forestry) Order 2006. A significant amount of the palleting used in the United Kingdom to export goods into the European Union fails to meet EU regulations, which means that it cannot be used in the case of a no-deal Brexit. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the order may be a missed opportunity to deal with bioprotection with regard to wood offcuts, particularly dry kiln heating wood to make sure it is safe?
Mr Sweeney
I thank my hon. Friend for his typically forensic analysis of the detail and for making that pertinent point. Perhaps the Minister can offer a more interesting analysis of that impact. My understanding is that there is to be no divergence from current regulations in the event of a withdrawal agreement being ratified by the House of Commons, but I am not entirely clear on what happens if there is no deal and we crash out of the EU on Word Trade Organisation terms. Does the Minister see this order as having an impact on that arrangement, regardless of whether there is a deal?
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
We welcome the Minister’s comments on the statutory instrument. We welcome the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers overall. Of Scotland’s landmass, 19% is under forestry or woodland, which adds £1 billion to the Scottish economy every year and is responsible for maintaining 25,000 jobs in the industry.
“Scotland’s Forestry Strategy 2019-29” outlines several ambitions, including to have a more sustainably managed forestry and woodland structure; to expand areas of forestry and woodland; to look at wider land use issues around forestry and create economic opportunities around that; and to bring more efficiency and productivity into the industry. Overall, we welcome the measures, and we hope that the transfer to Scottish Ministers will enhance the chances of delivering that strategy over the next 10 years.
Nigel Adams
I thank hon. Members and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, for their valuable contributions. The shadow Minister raised a couple of points. On cross-border issues, arrangements between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers are provided for in a separate Order in Council, using specific powers in the Scotland Act for that purpose, so there is no confusion over the arrangements. As I mentioned earlier, a memorandum of understanding is being drawn up to ensure that those lines are clearly demarked.
On the salient point from the hon. Member for East Lothian about plastics, the incineration of plastics is not specifically addressed in article 5, which confers broad powers on Scottish Ministers to develop renewable energy installations. This is simply a continuation of the forestry commissioners’ existing power under the 1967 Act. The consequential amendments in the schedule to the draft order simply tidy up UK primary and secondary legislation in consequence of the devolution of forestry to Scottish Ministers.
Martin Whitfield
Although not specifically included, are plastics not specifically excluded, because they originate from oil, which is specifically excluded by the draft order? I am more than happy for the Minister to write to me on that.
Nigel Adams
I am not aware of whether it is specifically excluded or included for that purpose, but I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that serious point, which needs addressing.
The shadow Minister raised electricity generation. That is very much a reserved matter, which is why the draft order, which has been made by the UK Government, is able to confer the power to develop renewable installations. The conferral of those specific functions on Scottish Ministers does not affect the reservation of energy matters set out in article 5.
The Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the devolution settlement for Scotland, and we continue to work collaboratively with the Scottish Government to that effect. I hope the draft order, which completes the devolution of forestry responsibilities to Scottish Ministers, demonstrates that commitment. On that basis—
Martin Whitfield
I am grateful to the Minister for indulging me in my series of questions—I felt it was easier to do things this way than to give a speech. My final point regards the Forestry Commission. It is not losing its legal responsibility, because the draft order will allow it to enter into arrangements with Scottish Ministers. For clarification, where do the Government think that the legal responsibility to the public will lie—with the forestry commissioners, whose powers have been devolved, or with Scottish Ministers?
Nigel Adams
My understanding is that this is a tidying up of the statute book on the back of the 2018 Act and that it completes the devolution of forestry to the Scottish Government. I hope that that offers some clarity.
On that basis—taking my second opportunity—I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Designs and International Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Designs and International Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
The framework for protecting intellectual property is a vital part of our industrial strategy. The UK’s strong IP system drives creativity and showcases UK innovation. Leaving the European Union will not change that. We will continue to deliver quality rights-granting services, lead the world in IP enforcement and engage in international IP discussions.
This draft statutory instrument uses powers provided by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that protection continues in the UK for registered and unregistered Community designs, and international trademarks and designs in the event of no deal. It also addresses other deficiencies in UK law that would arise on exit.
Under the EU designs regulation, the shape and appearance of a product can be protected under a registered Community design granted by the EU Intellectual Property Office. That system runs in parallel to our domestic system, so protection in the UK can currently be obtained by registration under either or both of the EU and UK systems.
Shape and appearance can also be protected under the unregistered Community design. That right is established automatically when a design is first shown to the public, and it is particularly valued by design-intensive sectors such as the fashion industry. As with registered design, the UK provides a parallel domestic system. However, the scope of UK unregistered design is different from that of the EU equivalent because protection is afforded only to three-dimensional designs.
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 Organisation. That system enables business to protect designs and trademarks in multiple territories via a single application, filed in one language. Both the EU and the UK are contracting parties to that system. As with registered EU trademarks and designs, international EU rights are protected through EU regulations, meaning that a failure to act will result in the protections afforded to those rights being lost.
The draft regulations in Committee provide replacement rights for those who own registered EU designs on exit day in the form of a “re-registered” UK design. For those holding unregistered Community design, we will preserve UK protection through the “continuing unregistered” design. The new UK 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 re-registered design, any other relevant dates filed as part of the original EU application.
The scope of protection for EU unregistered designs is broader than that provided by existing UK unregistered design, so we are introducing a new type of UK right called supplementary unregistered design. By doing so, we will ensure that the full range of design protection provided in the UK before exit day will remain available after we leave the EU. That new right will function alongside existing UK unregistered design.
To ensure continued protection in the UK for international designs that are protected through EU designations under the Hague agreement, we will create comparable re-registered UK designs just as we are doing with registered Community designs. For international trademarks designating the EU, we will create a comparable UK trademark, using an approach similar to that set out in the EU trademarks exit SI, recently approved by both Houses; the Committee in this place was attended by several members of this Committee today.
As with re-registered designs and comparable trademarks created from registered EU rights, the new UK designs and trademarks will be fully independent of the corresponding international rights, but they will inherit their effective dates and be treated as if applied for and registered under UK law.
For those with registered Community design and international EU design and trademark applications that are pending on exit day, we will allow corresponding UK applications filed after exit day to claim the EU right’s earlier filing and priority date. To do so, an application must be submitted to the UK Intellectual Property Office within nine months of exit day.
The draft regulations also set 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 registration. The new UK rights can be challenged, assigned, licensed and renewed, so the instrument also sets out how such procedures will be accommodated. The IPO provided an outline of the changes through technical notices published last year, and it will provide full business guidance once the instrument has been made.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On pending applications, people have proceeded using the existing system and will reapply to the new system. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no delay there? If people have had an application in for some time, that could affect their business. Can the Minister send out a clear signal from the Government that those people will not be adversely affected?
Chris Skidmore
I can absolutely give that assurance. I have full confidence in the IPO, in both London and Newport. I have visited the office to see its ongoing work in ensuring that the registration process is clear and consistent. When it comes to registered Community designs, it is important that the information is there—with many other issues, there is a lack of data—and that there is a simple transfer across. I am confident that that will minimise the impact on businesses; in fact, it will give them greater flexibility by providing that nine-month window for registration in the new UK-wide system.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that there will be no additional cost to those making the international applications?
Chris Skidmore
I can confirm that there will be no additional cost to the businesses or to any rights holders wishing to register registered or unregistered designs. A schedule of payments has obviously been in existence for a while, and we brought it down significantly after the 2014 legislation. For instance, the £60 for a single application for an unregistered design is now down to £70 for 10 applications. With registered designs, the price has also come down, from £450 to approximately £150. I can touch on that later, but the important thing is that there is no cost for transferring registered design rights across to the new system. It is almost business as usual; we have just created a new system that continues the protection for rights holders.
The regulations are vital in ensuring that the intellectual property system continues to function if the no-deal outcome arises. They are essential for safeguarding rights, and for providing businesses with maximum certainty and clarity, and I commend them to the House.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever—but especially at this hour of the morning—to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
I start by picking up one of the Minister’s comments. He said that this is business as usual—but if there is one thing that Brexit is not, it is that. We can probably all agree on that, whatever our stance on the subject.
Bill Esterson
I think, Mr Hanson, we are in danger of wandering into a slightly different part of the forest.
The Minister set out the arguments in favour of creating a system that addresses what will be needed in this country for both registered and unregistered designs to apply in the UK, and I have relatively few concerns about his remarks. However, as always with such regulations, there is the question of whether Opposition Members are in a position to give our full judgment on both the available information and the responses from the technical experts in the sector.
I put on the record, again, our concern about our ability to fully scrutinise what we are being asked to support. It is a common problem with regulations, often related to the speed with which they are being pushed through, their detail and technical content, and their importance. As ever, it is important to get that point across, as this is another example of costs—albeit the Minister is claiming that they are relatively small —for creating a functioning regime after we leave the European Union.
As the sifting Committee said in its report when it recommended that the draft regulations be considered in Committee,
“The work of conversion is clearly a major exercise.”
That work will involve 700,000 registered Community designs alone. The preliminary estimate is of £375,000, which may appear to be a relatively small amount of money, but that is clearly not without significant amounts of work. The Intellectual Property Office says that it is able to address that and that costs are recovered through fees. The Minister has pointed out that the fees have come down. I have no reason to doubt him on that, but it will take time, both for the authorities to process the change in arrangements and for businesses to make sure they are covered. I believe there is a nine-month window for businesses to adapt to the new regime—the Minister may wish to correct me on that. Perhaps he could also answer how the Government intend to make sure that everybody has the cover that they need and is aware of the changes that they need to make during that transition period.
I have one question for the Minister, the answer to which I did not catch in his opening remarks. Perhaps he can explain how the unregistered Community design system operates and how businesses obtain their protection without having to register for it. I note that there is a three-year period. Can he clarify how that system operates so that the protection is in place? From what he said, it is clearly an important part of intellectual property protection. Perhaps he could give us some clarity on how it operates.
As ever, there is the thorny issue of consultation or, to be strictly accurate, the lack of public consultation that we see with the regulations going through Committees every single week. I notice that no formal consultation was carried out, but that stakeholders were asked to give their opinions. Perhaps the Minister can tell us—I cannot find the information anywhere—who was consulted and what their responses were to those informal consultation discussions. It would have been very helpful to have that information in front of us; it would have helped to ensure that we were in the best possible position to judge whether we should or should not support the regulations. I hope that the Minister, if he does not already, will soon have a note on what the consultations were, who was consulted and what the responses were.
I want to tell the Committee of the key concern raised by the Alliance for Intellectual Property. It is not particularly concerned with the continuing regime in the UK; it is relatively confident that what the Minister has described meets its requirements. Its concern is the lack of reciprocity. If equivalent protection is achieved through the withdrawal Bill, it believes that the design sector will still be gravely at risk without reciprocal protection from the EU27. After we have left the European Union, designs that are first disclosed in the UK might well be sufficiently protected here, but will receive no unregistered Community design protection in the EU, because we will no longer be members. The AIP’s view is that this would have grave consequences for UK designers: according to a recent survey by Anti Copying In Design, almost 80% of them rely on the unregistered Community design right to protect their designs.
The EU is the largest export market for many UK design sectors, contributing over two-thirds of UK furniture manufacturers’ export revenue. Such a loss of reciprocity poses a serious threat to leading industry events such as 100% Design, London Fashion Week and Top Drawer, which creators from all over the world attend in order to reveal new and innovative designs. Without protection, designers will either have to run the risk of copying throughout the EU27 following disclosure, or simply avoid first disclosure in the UK altogether. Perhaps the Minister can advise on which route the Government think designers should take.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On the point about designers and furniture manufacturers, there is a company in my constituency—a small business, which exports to 70 countries around the world—that faces significant costs in the enforcement of this design legislation and is up against a lot of copycat manufacturers, particularly in the far east. The company will be especially exposed, because Europe is such a big market for it.
Bill Esterson
Using the example of his constituents’ business, my hon. Friend has set out the sector’s exact concerns and the challenge for the Government to ensure protection of our innovative and creative exporters. Given the end of the parallel system to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks, perhaps the Minister can tell us how the Government will provide assurances.
What is the state of negotiations on achieving protection in this area in the European Union? We cannot overstate the importance of that protection for businesses such as that of my hon. Friend’s constituents. I hope that there is an answer to that, and that the Minister can give us some assurances. We know that all too often negotiations on the details of post-Brexit arrangements have not gone as well as they need to—I hope that this issue is not one of those.
I asked the Minister about consultation. As ever, the approach to impact assessment is limited. Paragraph 13 of the explanatory memorandum discusses regulating small businesses. How well prepared will they be? This picks up on my earlier point on ensuring that all businesses are aware of the changes that will happen and the actions they need to take. Again, the Government have chosen a very narrow interpretation of “impact” in their approach to impact assessment; they are not taking the wider impact on the economy as a whole. As I said on previous occasions, that is regrettable and does not set out the true impact of regulations such as these.
That brings me to a number of questions that arise from the commentary in the explanatory memorandum. Can the Minister explain how the system will work for existing rights that are granted by the European Union’s IPO? I am not entirely sure whether that question follows on from that asked by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but I think it is similar. If the Minister has not already answered it, perhaps he can pick up the point about ongoing validity for five years.
My next question is about paragraph 2.8 of the explanatory memorandum, which references action being taken by EU rights holders and their protections in the UK. My assumption is that those rights holders will be protected in the UK, and that the concern is about that lack of equivalence. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point, along with the ones about protections of UK designers in the EU.
According to paragraphs 7.17 and 7.27 of the memorandum, 12,000 international trademark applications and 1,000 design applications are estimated to be pending on exit day. How are the Government making sure that all those applying know that they need to file a new application? That point is similar to the earlier questions about making sure that all businesses understand what they need to do.
Paragraph 13.3 of the memorandum states that
“there is sufficient time for all businesses to familiarise themselves with the changes”
before the regulations take effect, but there is a difference between there being time and businesses taking up the option. Certainly, many small businesses are not always equipped to address the regulations that come to them, so I really want to press the Minister on the impact on our small and medium-sized enterprise community.
In paragraph 7.33, there is a reference to
“the right to opt out”.
Again, what are the Government doing to make sure that businesses are fully aware of the options available to them, which are referred to in that paragraph?
I think this is my final question—[Laughter.] I am sure I can find some more if Members want me to, but on balance, I will stick to this one. The memorandum refers to fees of £63,000. Are those fees payable by businesses of all sizes, and is that going to continue to be the case? The Minister mentioned lower fees in his opening remarks, so perhaps he could link what he said then with the figure of £63,000 cited in the explanatory memorandum.
The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington gave about the furniture manufacturer in his constituency demonstrates how important it is that we get these regulations right and have arrangements in place. It is particularly important for designers for whom the EU is a major market; as we have heard, two thirds of designers export to the EU. I would particularly like to hear the Minister’s answer about reciprocal arrangements, and I hope he is also able to answer the other questions that I have asked.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central for the contribution he has made to this debate, as well as the other right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed through interventions. I will endeavour to respond to the questions that have been raised.
I will first turn to the issue of public consultation, which has been familiar terrain in several of these no-deal statutory instrument Committees. The Intellectual Property Office has been engaging with businesses about the implications of exit since the referendum result, and I will turn to that engagement in a moment. The Department has used the existing Cabinet Office principles for consultation on all EU exit SIs and non-exit SIs, and details of any consultations undertaken are explained in all SIs’ accompanying explanatory memorandums. The Government have sought to maximise continuity in a no-deal scenario. At the early stages of the negotiations on the future partnership, as I have explained before in previous Committee debates, revealing the details of our continuity approach to public consultation would have risked our negotiating position.
Bill Esterson
I have heard the line about risking our negotiating position from Ministers before. Over the weekend we heard the US give exactly what its negotiating mandate would be in a trade deal. If the United States can do it, why can’t we?
Chris Skidmore
It is important to reflect on the fact that the process of the negotiations is one that we do through Brussels and across 27 other member states. It is right that we take a nuanced position. I note, however, the hon. Gentleman’s support for President Trump in this debate.
Chris Skidmore
The individuals who took part in the technical review did so in a personal capacity. They were chosen because of their past experience as representatives of various stakeholder bodies, usually engaged in consultation with the IPO. The technical review required a fairly detailed knowledge of legislation—its practical implications as well as the context of the wider industry—and the framework of the EU international trademarks and designs legislation as a whole. We are confident that those individuals have the relevant knowledge and will be able not only to follow the approach being taken by the instrument in order to follow and identify any errors, but, importantly, any other issues that we might have missed. In no way was the IPO looking for people who would just agree with the approach or raise no issues. Although it is important for us, that would not have been for anyone’s benefit. Indeed, the discussions at meetings were robust and forthright, and attendees were keen to challenge the instrument and make sure it was the best possible going forward.
Bill Esterson
Other Ministers have told us who has been consulted when we have asked these questions. Is there any reason why he is not telling us who was consulted on this occasion? Perhaps he will write to me.
Chris Skidmore
In terms of the consultation process and the individuals acting in a personal capacity, I am not sure whether I have the authority to divulge their names on the Floor of the Committee at this particular moment. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman if I can request their permission to be named. They acted in a personal and private capacity as part of the consultation following the Cabinet Office statutory instrument guidelines on consultations. The framework and process was a trusted one. I am sure that having an opportunity to give private views provided for a greater opportunity to scrutinise the legislation and to be more honest and robust as a result.
We assessed the impact of the SI using the better regulation framework in line with the Treasury’s Green Book guidance. It was obviously deemed to be less than £5 million, so a full impact assessment was not required. Analysis has been focused on the direct impact of the relevant SI compared with current legislation, and analysis of wider impacts on the UK’s exit from the EU has been previously published in the form of long-term economic analysis, which was published in November 2018.
On the impact on business and the conversion of existing rights to comparable UK rights, we have committed to ensuring that the administrative burden on business is minimal. The teams at the ICO are making good progress on numbering systems for the new comparable rights and will communicate the changes as soon as possible. The IPO will also publish guidance in every language of the EU on its website so that rights holders in every member state will be able to access all the necessary information on their UK rights.
When it comes to the process of notification both within the EU and the UK, the IPO will publish a standard website notice in all languages, as I have said, confirming that holders of re-registered UK designs and comparable UK trademarks have been granted equivalent UK rights. The notice will continue to remain on the website after exit, and individual notifications to holders of EU and international trademark designs will not be issued. We are confident that there has been significant interest that will be progressed towards the guidance being published.
If rights holders do not want to be given the new rights, the statutory instrument contains an opt-out provision that allows the holder of a comparable UK design or trademark to request that it be treated as if it was never registered in the UK. That process can be exercised via completion of a no-fee letter or email to the registrar, requesting an opt-out.
Several issues related to costs for businesses. This has been covered in interventions, but I state again that there will be no fee associated with the creation of the new UK rights. The comparable UK registered design or trademark rights will be independent from the corresponding EU rights. Obviously, there will continue to be charges for renewal. When the comparable UK right expires, the standard UK renewal fees will apply. In terms of comparable UK registered design, the renewal fee, which will be the same as it is at the moment, will increase for each successive five-year period of protection, from £70 for the first renewal up to £140 for the fourth and final renewal period. That is consistent with current practice. The holder of the comparable UK registered design will be required to pay these UK renewal fees in addition to those associated with the corresponding EU right in order to preserve protection in both the UK and the EU. For a comparable UK trademark, renewal fees will be charged according to the goods and services protected under the mark.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central raised the issue of the costs for Government—trading funds. The IPO receives no central Government funding, so costs are recovered through fees. In terms of the process for creating UK comparable rights, the actual process will be automated. Because these rights are currently valid and enforceable in the UK, the IPO already has access to related data—these are recorded in the IPO’s records system and published on web-based search platforms—and as a result we will be able to create the new comparable UK rights without a significant amount of additional work.
When it comes to the issues about preparation for EU exit by the IPO, resources have been managed as part of the preparations. That includes staff recruitment and training. The creation of new rights on exit day will not itself create a need for additional resources beyond those already being addressed as part of our business-as-usual operational management.
Matt Western
Can the Minister—perhaps in writing, because I assume that he will not have the numbers at his fingertips—provide detail about the staffing that has been brought in, to provide reassurance to businesses? They are really concerned. Intellectual property, as we well know, is an incredibly valuable thing for this country, and it would be very helpful for us to explain the scaling up that has been going on in that department.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I would be happy to write to him with some of the details on the resource issues of staffing. I went to visit the IPO’s headquarters down in Newport and was deeply impressed by the organograms and the plans that it had put in place. Almost week by week and day by day, it has been planning for EU exit. Its staff morale is one of the highest for a Government organisation across the country, not just in Wales. I really got the sense that the IPO was content with the process, was managing the process and was a happy organisation in taking forward the process, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on some of those details. I got no sense that there was undue pressure on the IPO as a result of the changes taking place.
Let me turn to the issues raised about designers and disclosure of unregistered designs. An unregistered design will need to be first disclosed in the EU to be protected in the EU should we leave without a deal. However, disclosure in the EU may have implications regarding any corresponding UK unregistered rights, such as the supplementary unregistered design and the existing UK unregistered design rights. This statutory instrument contains provisions to allow us to negotiate reciprocal arrangements on first disclosure with third countries, which may be the EU, individual countries within the EU, or more widely, but that will still be subject to future agreement.
If we retain first disclosure in the EU as a basis for establishing post-exit UK unregistered design, we will create an imbalance between the UK and EU systems, providing EU-based designers with an unfair advantage. Designs disclosed in the EU would count for establishing both UK and EU protection, whereas designs disclosed in the UK would count for establishing UK protection only.
The law in this area remains unclear, with prominent legal commentators disagreeing on the subject, but our approach reflects the published interpretation of the EU IPO. We think that that provides a more consistent approach for designers to understand and apply. The approach may be subject to future change if courts decide to take a different interpretation, but the SI does recognise disclosure in other qualifying territories, and although we will not have a reciprocal arrangement with the EU on exit day, we may have the opportunity to reach such an arrangement in the future.
Bill Esterson
The Minister’s answer on that point justifies the concerns raised by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, some of which I listed. He gave great cause for concern about the uncertainty and the differing legal opinions there. Can he give the Committee an indication about the discussions that have already taken place with our EU counterparts on how we achieve a reciprocal arrangement and what estimate the Government have at the moment of how long it will take to reach a system where we can avoid the problem he set out, which is of real concern, over damage being caused to a designer by registering in one jurisdiction and not in any other?
Chris Skidmore
The context of Government negotiations have been prioritised around that future relationship and finding a deal with the European Union. I am sure that, having raised these points of uncertainty, the hon. Gentleman will want to vote for this deal, to ensure that he can—there is no point in frowning at me. In every Committee meeting we come to, the hon. Gentleman raises points of concern and then goes into the House of Commons and votes the opposite way. Designers need to know that the hon. Gentleman is taking an approach that will provide maximum possible uncertainty to the sector. For him to raise these points here today is completely paradoxical to the approach that he takes in the Chamber.
We have agreed provisions on IP that will provide legal certainty and protect the interests of rights holders in the withdrawal agreement. It is important for the Committee that I place this on the record. It includes that registered Community designs should continue to be protected in the UK after the implementation period; that existing unregistered Community designs should continue to be protected in the UK after the implementation period; that the UK should take measures to ensure that international trademarks and designs designated in the EU, which are protected prior to the end of the implementation period, continue to enjoy protection in the UK; that IP rights exhausted in the UK and EU before the end of the implementation period shall remain exhausted in both areas; and that UK legal representatives will be allowed to continue to represent their clients before the EU IPO in cases that are ongoing at the end of the implementation period and in addition to the implementation period, which means that the current regime and arrangements for intellectual property will continue to operate as they do now until the end of that period. The provisions ensure that existing EU-level IP rights and the international rights designated in the EU will continue to be protected in the UK after the end of the implementation period.
I am sorry to sound so passionate about the deal, but I truly believe that, when it comes to IP, the deal is the best possible solution on the table to ensure that we can protect the interests of rights holders. I urge the hon. Gentleman to vote for it.
Bill Esterson
The problem is that, whatever deal goes through—and even if we leave without a deal—the same problem applies: that this issue of registering either in the EU and affecting UK rights, or registering in the UK and affecting EU rights, applies. That is the bit that has not been resolved. It is a complete red herring to say that which deal we vote for affects the outcome of these regulations.
Chris Skidmore
As I said, we have got this as the withdrawal agreement going forward; however, we must also turn to the issue of the future partnership. Arrangements on future co-operation will be a key part of the future partnership. We will seek a comprehensive arrangement on trade that will cover a wide range of sectors, including IP. As part of going forward with that future relationship, the UK will continue to explore participation within the unitary patent system and the unified patent court. It is important that we reflect on that going forward.
In summary, I want to make sure that when we come to consistency, UK law says that anyone 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 1988, which says any qualifying person—that is, any person who lives in and runs a business in a qualifying country, as defined to include member states—can claim the UK unregistered design right. We did not make any change to that. After exit day, people in businesses in the EU will continue to claim the UK unregistered design right while people and businesses in the UK would lose that equivalent right in the European Union. That creates an imbalance between UK rights holders and EU rights holders that we must change. UK law is therefore being amended to limit the geographical criteria for a qualifying person to claim the UK unregistered design protection. That is important for providing certainty, clarity and consistency, above all, as part of this SI.
I hope that my answers have been helpful. These regulations are an absolutely necessary part of making sure that the IP continues to function if no deal is agreed. Above all, I hope that Members will consider that a deal will be in the best interests of IP rights holders; but I also hope that the Committee will now support this statutory instrument today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Designs and International Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 5th March 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2019 - (5 Mar 2019)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering:
New clause 43—Future immigration policy—
‘Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out how any changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected the extent to which UK employers have adequate access to labour.’
This new clause would mean the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for drafting Immigration Rule changes that ensure employers have adequate access to labour.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be back under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
To continue the point that I was making, the Bill will have a huge impact on our health service and, specifically, the social care sector—even though, ironically, the social care sector is the prime example of where a labour shortage has failed to increase the wages of the people working in it. That should be a lesson to us all, if we think that we can promise people a pay rise on the back of immigration restrictions.
That said, we have all received a lot of evidence about the impact of the Bill on the health service, and that supports the case for the new clause. The Government have a large degree of control over workforce issues in the national health service and in the social care sector, so it would be right for the Government to feel the need to report to Parliament on the matter.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I completely support some of the arguments that the hon. Lady is making. The social care workforce is made up largely of women. Does she think that that is a key reason why the sector is underpaid?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady is obviously a top feminist, because she identifies probably the single biggest reason why the care sector is low paid. The work done by women has traditionally, for reasons of structural power, been paid much worse than similar jobs that have traditionally been done by men, and that helps to make my point. If we want to increase the pay of women in the social care sector, a good way to go about it would be to encourage those women to join a trade union, so that they can enforce their rights, bargain for better pay and increase their dignity and their control over their workplace. I argue that a restriction on free movement is, at best, not the most effective way to support those women. None the less, it would be interesting to learn, and the Government ought to take responsibility for finding out.
In support of my new clause, I would like the Government to consider not just the impact on our labour market of the policy of ending freedom of movement, but the huge impact that the policy will have on UK nationals—we barely discuss the restriction of fundamental rights, freedoms and abilities that ending free movement will entail—and on some large and, in many cases, fast-growing sectors in our economy.
In the tourism industry, for example, many British workers spend time working in a different country to develop their skills, perhaps before they run their own tourism business or come back to work in the UK. Many such opportunities could be curtailed, and it would be a dereliction of duty for the Government to ignore the fact that that will be a consequence of the policy.
Arts, culture, film, music and sport are all areas in which the UK has traditionally excelled, and I hope it will do in future. They are multibillion-pound industries, and the impact on them of ending free movement will be huge. If we think about the orchestra in the city region that I represent in Merseyside—or the fine Hallé orchestra in the city of Manchester, which you represent, Mr Stringer—the impact of the ending of free movement on those orchestral musicians will be absolutely profound.
We are offering those industries a future immigration policy that is unclear at this point, and yet their ability to move around and work on the continent of Europe is mission critical to them in their great work of producing fantastic music—the best in the world, some would say, in the case of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. I simply cannot countenance the idea of the Government taking that step without thinking that they ought to report on it.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
What my hon. Friend has said applies equally to dance and theatre.
Alison McGovern
Of course it does. I use the broad sweeping terms of arts and culture, but each of the composite parts of the British arts and cultural industry will have its own specific problems. It is easy for us to ignore it, but for a theatre producer who is looking to tour with a dance company, the ending of free movement will be highly significant.
That is even before we get to science-based industries. We have all received many representations from science-based industries that spin out of research programmes that are connected not just to EU funding, but to scientists’ ability to work easily across the continent of Europe. The Government say that they wish to support science and technology, because it is the British way to improve our economy by inventing new things—we are, of course, the home of the computer. However, free movement is an integral part of that, and it has offered the science-based industries a great ability to draw staff in from among the best in Europe, wherever they are.
Finally, we ought to consider, and the Government ought to monitor, the policy’s impact on manufacturing. The Government have argued that their policy on Brexit—specifically, ending free movement and coming out of the single market—will somehow support manufacturing. UK citizens who work in manufacturing often want to grow their skills and see, understand and manage manufacturing plants across the continent of Europe. They want to understand how things are done differently elsewhere and bring those skills back to Britain. To ignore the barrier to future manufacturing prosperity that the policy will create is to ignore an important impact of the ending of free movement.
We know far too little about the impact of immigration on our local economies. There is no evidence of a statistically significant relationship between EU immigration and employment rates or wages. We do not have enough evidence about the impact of those things on local economies, despite the political rhetoric. The Government have a duty to do better, and I hope the Minister will support my suggestion.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I was going to speak to new clause 43, which covers largely the same ground as new clause 13. The latter clause is probably better drafted, and the hon. Lady has given a comprehensive speech in support of it, so I will simply say that I approve of everything she has said.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
New clauses 13 and 43 focus on requiring the Government to report on the impacts of ending free movement and our future immigration rules, respectively, on European economic area and Swiss nationals. As I have said, I appreciate that some Committee members do not believe we should end free movement. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral South, who spoke passionately on the matter.
I emphasise again that the Government fully recognise the great contribution that migrant workers make to the UK. We remain committed to ensuring that the future immigration system caters for all sectors, and that it benefits the UK economy and our prosperity. We want the existing workforce to stay and we want to continue to attract other international workers to the UK. That is why the White Paper contains a route for skilled workers —it will, for the first time, encompass medium-skilled workers as well as the highly skilled—and a temporary worker route, which will enable people of all skill levels to come to the UK for up to 12 months. Neither of those routes will be subject to a cap on the number of visas granted.
The Government take seriously the economic impact on the UK economy of the proposals that we set out in the immigration White Paper in December and other measures in the Bill to end free movement. These proposals are designed to benefit the UK and to ensure that it continues to be a competitive place, including for medical research and innovation.
I share the hon. Lady’s concern that policies are properly evaluated and their full impact considered. That is why the immigration White Paper contained a full economic appraisal, running to more than 50 pages. It is a serious piece of work, which I encourage all hon. Members to study carefully. However, although it is considered and well thought-through, that appraisal is, by its nature, predictive. The proof of any immigration policy is its actual effect, which can be established only once the policy is in operation. We need to understand how policies work in practice, how businesses and employers react and how individual prospective migrants behave. We also need to understand the prevailing economic conditions in the UK and the countries from which migrants might come.
The hon. Lady spoke of the quality of the debate in the referendum of 2016. I well remember some comments that were made at that time about the views of experts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I give quite a lot of credence to the views of experts, and accordingly I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment behind the new clauses. I am pleased to tell the Committee that the Government already have plans in place to ensure there is an annual review of the kind that is envisaged.
Hon. Members will see that there is a section in chapter 3 of the immigration White Paper on the future role of the Migration Advisory Committee. It says that the Government will commission MAC to produce an annual report on key aspects of the UK’s immigration system. That strikes me as a comprehensive offer, and I think it would be best for any annual review to be undertaken by MAC, which has a good reputation for its independence and, of course, its expertise.
Accordingly, given our existing commitment to a proper, thorough and independent review of the operation of the future immigration system, I hope that hon. Members who have tabled these new clauses will see that they are not required and feel able to withdraw them.
Alison McGovern
I accept what the Minister says, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Settled status
‘(1) Any person who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act has the right of settled status in the United Kingdom if that person —
(a) is an EEA or Swiss national;
(b) is a family member of an EEA or Swiss national or person with derived rights;
(c) is resident in the United Kingdom on or prior to 31 December 2020.
(2) Any person who is entitled to settle status under subsection 1 has the same protection against expulsion as defined in Article 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and Council.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that any person entitled to settle status under subsection 1 receives proof of that status via a system of registration.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue a paper certificate confirming settled status to any person registered for settled status under this section.
(5) No fee may be charged for applications to register for settled status under this section.
(6) Any person who has acquired settled status under the provisions of subsection 1 is entitled to—
(a) remain in the United Kingdom indefinitely;
(b) apply for British citizenship;
(c) work in the United Kingdom;
(d) use the National Health Service;
(e) enrol in all educational courses in the United Kingdom;
(f) access all benefits and pensions, if they meet the eligibility requirements.
(7) A person’s right to use the National Health Service (d), enrol in educational courses (e) and access all benefits and pensions (f) under subsection (6), is the same as those for a British national.
(8) Any person who is entitled to settled status under subsection (1) loses their settled status only
(a) if they are absent from the United Kingdom for a period exceeding five continuous years after 31 December 2021 or
(b) if the criteria for expulsion as set out in Article 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and Council applies to them.
(9) In this section, “family member” has the meaning given in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and Council.
(10) This section applies if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union —
(a) following a ratified and implemented withdrawal agreement; or
(b) without a ratified and implemented withdrawal agreement.’—(Afzal Khan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 16—Rights of family members—
‘(1) Family members of any person (“P”) granted settled status under the provisions of clause [Settled status] are entitled to settled status in the United Kingdom after 31 December 2020 if —
(a) the family member’s relationship with “P” began before 31 December 2020; and
(b) the family member is still in a relationship with “P” when the family member applies for settled status.
(2) Any family member of any person (“P”) granted settled status under the provisions of clause [Settled status] are eligible for a family visa to come and live in the United Kingdom if that relationship began after 31 December 2020
(3) Any children born in the United Kingdom to a person granted settled status under the provisions of clause [Settled status] is a British citizen, whether the child was born before or after that person being granted settled status.
(4) Any family member who is entitled to settled status under subsection (1) loses their eligibility for settled status if they are absent from the United Kingdom for a period exceeding five continuous years after the date on which their settled status was granted.
(5) In this section, “family member” has the meaning given in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and Council.
(6) This section applies if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union —
(a) following a ratified and implemented withdrawal agreement; or
(b) without a ratified and implemented withdrawal agreement.’
This new clause is consequential on NC15.
New clause 17—Settled status: further provisions—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that no EEA or Swiss national, or family member of an EEA or Swiss national or a person with derived rights, is denied settled status in the United Kingdom on account of their non-exercise of European Union treaty rights or a removal decision made as a result of their non-exercise of European Union treaty rights.
(2) In this section, “family member” has the meaning given in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and Council.’
New clause 18—Right to family life—
‘(1) Article 8 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Right to respect for private and family life) applies to all EEA and Swiss nationals who are granted settled status in the United Kingdom.
(2) Article 8 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 1998 (Right to respect for private and family life) applies to all EEA and Swiss nationals who are granted a work visa under the provisions of clause [Work visas for EEA and Swiss nationals].’
This amendment is consequential on NC21
New clause 33—No time limit for applicants for settled or pre-settled status—
‘(1) No time limit shall be placed on the right of EEA and Swiss nationals to apply for settled or pre-settled status in the United Kingdom.
(2) No EEA or Swiss national can be removed from the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 after exit day if that person meets the requirements for settled or pre-settled status under appendix EU to the Immigration Rules.
(3) In this section, “exit day” has the meaning given in section 20(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.’
This new clause would ensure that there is no time limit on applicants to apply for settled or pre-settled status and prevent EEA nationals who had not yet been granted this status from being removed.
New clause 35—Documented proof of settled or pre-settled status—
‘Any person granted settled or pre-settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules must be provided with a physical document confirming and evidencing that status within 28 days of that status being granted.’
This new clause would ensure that all EEA and Swiss nationals granted settled or pre-settled status must be provided with physical proof confirming their status.
New clause 47—Settled status—
‘(1) A person to whom this section applies has settled status in the UK.
(2) This section applies to EEA and Swiss nationals, family members of EEA and Swiss nationals, and family members who have retained the right of residence by virtue of a relationship with an EEA or Swiss national and meet any one of the following conditions—
(a) they have a documented right of permanent residence;
(b) they can evidence indefinite leave to enter or remain;
(c) they have completed a continuous qualifying period of five years in any (or any combination) of those categories.
(3) This section also applies to—
(a) EEA and Swiss nationals who have ceased activity, and
(b) family members of EEA and Swiss nationals who have ceased activity and who have indefinite leave to remain under subsection (3)(a), providing the relationship existed at the point the EEA and Swiss national became a person who has ceased activity.
(4) This section also applies to family members of an EEA or Swiss national who has died where—
(a) the EEA or Swiss national was a resident in the UK as a worker or self-employed person at the time of their death;
(b) the EEA or Swiss national was resident in the UK for a continuous qualifying period of at least two years before dying, or the death was the result of an accident at work or an occupational disease; and
(c) the family member was resident in the UK with the relevant EEA or Swiss national immediately before their death.
(5) This section also applies to (a) a child under the age of 21 years of an EEA or Swiss national or (b) a child under 21 of the spouse or civil partner of an EEA or Swiss national where the spouse or civil partner was the durable partner of the EEA or Swiss national before the specified date, the partnership remained durable at the specified date, and the EEA or Swiss national has settled status under this section.
(6) The Secretary of State must, by way of regulations, make provision for EEA or Swiss nationals to secure documentary evidence of their settled status, without charge.
(7) A person with settled status has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; has the same rights and entitlements as a UK citizen and cannot lose settled status through absences from the UK of less than five years.’
This new clause would ensure that certain EEA and Swiss nationals, and family members, have settled status by operation of law, and make clear what settled status entails.
New clause 48—Settled status: relationships with British citizens—
‘(1) A person to whom this section applies has settled status in the UK.
(2) This section applies to a family member of a qualifying British citizen and a family member who has retained the right of residence by virtue of a relationship with a qualifying British citizen; and the person has a documented right of permanent residence.
(3) This section also applies to a family member of a qualifying British citizen and to a family member who has retained the right of residence by virtue of a relationship with a qualifying British citizen and there is valid evidence of their indefinite leave to enter or remain.
(4) This section also applies to a person who meets the following criteria—
(a) they are a family member of a qualifying British citizen or a family member who has retained the right of residence by virtue of a relationship with a qualifying British citizen;
(b) the applicant has completed a continuous qualifying period of five years either (or any combination) of those categories; and
(c) the applicant was, for any period of residence as a family member of a qualifying British citizen relied upon under subsection4(b), in the UK lawfully by virtue of regulation 9(1) to (6) of the EEA Regulations (regardless of whether in the UK the qualifying British citizen was a qualified person under regulation 6).
(5) This section also applies to a person who meets the following criteria—
(a) the person is a child under the age of 21 years of the spouse or civil partner of the qualifying British citizen (and the marriage or civil partnership was formed before the specified date); and
(b) the applicant is in the UK lawfully by virtue of regulation 9(1) to (6) of the EEA Regulations (regardless of whether in the UK the qualifying British citizen is a qualified person under regulation 6); and
(c) the spouse or civil partner has settled status.
(6) The Secretary of State must, by way of regulations, make provision for persons who qualify for settled status by virtue of this section to secure documentary evidence of their settled status, without charge.
(7) A person with settled status has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; has the same rights and entitlements as a UK citizen (subject to subsection (9)); and cannot lose settled status through absences from the UK of less than five years.’
This new clause would ensure that certain family members of UK citizens have settled status by operation of law, and make clear what settled status entails.
New clause 49—Limited leave to remain—
‘(1) A person to whom this section applies, has leave to enter and remain until 30 March 2024, or until such time as the person has settled status.
(2) This section applies when—
(a) a person is an EEA or Swiss national, a family member of an EEA or Swiss national or a family member who has retained the right of residence by virtue of a relationship with an EEA or Swiss national; and
(b) the applicant is not eligible for settled status because they have completed a continuous qualifying period of less than five years.
(3) This section applies when—
(a) a person is a family member of a qualifying British citizen and is in the UK lawfully by virtue of regulation 9(1) to (6) of the EEA Regulations (regardless of whether in the UK the qualifying British citizen is a qualified person under regulation 6) or a family member who has retained the right of residence by virtue of a relationship with a qualifying British citizen; and
(b) the applicant is not eligible for settled status solely because they have completed a continuous qualifying period of less than five years.
(4) This section applies when—
(a) the person is a child under the age of 21 years of the spouse or civil partner of the qualifying British citizen (and the marriage or civil partnership was formed before the specified date);
(b) is in the UK lawfully by virtue of regulation 9(1) to (6) of the EEA Regulations (regardless of whether in the UK the qualifying British citizen is a qualified person under regulation 6); and
(c) the spouse or civil partner has been or is being granted limited leave to remain under this section.
(5) The Secretary of State must, by way of regulations, make provision for persons who qualify for leave to remain by virtue of this section to secure documentary evidence of their leave, without charge.
(6) A person with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom has the same rights and entitlements as a UK citizen.’
Afzal Khan
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central will speak to new clause 15.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of new clauses 15 to 18, and to offer our support to new clauses 33, 35 and 47 to 49.
Mr Stringer, you will no doubt recall, as other hon. Members will, our first Opposition day debate after the referendum in 2016. In that debate, we called on the Government to offer a unilateral guarantee concerning the rights of EU nationals. I am confident that doing so would have led to reciprocal guarantees for UK citizens by the EU27. It would have prevented two and a half years of uncertainty and anxiety for EU nationals and their families, and it would have set off the negotiations on the right tone. In contrast, the Government promised the EU the “row of the summer” over the scheduling of the talks.
We must remember that we are talking about not only the concerns of EU citizens in the UK but, given the principle of reciprocity, the concerns of the 1.2 million Brits in the rest of Europe. It is disappointing that during the entire process, none of the three Secretaries of State for Exiting the European Union has agreed to meet the British in Europe group. The fact that the Government did not secure their onward freedom of movement as part of the withdrawal agreement says an awful lot about their commitment to that important group of UK citizens.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions that further evidence is being demanded. Is that not precisely what started to happen with the Windrush scandal, causing so many problems? Is that not why we need as many safeguards as possible in the scheme?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. With the history of the Windrush experience being so close, one would imagine that we would not yet have forgotten its lessons and would seek to apply them in this situation. We tabled the new clauses precisely because of that concern.
It is well known that other problems with the process include its inaccessibility to iPhone users. The Government talked about how easy this process would be—people would be able to do it on their phones—but that is not the case for half of the UK’s adults, who happen to use an iPhone. The inability to develop an app for use on an iPhone does not create a great deal of confidence in the rest of the process or the Home Office’s ability to handle it. People who already have proof of permanent residence are being asked to provide evidence of it, even though they were promised a simple swap to settled status. We need to have local support centres where people can apply offline, but they are not available.
The new clauses would remove the category of pre-settled status. This distinction, whereby an individual must be resident for five years to qualify for settled status, seems to be the result of a copy-and-paste exercise from the rules for permanent residence. A number of the stakeholders from whom the Committee took evidence do not see the rationale for it and believe that it serves no clear purpose. In fact, it creates more bureaucracy for individuals and the Home Office—this morning we discussed how difficult the Home Office sometimes finds it to deal with complicated or even simple procedures.
The Government have already admitted that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish easily between EU citizens who arrive before and after 29 March, which adds another layer of uncertainty. We can easily foresee the confusion for employers and landlords, who will wonder what different rights apply to the different categories, with detrimental effects for the holders of pre-settled status. I would welcome clarification from the Minister. If it is not simply to mirror the rules on permanent residence, can she explain the rationale for pre-settled status?
New clause 15 sets out other requirements, such as ensuring that applicants are issued with physical documentation of their proof of status. I acknowledge that this replicates new clause 35, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. It is another area where the Home Office will inevitably have to move. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and Professor Smismans vividly illustrated not only the administrative hassle of a digital system, but the potential implications for the treatment by what they describe as “private actors” and for
“equal access to work and housing.”
No other immigration status in this country operates exclusively digitally. The Government have said that they want this system to be more user-friendly than the current application process, but members of the3million group have made it absolutely clear that physical proof of their status would improve their experience of the system and provide some much-needed reassurance. I really do not understand why the Government are so resistant to that, and I urge the Minister to take the opportunity on this issue to work with, rather than against, EEA nationals and the people who speak for them. I imagine that this is an area that the Government will have to move on, as they did on the fee—many of us argued for it for a long time before the change was made.
New clause 15 would put on the face of the Bill the Government’s commitment not to levy a fee. For a long time, the Government were insistent on the need to charge £65 for an application. I am sure the Minister will embarrassingly recall that—in a written answer to me—she was not prepared to rule out the £65 fee for victims of modern slavery and trafficking at that stage. I am delighted that the Government moved on the issue. It might have been because of the embarrassment that, at one stage, the European Parliament was even considering covering the cost of the fees on behalf of EU nationals in this country. After campaigning by Opposition Members and other parties, along with the3million and trade unions, it was a good step that the Prime Minister conceded that the application should be free; therefore, the Government should have no issue putting that into the legislation.
New clause 16 details the rights of family members of EEA nationals who are eligible for settled status. New clause 18 would make it explicit that article 8 of schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998—the right to respect for private and family life—applied to holders of settled status and of the work visa for EEA and Swiss nationals dealt with in new clause 21.
On new clause 17, the Government have repeatedly stated that there would be only three criteria for settled status: nationality of a relevant country or a family member, residence in the UK and a criminality check. The rules in the appendix of the Immigration Rules go beyond that; they leave a loophole where someone who is not a serious criminal and otherwise eligible could be denied settled status on the basis of non-exercise of treaty rights. New clause 17 seeks to address this issue. Following legal action from the JCWI, from whom we took evidence, the Government narrowed the rules, but the power still remains. In written answers to me, the Minister has stated:
“the UK has decided, as a matter of domestic policy, to be more generous than the draft Withdrawal Agreement in certain respects. In particular, those applying under the scheme will not be required to show that they meet all the requirements of current free movement rules, such as any requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance or generally to detail the exercise of specific rights under EU law, such as the right to work.”
The new clause would enshrine that policy in law.
If the Government do not accept new clause 17, could the Minister explain why they are so intent on wishing to retain a power that they never intend to use?
Stuart C. McDonald
I give my support to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Sheffield Central, who made a lot of excellent points, including about the need or otherwise for pre-settled status.
This is probably one of the most important debates that we will have in this Committee. We all know that the settled status scheme is a huge undertaking. There is no doubt in my mind that the Home Office is doing its best to implement it to the best of its abilities. I do not question the commitment and effort made to attempt to have that scheme reach as many people as possible. The amendments are not about that, but whether EEA nationals and family members should be required to apply for their rights in the first place.
We are clear that EEA nationals’ rights should be declared in law. They should be able to retain their rights without any need to apply. Instead of applying for the right to remain in what is their home country, instead people would apply for documents simply to evidence that right. After all, that is pretty much the position they are in now: EEA nationals can make the UK their home simply by meeting the qualifying criteria by exercising their EU treaty rights. However, even though they do not need to, many find it very handy to apply for a document that proves they are exercising treaty rights and are allowed to remain here, so they apply for residence documents. Those documents do not give them any extra rights, but are simply convenient. It is far easier to hand a residence document to a landlord than a few months or years of bills, bank statements and wage slips to prove their right to be in the country.
All we are saying is that the same should happen in future. The Bill will strip people of hugely important rights; it should therefore also replace those lost rights with other rights that are granted automatically. All those who meet the Home Office criteria for settled status should be granted it as a matter of law. Applications for settled status documents would then be the means to simply evidence those rights, just in the same way as happens now. All that will become hugely important the day after the deadline for settled status applications passes.
If we do not make these changes, the evidence tells us that hundreds of thousands of people will be here without any status at all. They could, in theory, be removed. The Home Office talks of proportionate responses in allowing those with a reasonable excuse to apply late. However, that is tinkering around the edges. The fact remains that there will still be hundreds of thousands of people here without permission—people who were lawfully resident one day, and unlawfully the next.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Sheffield Central for tabling new clauses 15 to 18. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for new clauses 33, 35, 47 to 49.
Before turning to the new clauses, I will say a few words about the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), to which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central referred and to which the House agreed unanimously last week. We and the EU have been clear that providing certainty for citizens is a priority. That is why we have written to the EU about ring-fencing the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to the Home Affairs Committee last week, we should not underestimate the challenges involved in reaching such a joint UK-EU commitment. But we share a common goal in seeking to protect citizens’ rights. In the meantime, we will continue to seek commitments from the EU and its member states to protect the rights of UK nationals in the EU in the event of no deal.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central raised a number of points specifically on the settled status scheme and the ease of applications. I must, once and for all, put to bed the allegation that people will not be able to use their iPhones to apply. Individuals will be able to use any desktop, laptop or mobile device to make an application. It is only during this current phase of testing that people need to use the EU Exit: ID Document Check app to verify their identity, which is currently—I use that word advisedly—available only on Android devices. When the scheme is fully live at the end of March, the use of the app will be entirely optional.
The app is just one of several ways in which people will be able to verify their identity, including by post or face to face at an application centre. Additional routes that will be available to have identity documents checked include 50 locations where applicants will be able to have their passports scanned and verified. We are also rolling out additional digital support, which I saw in operation at the Barbican library some months ago, and a dedicated telephone advice and support service is also available. It is important to the Government that we make it as easy as possible for people to apply, and the Home Secretary continues to work very closely with Apple on the upgrades to its systems—not ours—required in order to have a chip-check device available on iOS.
There was a question about pre-settled status, which we grant to people with fewer than five years’ residence. This is a well-established rule that derives from the EU’s free movement directive: after five years, a person gets permanent residence. The draft withdrawal agreement specifically refers to these rules. The Opposition’s proposal would mean that a person here for a day, and with no intention to make their life in the UK, would immediately get indefinite leave to remain.
I turn to the new clauses tabled by hon. Members. The new clauses would give automatic immigration status to EEA and Swiss nationals—to whom I will continue to refer as “EEA nationals” for brevity—and their family members resident in the UK. As I have explained before to the Committee, this is called a declaratory system: individuals would automatically acquire status without needing to apply, but could subsequently register for a document if they chose to, in a similar way to how current free movement rights operate.
I welcome the fact that hon. Members share my aim to secure the rights of EEA nationals who are resident in the UK, which we all agree is of the utmost importance. The Government devoted a great deal of thought to how best to manage the end of free movement residence rights as we leave the EU. As I have explained before, a declaratory system is not the answer. As I explained to the Committee last week, in a deal scenario the EEA regulations that implement the free movement directive will remain in force until the end of the implementation period on 31 December 2020 and will be saved for the six-month grace period thereafter.
In a no-deal scenario, clause 4 of the Bill will save the EEA regulations from the date when they are repealed by schedule 1, and these will apply for people who are resident before exit day. This will maintain their current position until the deadline for applying under the settlement scheme expires in December 2020, and will ensure there is no change in their status as a result of Brexit until then. EEA nationals and their family members will be able to secure their immigration status in UK law after EU exit through the settlement scheme, which provides a quick and easy way for EEA nationals and their family members to apply for and be granted status. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central pointed out, this will now be free of charge.
The overwhelming majority of EEA nationals will need only to prove their identity, demonstrate residence in the UK and declare any criminal convictions. We will work with applicants to ensure that they are granted the status to which they are entitled. The scheme has, of course, been designed to comply with the Government’s obligations under the European convention on human rights. I take such obligations incredibly seriously, and they are applied by default to everything the Government do. Although new clause 18 is well-intentioned, it is unnecessary.
Some hon. Members might think that a so-called declaratory system would be better for EEA nationals, as it would provide them with an immigration status without their needing to apply. Although I understand why hon. Members wish to make the new system as streamlined as possible, I disagree with the proposals for a declaratory system. As I have said previously, requiring EEA nationals to apply for and receive a formal grant of status via the settlement scheme is key to ensuring that life continues smoothly for them in the future. Resident EEA nationals will be able to use their settled or pre-settled status to distinguish themselves from EEA nationals arriving in the UK in the future. In addition, a declaratory system for the resident population would provide much less incentive to apply for status and thereby receive the documentation that will enable them to prove that status.
Stuart C. McDonald
The incentive is there because, in order to be able to work, rent and access services, people will need to have a document that proves they have settled status. Can the Minister address what exactly is going to happen and what the status will be of the hundreds of thousands of people—we heard about them in evidence—who will miss the deadline if this system is not declaratory?
Caroline Nokes
We covered this point previously in the evidence sessions and also last week. The Government are absolutely determined to have a proportionate approach to those who miss the deadline and to assist those who have challenges through vulnerability, to make sure that they do indeed go through the settled status scheme.
It is important to us to reflect that people will want to be able to evidence their status here. However, at some point in the future we have to be able to draw a distinction between those who arrived before we left the EU and within the implementation period and those who arrived afterwards. Having a large proportion of this cohort legally entitled to a status but with no formal evidence to prove it would lead to confusion among employers and service providers and make it difficult for individuals to prove their right to benefits and services to which they are entitled.
In the longer term, it could also make it more difficult for them to prove that they have a legal right to reside in the UK. I am sure that Committee members will agree that that is not the outcome we want.
Stuart C. McDonald
It does not make it one iota more difficult for people to prove their status, because they will be using the same scheme. The only difference a declaratory system makes is that on the day after the application deadline there will not be hundreds of thousands of people without status. It will be just as easy for people to prove their status because they are using exactly the same scheme.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is the Government’s intention for there not to be hundreds of thousands of people without status and to ensure that people are assisted through the scheme where necessary. I was alarmed earlier today to hear information about a councillor from the hon. Gentleman’s own party who was encouraging others not to apply. I am sure we would all agree that that is the worst piece of advice that any elected representative could give.
I have taken incredibly seriously the lessons learned from Windrush, where individuals became entangled in measures intended to tackle illegal migration precisely because they did not hold the documentation that they needed. It is absolutely crucial that people understand their immigration status and the basis on which they have a right to remain in the UK. We have been developing plans for the EU settlement scheme. As we have been developing those plans, we have received queries about various groups of EU citizens who believe that they were here lawfully, but who are not meeting the requirements of the free movement directive.
Last week, I used the oft-quoted example of the househusband who did not have comprehensive sickness insurance, or carers who could not demonstrate the role that they were undertaking. We are catering for cases such as those through the scheme, but it illustrates the peril of declaratory systems, which lull people into a false sense of security. The EU agreed that a constitutive system was a sensible option for the UK to take and other member states are following this option for UK nationals. The Government’s approach already achieves the purpose of the amendments. I ask hon. Members to withdraw new clause 15 and not to move the others, for the reasons outlined.
I turn to the other new clauses, which relate to the EU settlement scheme. I thank hon. Members for new clause 33, which seeks to remove any deadline for applications under that scheme. However, removing the deadline is not appropriate for a number of reasons. EEA nationals will benefit from applying to the scheme before the deadline, so that they can prove their rights in the UK. After the deadline, the future immigration system will be in place; future arrivals will have different rights from those of the resident population. Without a deadline, there would be little incentive for the resident population to apply. Reducing the incentive to apply might lead to an increased number of EEA nationals failing to apply for and receive a grant of status. Those individuals would consequently face difficulty in proving their right to benefits and services to which they are entitled.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is not addressing the point I am making; in fact, she is almost making contradictory arguments—that this will reduce the incentive to apply and create difficulties in accessing benefits, services and so on. That is exactly the point, though. The difficulty in applying for benefits, accessing services, accommodation and everything else is exactly the incentive that means that people will apply for status. Yet the Minister is seeking to argue both ways.
Caroline Nokes
I do not think I am seeking to argue both ways. I fear that with no deadline people will not see the need to apply, yet then might—in a moment of crisis or emergency—come up against the need to be able to immediately prove their status without having the ability to do so.
Stuart C. McDonald
That is the critical difference between the two proposals. Under the Government’s current proposals, at that critical moment these people will have no status, and—despite vague assurances about proportionate responses, whatever that means—many of these people will find themselves without any status at all. If our proposals are correct, at the very least they will have the right to be in this country at that moment of crisis. It will simply be a matter of getting a document to prove it, if they still have that ability.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman says that it is “simply” a matter of getting the evidence to prove status, but as we saw—I am loth to go there—with the Windrush crisis, there were people who had absolutely every right to be in this country but could not evidence it. We are determined not to repeat that with this scheme: the incentive is to encourage people to apply, to provide them with a deadline, and to make sure that as many as possible can evidence their status so that they are not doing so in an emergency situation. As I have said several times, we will take a pragmatic approach to those who have a good reason for missing the deadline by allowing them to apply late. That is a requirement of the withdrawal agreement, and we will follow the same approach in a no-deal scenario.
New clause 35 would require the Home Office to provide EEA nationals with a physical document evidencing their status under the EU settlement scheme. The digital status given to EEA nationals will be a secure and permanent record held by the Home Office that is accessible to the holder at any time, but which cannot be lost or stolen. Users will be able to choose to allow third parties, such as employers, to have time-limited access to relevant information to demonstrate their status. By giving individuals direct access to their own data and the ability to share this at their discretion with service providers, we are giving them greater transparency and control over which data is shared. People will be able to better understand their rights and keep information updated.
We have already trialled this service with non-EU-national migrants to view and share their right-to-work information with employers, and the service has been well received by those involved. With an online service, we can also ensure that employers and others required to check a person’s status see only the information relevant to their need. Using a physical document as evidence of status—as has been the practice to date—does none of this. It can also cause significant problems when documents are lost, stolen, damaged, expired or in the process of being renewed. Physical documents are also more open to forgery and fraud: something we must seek to avoid.
Additionally, there are individuals whose documents are controlled by others, such as in cases of domestic violence, modern slavery and human trafficking. Moving to an online status is a step forward in tackling those who seek to control others. A digital status is also much easier to use for the visually impaired and dyslexic users who may have difficulty reading a physical document.
Stuart C. McDonald
There are some valid points in what the Minister says, but surely there is a compromise here. Could there not be the online system but some sort of physical document parallel to that, so that we had the best of both worlds?
Caroline Nokes
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are moving to a position of everything being digital by default. We think that the correct way forward. I have enjoyed my exchanges with the3million. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central suggested that I had not adequately engaged with them. I have met them on several occasions and listened to their views, but we do differ on the determination that we have to use the digital status. We believe that any 21st-century Government would want to do that.
Paul Blomfield
With my respect for the Minister I would not want it to be suggested that I was misrepresenting her engagement with the3million, and I am aware that she had productive discussions with them. However, there have been critical issues on which she has not been prepared to listen, and the issue of physical status documentation is one of them. It still eludes them, as it eludes us, why the Minister cannot agree to have a physical document available as an option for those who want it.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. Just because I disagree, that does not mean that I have not listened. We have made a commitment to digital by default, which I think is the right way forward. I made a point earlier about the challenge of different types of document, and the difficulties that might be presented if some people could produce one sort of document and others were reliant on digital only. I happen to think—perhaps I spent a long six months as the Minister responsible for the Government Digital Service—that this is the right way forward. The Government have always been very clear that this is our direction of travel.
I understand that it represents a cultural change for many, and I am very conscious that many EU member states not only require an identity document to be held at all times, but enforce compulsory identification on request, for instance from police officers. That is very different from the way in which the UK behaves. We do not have those requirements, nor are they part of our culture. Our methods of proving identity and rights do not have to mirror what other countries do.
Paul Blomfield
I find it difficult to accept the Minister’s general statement that those are not part of our culture. It has been pretty clear from evidence from employers and landlords that they would find physical documents much easier to deal with. If she is wrong on this, and if we fail in our endeavours to make the amendment, will she agree to the Home Office reviewing the practice within a reasonable period of introducing it?
Caroline Nokes
From the demonstrations that I have had of the digital right-to-work check, and the work that I have done with the Landlords Consultative Panel surrounding the digital right to rent checks, we have seen a very simple and straightforward procedure where the individual can send a time-limited link to a prospective employer that does not require them to do a great deal of research to find digital status; it is there at the click of a mouse button. However, I am listening to the views put to me by the Committee, and will reflect on them over the next few weeks.
As I said, the new digital capability forms part of moving the UK’s immigration system to digital by default, and is a simpler, safer and more convenient system. The proposed new clause would be a step backwards in simplifying the current system. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton withdraw the new clause.
Afzal Khan
We wish to press new clause 15 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time. I do so on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is not a member of this Committee but who has been particularly active on this issue, along with other colleagues.
This new clause relates to the testing of foreign national students in English proficiency. In 2011, the Home Office gave a licence to the US firm ETS to operate an English language test—the Test of English for International Communication or TOEIC—that was widely used to assess whether the English-language capabilities of overseas students were sufficient for them to study in the UK.
In February 2014, the BBC “Panorama” programme exposed cheating on a significant scale on the TOEIC test. Test centres were facilitating proxies to take the test, allowing students with poor English to obtain a pass certificate. ETS responded to this exposé by under- taking analysis, using voice-recognition software of the recordings of all those who had taken the TOEIC test in order to study in the UK. They reported to the Home Office that, of 58,458 candidates who took the test in the UK between 2011 and 2014, 33,725 had definitely cheated and 22,694 probably had. Only 2,039 candidates were given the all-clear.
The Home Office responded by cancelling the visas of many of those ETS claimed had definitely cheated. Their colleges were required to expel them from their courses and, of the 22,694 students that ETS claimed had probably cheated, the Home Office stated that none had action taken against them without first being given the opportunity to resit a test with a different provider. Up to the end of 2016, the Home Office published data on its response to the ETS allegations. By the end of that year, there were more than 35,870 refusal, curtailment and removal decisions made in respect of ETS-linked cases. There were more than 4,600 removals and departures in respect of ETS-linked cases. These figures suggest that a significant number of those who lost their visas as a result of ETS allegations are still in the UK, but nobody knows how many. One estimate is that at least 2,000 are still here.
No in-country appeals were available to those accused of cheating, but some of those affected have managed to get their cases before the UK courts. In a growing number of cases, they have been able to convince the courts that they did not, in fact, cheat. In one case, the appellant showed that he never even took a TOEIC test.
ETS’s evidence has not stood up well to the scrutiny it has received in these cases and was described by one computer expert as worthless. It has proven extremely difficult for students to obtain from ETS the recordings alleged to be of them taking the test and ETS’s records, for example of where the test was taken, have proven unreliable. It is also clear that many of those affected can speak excellent English and some have passed comparable tests with other providers. This is the regime that EEA national students will be subject to in future.
The students whose visas were summarily cancelled have been left in a terrible plight. They were thrown off their courses and were not entitled to any refund of the fees they had paid. They are not permitted to study or work in the UK, and many are dependent on support from friends. In some cases, they have invested their family’s life savings in obtaining a British degree. Now the savings have gone, they have no qualification and face destitution. Many say they could not endure the shame of returning to their home country with nothing to show for their efforts and having been apparently convicted by UK authorities of having cheated. At a meeting in the House of Commons attended by some 50 TOEIC victims recently, it was claimed that all suffer mental health problems.
The student who never took a test, but nevertheless had his visa cancelled on the grounds that he cheated, had completed an MBA course at the University of West London, subject to having to pass two resits. When the Home Office refused his visa renewal on TOEIC grounds, the university withdrew him. He had paid more than £10,000 in fees for the course and has since spent £5,000 on legal costs to win his appeal.
Afzal Khan
I strongly agree with the new clause. I have been involved in campaigning on the TOEIC test issue. It is a burning injustice that is long overdue for resolution by the Home Office. Thousands of innocent students have spent years trying to clear their names. In Committee, we have discussed the terrible consequences of the “hostile environment”, and those all rained down on the students. I hoped that the issue would be resolved long before now, given that the scandal first broke five years ago. Given that the legal limbo continues, we support the new clause as a vehicle to compel Ministers to resolve it.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for tabling the new clause on behalf of the right hon. Member for East Ham. The new clause relates to the use of certificates to evidence knowledge of English. It raises an important issue, and I would like to explain the Government’s response to widespread abuse of English language testing facilities, which came to light in 2014.
The scale of the fraud—there is no doubt it was a fraud—is illustrated by the fact that so far more than 20 people have received criminal convictions for their role in facilitating the deception, and sentences totalling more than 60 years have been handed down. Further criminal trials are ongoing. There was also a strong link to wider abuse of the student visa route. The majority of individuals linked to the fraud were sponsored by private colleges rather than universities, many of whom the Home Office had significant concerns about well before “Panorama” uncovered the specific fraud. Indeed, 400 colleges who had sponsored students linked to the fraud had already had their licences revoked prior to 2014.
The Educational Testing Service had its licence to provide tests within the UK suspended in early February 2014 and was removed from the immigration rules on 1 July 2014. Approximately 20% of the tests taken in the UK were provided via ETS prior to its suspension.
During 2014, ETS systematically analysed all the TOEIC tests administered in the UK dating back to 2011 and classified them as either questionable or invalid. ETS categorised results as questionable where it had significant concerns about the test centres and sessions where they had been obtained.
We have always recognised that it was possible that a small number of students who took legitimate tests could have received a questionable result. That is why we ensured that those people were given the chance to resit a test or attend an interview before any action was taken against them. ETS categorised results as invalid only where the same voice was matched to two or more tests taken in different names, indicating that deception was likely to have been used.
Stuart C. McDonald
All this was a good few years before the Minister’s time in office, but was one of the fundamental problems here that the big multinational company responsible for messing up the test in the first place was then handed a blank cheque to mark its own homework afterwards? Why was that not handed to a completely independent body, rather than just letting ETS fix its own mess? How much did it have to pay in compensation to the Home Office?
Caroline Nokes
I reject the description of a global company making a mess of it. This was systematic fraud and deception—I indicated earlier the number of criminal convictions. This was not a mess; it was fraud. It is really important to remember that.
Stuart C. McDonald
It was a fraud, absolutely. It was far too easy to perpetrate. People employed by that company or at least subcontracted further down the line by that company were assisting people with their tests and allowing different people to sit the tests. The safeguards that the company put in place were clearly way short of what was required. It made a mess of things.
Caroline Nokes
That is absolutely why that company was suspended from the immigration rules in July of that year, which is perhaps evidence of why occasionally it is useful to use the immigration rules as a very swift device to resolve problems. I would point out that the report on the ETS system, which was undertaken by Professor Peter French, concluded that the number of false matches was likely to be very small and it was more likely that people were given the benefit of the doubt than that they were falsely flagged as having cheated.
Kate Green
One of the difficulties that the students face is that it is proving very difficult for them to get a copy of the recorded evidence on which ETS and, it would seem, the Home Office are relying. We seem to have a system that, in its impact, is not just on a number of individuals. I am quite surprised that the Minister is taking such a hard line, because even one failure of justice is one too many.
Caroline Nokes
As I indicated earlier, those who received a questionable result were given the opportunity to take an additional test or to attend an interview before any action was taken against them. I know that Members have expressed concern about the reliability of the matching. It is important to note that an independent expert report from Professor French, a professor of speech science, which reviewed the system, indicated that the number of false matches was likely to be very small. It is also worth noting that the courts, even when finding in favour of individuals, said that the evidence for invalid cases was enough to justify reasonable suspicion of fraud and for the Home Office to take action. It is then for individuals to address this evidence, as a number have, through appeal or judicial review.
The first part of the hon. Lady’s amendment requires the Secretary of State to disregard the results of any English language test for any EEA or Swiss national applying for settled status, pre-settled status, to work or study or for any other visa system established under the provisions of the Bill. We have set out very clearly our intention to create a single, skills-based immigration system. English language ability will remain a key strand of the immigration requirements for many of those coming to work, study and settle in the UK. Although EEA nationals often have excellent English language skills, currently we exempt only nationals of majority English-speaking countries and those who have certain qualifications obtained in English, having shown their English language skills through a secure English language test.
Requiring EU citizens to obtain evidence of their English language would put them on a par with a citizen of any other non-majority English-speaking country under the current system. However, evidence of English language is not a requirement for settled or pre-settled applications, and no EEA or Swiss national applying under the settlement scheme will have to demonstrate their English language ability.
The Government believe it is a reasonable expectation that those coming to work or study in the UK are able to speak a satisfactory level of English. Therefore, evidence of English language will continue to be a requirement for other visa routes, such as study and skilled work routes.
Kate Green
I am grateful that the Minister says English language capability is not a requirement for settled status and pre-settled status. Will she confirm clearly that, given we know that a small number of EEA nationals have already taken this test and may not have passed it, failure to pass the test will not prevent them from being obtaining settled status or pre-settled status, nor will it put them at risk of removal or other sanctions?
Caroline Nokes
I think I can give that reassurance. When it comes to settled status or pre-settled status, there are only three requirements. We ask people to provide evidence of their identity, of their residence in the UK for five years for settled status and less for pre-settled status—enabling them to upgrade to settled status later—and of any criminal convictions.
The second part of the amendment provides for a review of the consequences of the licence issued to ETS to administer the English language test in the UK. As the hon. Lady will be aware, there has been significant scrutiny of this issue over the last five years in Parliament, the courts and the media. A specific inquiry was conducted by the Home Affairs Committee in 2016, during which the Home Office answered more than 100 detailed questions. Given the scrutiny that has already taken place, I do not believe it is necessary to require the Home Office to conduct a further review, and I also do not believe that this Bill, which sets out a framework for the future immigration system, is the correct vehicle to require reviews of previous Home Office actions that have little bearing on EEA or Swiss nationals.
I am aware that, following a meeting with the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Ham passed on details of a further number of specific cases to the Home Office. I assure the hon. Lady that we will respond shortly on these cases and the wider issues that have been raised and continue to be raised. I appreciate that there is frustration at recent delays in response to individual representations, but that is because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I both take seriously the issues that the right hon. Member for East Ham has raised.
I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied from the evidence presented that the Bill is not the right vehicle to address any concerns she may have with the historic abuse of the English language test administered by ETS, and I respectfully ask her to withdraw her new clause.
Kate Green
I am a little disappointed by the tone of the Minister’s response. There is no doubt that, as she says, there has been cheating, both corporate and individual. It is unfortunate to adduce other cases that were nothing to do with ETS and the TOEIC case in particular, to imply that there is some general culture of cheating that these students were a part of. We know that specific cases that have been brought either to the Home Secretary and considered carefully, as she says, or to the courts, often have been found in the appellants’ favour. The courts have been quite firm in some of their wording, making it quite clear that it is the Government who have failed to discharge the burden of proof that sits on them and not some legal failure on the part of the students to make their case.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 25—Data categories for the automated residency check for the EU Settlement Scheme—
“The Secretary of State shall, on the day on which this Act is passed, publish which categories of data are provided by the Department for Work and Pensions to the Home Office for the purpose of the automated residency checks for the EU Settlement Scheme.”
This new clause would require the Home Office to publish information on which categories of data are provided by the DWP to the Home Office for the purpose of the automated residency checks for the EU Settlement Scheme.
New clause 26—Process applied by the Home Office during the automated residency check for the EU Settlement Scheme—
“(1) In relation to the automated residency check for the EU Settlement Scheme, the Secretary of State shall, on the day on which this Act is passed, publish the details of the process, which is used in order to—
(a) convert the data provided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to a record of residency;
(b) ascertain whether the record of residency created using the data provided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs meets the criteria for settled status;
(c) convert the data provided by the Department for Work and Pensions to a record of residency;
(d) ascertain whether the record of residency created using the data provided by the Department for Work and Pensions meets the criteria for settled status;
(e) combine the record of residency created using the data provided by the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with the record of residency created using the data provided by the Department for Work and Pensions; and
(f) ascertain whether the combined record of residency created by the process set out in subsection (e) meets the criteria for settled status.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish any change to the process set out in subsection (1) within a period of seven days after such a change is implemented.”
This new clause would mean that the process applied by the Home Office during the automated residency check, any changes made to that process, and information regarding that process, would be published.
New clause 27—Data protection impact assessment relating to the automated residency check for the EU Settlement Scheme—
“The Secretary of State shall, on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a data protection impact assessment relating to the automated residency checks for the purposes of the EU Settlement Scheme.”
This new clause would mean that the Secretary of State had to publish a data protection impact assessment relating to the automated residency checks within the EU Settlement Scheme application process.
New clause 28—Information to applicants on the outcome of the automated residency check—
“At the same time as an applicant to the EU Settlement Scheme receives a wholly or partially unsuccessful result from the automated residency check, the Secretary of State must provide the applicant with—
(a) the periods of time during which the Secretary of State accepts that the applicant was resident;
(b) the periods of time during which the data do not evidence residence;
(c) the data processed by the automated residency check;
(d) information on the process that was applied to the data in paragraph (c) to produce the periods of time as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b).”
This new clause would mean information was given immediately to an applicant who was informed that the automated residency check result for the EU Settlement Scheme was not successful.
New clause 29—Legal limits on the use of personal data processed during the EU Settlement Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State may not further process personal data that has been processed during the EU Settlement Scheme application procedure unless—
(a) the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for such further processing, or
(b) such further processing is limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which the data are processed, and not further processed in a manner incompatible with the purposes of applying for settled or pre-settled status.
(2) Transferring the personal data to immigration enforcement or to a database accessible by immigration enforcement, does not satisfy subsection (1)(b).
(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to further processing referred to in subsection (1).”
This new clause would mean that the data of EU nationals who apply through the EU Settlement Scheme are not passed to immigration enforcement or to a database which may be accessed by immigration enforcement.
New clause 31—Requirement to check manually for system errors when an applicant does not pass the automated residency check—
“At the same time as an applicant through the EU Settlement Scheme application process receives a wholly or partially unsuccessful result from the automated residency check, the Secretary of State must manually check for errors in the automated data checks, including but not limited to—
(a) data matching errors;
(b) errors in creation of the record of residency from the data;
(c) errors in adding data to a record of residency to create a new record of residency
(d) errors resulting from using the process applied during the automated residency checks on a record of residency to create an output.”
This new clause would mean that a manual check for errors is made when an applicant does not pass the automated residency check before they are required to provide documentation to prove their residency for the purposes of settled status.
Stuart C. McDonald
Let me say at the outset that I am stepping somewhat outside my comfort zone in discussing automated data checks, so I am grateful for the assistance provided by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Open Rights Group.
The settled status scheme relies heavily on automatic data checks. Input of a national insurance number triggers the automatic transfer of certain data from HMRC and the DWP to the Home Office. That data is subjected to algorithmic machine analysis according to a Home Office business logic, details of which have not been made public. Result outputs of pass, partial pass and fail are issued to a Home Office caseworker. Once the output is received, the raw data apparently disappears. Applicants who pass the data check are deemed to have fulfilled the residence requirement for the purposes of settled status. Applicants who do not pass are invited by caseworkers to upload documents for manual checking. Applicants who cannot evidence five years’ continuous residence generally receive pre-settled status.
Campaign organisations, including ILPA and the Open Rights Group, rightly believe that the Home Office has three specific legal duties—to give reasons for data check outcomes, to ensure that its caseworkers have meaningful oversight of the checks, and to provide public information about the scheme. The new clauses identify actions that the Home Office should take to comply with those three duties. They seek more information about the data checks and they would increase transparency.
Let me briefly take each of the three duties in turn. The first is the duty to give reasons for the outcome of a data check. The Home Office is under a common law duty to give reasons for its decisions to grant or refuse settled status. The data checks are a mandatory step in the scheme and they are integral to decision making. The duty to give reasons therefore includes a duty to explain why the data checks gave the result they did. Reasons should detail what data was analysed and how the business logic was applied. That information would enable applicants to appreciate whether decisions were open to challenge for irrationality or were made on the basis of inaccurate information.
If the Home Office accepts that it has a duty to give reasons, at least in some cases, how will it approach the need to retain records to supply such reasons? What data about applicants is retained by the Home Office as a result of the data checks? For what reason, and for how long, is that data retained? Which persons does the Home Office envisage will have a genuine business need to see that data?
The second duty is the duty to inform the public about the logic of the data checks. The EU General Data Protection Regulation of 2018 requires the Home Office to process data in a transparent manner. It would be consistent with such duties of transparency and openness if the Home Office provided meaningful public information about its business logic that enabled applicants to understand how it will apply in their case. Will the Home Office provide full details of, or sufficient information about, its business logic to allow its application to all types of individuals to be understood and to allow for independent review? What steps is the Home Office taking to limit and rectify business logic operational errors?
The third duty is the duty to exercise supervisory control over data checks. Making decisions by relying on output from automated data checks without scrutinising these is likely to constitute unlawful delegation of powers. To prevent this, a manual check for system errors should be conducted when applicants challenge refusal of settled status.
Proper oversight, safeguards and transparency are essential when dealing with complex decisions and people in vulnerable situations. It is important for EU nationals to know whether they are eligible for settled status, and if they are not eligible, the future date on which they are likely to become eligible. At the outcome of the data check, the Home Office should inform non-passing applicants which years the checks accepted covered, and which not. This would also improve system efficiency by reducing unnecessary challenges.
Some final questions: on the basis that residence is not contingent on income or contribution, why does it appear that different weighting is applied to data from the Department for Work and Pensions and from HMRC? Why is HMRC requested to provide data first, and not DWP? Will the Home Office add functionality in the scheme to enable applicants to easily request and obtain the information that HMRC and/or DWP have supplied about them? What steps is the Home Office taking to address the particular challenges faced by vulnerable groups such as children in care, persons in abusive or coercive relationships, victims of labour exploitation and trafficking and people who cannot provide documentary evidence, notably children, pensioners, non-working dependants, homeless persons, casual workers and victims of domestic abuse?
Afzal Khan
We support these amendments. I make two brief comments. First, the EU settlement scheme will entail an enormous amount of data sharing between the Home Office and other Departments. It is right that the terms of this data sharing should be transparent. Secondly, the possibility of EU citizens’ data being passed on by the Home Office has understandably caused concern among those citizens. We do not want to create any barriers to EU citizens applying for settled status. Getting a high take-up rate is already going to be extremely difficult. Providing for explicit consent for data to be shared or reused would be a sensible limit on Government powers.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to the hon. Members for their new clauses 24 to 29 and 31. Given the similar effects of some of these new clauses, I will consider new clauses 24 to 28 and 31 together before speaking to new clause 29 separately.
These clauses cover a broad range of issues, including the gathering and using of data and matters relating to the automated residency checks under the EU settlement scheme. As I have said previously, securing the rights of citizens has always been our priority and we have delivered on this commitment. The draft withdrawal agreement published on 14 November 2018 guarantees the rights of EU citizens and their family members living in the UK, and those of UK nationals living in the EU.
The basis of the withdrawal agreement aligns closely to that of existing free movement rules with respect to when a person becomes a permanent resident and, in the case of the EU settlement scheme, acquires settled status. Significantly, the withdrawal agreement states that this assessment should be based not only on length of residence but on the fact that a person is exercising EU treaty rights for the whole qualifying period. We have, however, gone further than this and are being more generous to all EU citizens in the UK and to those who arrived during the implementation period. We do not test whether a person is exercising treaty rights—for example whether they are in work, studying or have comprehensive sickness insurance. Eligibility is based on residence alone, subject to criminality and security checks.
As part of the application process we will, where an applicant provides a national insurance number, conduct an automated check of residence based on tax and certain benefit records from HMRC and the DWP. We know that most EU citizens will have had some interaction with these departments and that this could demonstrate an applicant’s residence, either for the whole five-year period to qualify for settlement, or in part. While it is optional for an applicant to use the automated checks to prove their period of residency, in the test phases most have done so.
To date, 80% of the decisions made have been on the basis of this data alone. Where data exists, the automated checks replace the need for the applicant to submit any other form of evidence. The automated checks happen in real time as the application is completed, and the applicant is informed whether there is enough data to qualify for either settled or pre-settled status. Feedback from the three trial phases to date shows that people overwhelmingly like the simplicity of having their residence proved for them by these checks. The applicant is immediately informed if they need to provide additional documents and prompted to provide such documentation before completing their application.
In such instances, we will accept a range of documents as evidence, and they can be submitted digitally as part of the online application process. Where the applicant accepts the result of the automated check, no further evidence is required, and they will, subject to identity, security and criminality checks, be granted either settled or pre-settled status. The rules for assessing continuous residence are already set out in the immigration rules. The automated checks simply apply those principles to the data provided by HMRC and the DWP. New clauses 26 and 28, although well intentioned, are therefore unnecessary.
I understand the sentiment behind new clauses 24, 25 and 27, on publishing details of the automated residency checks in the scheme, as well as our memorandum of understanding with HMRC and the DWP. We will of course be completely transparent on how those checks work, as it is to everyone’s benefit for us to do so. I confirm that we will publish the MOU before the scheme is fully launched. We will also publish further materials, including more guidance on why automated checks may not return the expected data. The EU settlement scheme is still in the test phase, and it is important that we continue to amend our processes and design as we progress through the phased roll-out. I hope that offers reassurance to hon. Members.
On new clause 31, it may be helpful if I explain the different stages of the application process. When an applicant receives a wholly or partially unsuccessful result from the automated residency check, they are still in the middle of the application process and they have completed only some of the online form. They have therefore not yet submitted an application. Informing an applicant of why data has not matched is likely to increase the risk of fraud and identity abuse. The new clause would change the focus of the scheme from granting status to investigating the data quality of employers or of the DWP and HMRC. We consider that a distraction that would cause unnecessary delays for applicants.
I am sure all hon. Members on this Committee share my desire to keep the application process simple and quick in providing results. For the reasons I have given, the new clause is not consistent with those aims. In most cases, it would be far simpler and more straightforward for applicants to submit other evidence to prove residence, rather than seeking to resolve why data has not matched. Of course, the applicant can take up that issue with HMRC or the DWP if they wish. It is already the case that applicants, like anyone else, can ask Government Departments what data is held about them and get incorrect information rectified, as per article 16 of the general data protection regulation.
Our guidance includes a suggested list of documents that could be provided as additional evidence. Examples include bank statements, a letter from a general practitioner, and certificates from school, college, university or an accredited educational or training organisation. I assure hon. Members that we will continue to work to improve the match rates of the automated checks. The test phase gives us the opportunity to test the EU settlement scheme and to make improvements to the process.
New clause 29 seeks to prevent information from those who apply to the EU settlement scheme from being passed to immigration enforcement. Let me confirm that we fully comply with all statutory responsibilities when processing data. The ways in which this information may be processed are set out in the Home Office’s “Borders, immigration and citizenship: privacy information notice”, which is available on gov.uk. Decisions on whether information should be shared with immigration enforcement are made on a case-by-case basis. It is important that the Home Office uses data in ways that are compatible with the purpose for which it is collected—for example, to assist future citizenship and passport applications and, if needs be, to combat immigration offences.
To conclude, I thank hon. Members for raising these important issues, but I hope the assurances I have provided will lead them not to press their new clauses.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed answers, and particularly the undertaking to publish the MOU. I obviously need to take all that away and give it further thought, but there seemed to be a lot of helpful answers and pointers in there, so in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Extension of the remit of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
“(1) The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration shall have a remit to inspect any Government department insofar as the department is involved in the EU Settlement Scheme application process.
(2) Government departments in subsection (1) shall include the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs insofar as they are involved in the automated residency checks for the EU Settlement Scheme.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would mean that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration could inspect Government departments if they were involved in the EU Settlement Scheme application process.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be very short, because this new clause is essentially tied up with the group we have just debated. Because the automated checks involve information passing to DWP and HMRC, the role of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration should be extended so that they have the power to look under the bonnet, as it were, of both to see what is happening and to ensure that the process is running smoothly and appropriately. That is the new clause in a nutshell. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Afzal Khan
This is a sensible amendment. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration plays a vital role in inspecting and reporting on Home Office activities. Where the EU settlement scheme overlaps with other Departments, it is important that the inspector has the remit to inspect those. There is some ambiguity about the oversight of the EU settlement scheme if there is no deal. The withdrawal agreement makes it clear that if there is a deal, there will be an independent monitoring authority established to oversee the scheme.
The Minister, in her letter to me on 31 January, set out that if there is no deal, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration will fulfil that function. Will they get any additional funding to carry it out? Will the Minister expand their remit to cover other Departments, to make sure the inspections are not limited in scope?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for new clause 30. However, it is unnecessary. The UK Borders Act 2007 allows the independent chief inspector to inspect the efficiency and effectiveness of services provided by any person acting in relation to the discharge of immigration, nationality, asylum and customs functions. The EU settlement scheme is primarily an immigration function. Therefore, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration already has the powers to inspect Government Departments involved in the EU settlement scheme application process, and that includes activities undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in support of the EU settlement scheme application process. I therefore request the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for answering my questions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 32
No fees for applications under appendix EU to the Immigration Rules
“(1) No fees shall be chargeable for any EEA or Swiss national making an application for leave to remain (whether for settled status or pre-settled status) under appendix EU to the Immigration Rules.
(2) No fee shall be chargeable for any EEA or Swiss national seeking an administrative review of a decision to reject an application for leave to remain under appendix EU of the immigration rules (whether for settled status or pre-settled status), or to exercise a right of appeal against any such decision.
(3) No fee shall be chargeable for any new or alternative scheme introduced for EEA or Swiss nationals in place of appendix EU to the Immigration Rules.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would ensure that the Government’s commitment to scrap the settled status fee, and extend the principle to any review or appeal, or any alternative scheme set up to replace appendix EU, is legally binding.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 38—Visa fees—
“(1) A fee or charge on an EEA or Swiss national applying for a visa may be imposed only if that fee or charge is equal to or less than the cost of providing the visa.
(2) No child with an entitlement to register for British citizenship shall be required to pay a fee to register for British citizenship.
(3) A fee or charge on an EEA or Swiss national making an application to naturalise as a British citizen may be imposed only if that fee or charge is equal to or less than the cost of processing the application.”
New clause 39—Immigration skills charge—
“No immigration skills charge introduced under section 70A of the Immigration Act 2014, or by regulations thereunder, may be charged in respect of an individual who is an EU national coming to work in the EU.”
This new clause ensures no skills charge can be levied in respect of EU nationals coming to work in the UK.
New clause 45—Registration as a British citizen—
“(1) No person, who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end, may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen that is higher than the cost to the Secretary of State of exercising the function of registration.
(2) No child of a person who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen if that child is receiving the assistance of a local authority.
(3) No child of a person who has at any time exercised any of the rights for which Schedule 1 makes provision to end may be charged a fee to register as a British citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford.
(4) The Secretary of State must take steps to raise awareness of people to whom subsection (1) applies of their rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to register as British citizens.”
This new clause would mean that nobody whose right of free movement was removed by the Bill could be charged a fee for registering as a British citizen that was greater than the cost of the registration process, and would abolish the fee for some children.
Stuart C. McDonald
The new clauses highlight in different ways the concern over significant increases in costs relating to the use of the migration system. Scrapping the settled status application fee was very welcome. New clause 32 would simply enshrine that in law and ensure that any replacement scheme did not attract a fee. That territory has largely been covered by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central earlier, and I will not repeat what he said.
Will the Minister confirm that there will be no fee for seeking an administrative review of any refusal of settled status? What assessments have been made of the costs of future centres that people are required to attend if they need help to scan documents, for example?
New clause 39 allows for a debate on the skills charge of £1,000 for an employee for 12 months and £500 for every subsequent six months. This is a significant tax on employing a worker from overseas. It is not a subtle tax and seems to be based on the false premise that firms that recruit from overseas are the ones that fail to invest in training at home. That is not the case. Comparatively few businesses recruit from outside the EEA currently. Are we really going to impose a significant levy on many thousands of additional businesses, simply because it is proving impossible for them to recruit locally?
Finally, new clause 45 concerns an issue that I have raised with the Minister on a number of occasions and that I feel strongly about: the system of charging people who are entitled to British citizenship by registration, but who are struggling to meet the exorbitant fees, which have escalated to over £1,000. If they are entitled to register as British, that would give many EEA nationals a more secure status than settled status. It is important to emphasise that when Parliament changed the rules on nationality so that birth in the UK was no longer enough to secure British citizenship, it was careful to seek to protect those who would not qualify automatically, but for whom the UK was genuinely home. The debates from the British Nationality Act 1981 show that Parliament envisaged a straightforward automatic grant if certain criteria were met. The fee at that time was just £35. We are not asking for a return to that level, but simply for a level that reflects the financial cost to the Home Office, which is in the region of £300,000, although I do not have the exact figure to hand.
An early-day motion on this topic achieved extensive cross-party support, as did a Backbench Business debate, which I believe happened last year. Again, I ask the Minister to simply listen to colleagues from both sides of the House. We are talking about people who are entitled in law to British citizenship, and they should not be prevented from obtaining that citizenship merely by an exorbitant fee. The Home Secretary himself recognised that it was a heck of a lot of money to be charging children, so I hope the Home Office will stop charging that sort of sum.
Afzal Khan
We support all these new clauses. I will speak briefly on new clause 38, which is in my name.
New clause 38 has three distinct provisions. The first would ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals applying for a visa are not charged above the cost price for that visa. As with many of our amendments, we would prefer that this apply to all migrants, but the scope of the Bill required us to narrow the new clause. The Home Office makes a profit of up to 800% on immigration applications from families, many of whom will not be well off. These applications will often be turned down on technicalities, forcing families to apply and pay again. As EEA nationals join migrants from the rest of the world coming into the UK under work visas, the risk of debt bondage increases. If workers are required to pay high fees for work visas, they will be vulnerable to exploitation and may be left working to pay off debts to recruiters.
The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has completed an inspection of policies and practices relating to charging and fees. According to his website, he sent the report to the Home Office on 24 January. It would have been helpful to have it in preparation for this discussion. Can the Minister tell us when her Department will publish the report?
The second part of the new clause stipulates that no child with entitlement to register for British citizenship should be required to pay a fee. The principle is that those children, given their entitlement to British citizenship, will not be required to pay fees to realise that entitlement. This was the intention of the British Nationality Act 1981, which ended the principle that being born in the UK in itself makes someone British, when it gave no discretion to the Secretary of State, other than the formal role of registering the citizenship of any person with the entitlement.
The third part of the new clause would require that anyone naturalising as a British citizen should not pay above cost price. It is important to keep the questions of immigration and nationality separate, and to keep entitlement and naturalisation separate as well, despite the Government’s attempt to blur that distinction.
The fees are now £1,012 for children and £1,206 for adults. That is an enormous amount, and it disproportionately affects BME people and children under local authority care. The effect of being unable to pay these fees is that British people are subject to the hostile environment, including detention and temporary deportation, which is wholly unjust.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for Manchester, Gorton for having tabled new clauses 32, 38, 39 and 45.
It may be helpful to provide some background on this issue. Fees for border, immigration and citizenship products and services have been charged for a number of years, and they play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable system that minimises the burden on taxpayers. Each year, income from fees charged contributes enormously towards the running of our border, immigration and citizenship system. The charging framework for visa and immigration services delivered £1.35 billion in income in the last financial year. It is therefore true to say that fees paid by users play an absolutely critical role in this country’s ability to run an effective and sustainable system, and as I am sure members of the public rightly expect, to minimise the burden on UK taxpayers.
I also want to explain from the outset that we already have a legislative framework in place that governs fees. Fees are set and approved by Parliament through fees statutory instruments made under powers in the Immigration Act 2014. As hon. Members will be aware, the Prime Minister publicly confirmed that
“when we roll out the scheme in full on 30 March, the Government will waive the application fee so that there is no financial barrier for any EU nationals who wish to stay”—[Official Report, 21 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 27.]
We will be amending existing fees legislation to implement that decision.
Outside of applications made under the EU settlement scheme, immigration and nationality fees legislation has always provided for some limited exceptions for paying application fees for limited and indefinite leave to remain. However, those exceptions are limited to specific circumstances, such as for those seeking asylum or fleeing domestic abuse, or where the requirement to pay the fee would lead to a breach of the European convention on human rights. Fee exceptions do not extend to applications made by individuals who are seeking to register or naturalise as a British citizen. That is because becoming a citizen is discretionary and not necessary to enable individuals to live, study and work in the UK, or to be eligible to benefit from appropriate services. Other exemptions are provided by separate regulations governing the immigration health surcharge.
To make provisions that are specific to certain nationalities as part of this Bill would be unfair to all users of the border, immigration and citizenship system.
Stuart C. McDonald
There have been a number of amendments where the Minister has made the point that it would be unfair to apply the provisions to EEA nationals only. We are, of course, constrained by the Bill, but if any unfairness arises from our new clauses and amendments, it is open to the Government to amend the Bill further, and even to amend the long title of the Bill. I am sure the Minister would have support from across the Committee in doing so.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that kind invitation. He will be aware that it is part of my duty under the Bill to make sure that we end free movement. The scope of the Bill is pretty much limited to that. As he highlighted, I do not want us to lead to a position where the Home Office discriminates against people on the basis of nationality.
I want to address some of the specific points relating to each new clause. Subsections (1) and (3) of new clause 32 provide that no application fee shall be chargeable under the EU settlement scheme, or for any successor scheme. While I am sympathetic to the intention behind subsection (1), I do not consider it necessary. We have a clear legislative framework in place for fees payable under the border, immigration and citizenship services. Therefore, new clause 32 would cut across the existing statutory framework for fees and would risk undermining the coherence of the current system.
Secondly, new clause 32 provides only for the removal of the application fee under the EU settlement scheme, which will only come into effect for applications made after the Bill is passed. As I have said, we are going further than that, and the announcement the Prime Minister made on 21 January makes it clear that the changes we are working to introduce through the fees regulations and the immigration rules will enable us to refund all EU settlement scheme application fees that have already been paid. The new clause is therefore to be unnecessary.
I will now turn to subsection (2) of new clause 32, which provides that EEA and Swiss nationals should not be charged a fee to appeal, or to administratively review, a decision not to grant settled status under the EU settlement scheme. I shall deal with administrative review and appeals separately. We have already discussed administrative review of a decision under the EU settlement scheme, for which the fee is set at £80 per review—the same fee that applies to administrative reviews of other immigration decisions. Where an administrative review is successful because there was a casework error in the original decision, the applicant will have their fee refunded.
In the context of applications under the EU settlement scheme, the right to an administrative review goes even further. An applicant who has been granted pre-settled status, but who believes that they qualify for settled status, can submit additional information that will be considered as part of their review. However, if the applicant cannot or does not wish to pay the fee for an administrative review, they have the alternative option of submitting a fresh application under the EU settlement scheme, which will be free. I therefore consider this part of the amendment to be unnecessary, because remedies that are free of charge are already available and if the administrative review is successful, the fee is refunded.
Stuart C. McDonald
We are talking about children who are entitled to UK citizenship, and it is wrong to say that alternative ways—long routes to settlement, costing many thousands of pounds—are an adequate alternative. We are talking about something that is precious to those children, and I urge the Minister to give us some indication of when the ongoing review might conclude.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is aware that the Home Secretary has said that he is keen to review the situation and keep our fee structure under careful consideration, but I regret that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a deadline.
It is right to point out that we already provide exemptions for eligible individuals who apply for limited and indefinite leave to remain in the UK. That is a reflection of the fact that in some circumstances, grants of such leave are necessary to enable an applicant to enjoy his or her human rights—for example, where a person is destitute or there are exceptional financial circumstances, often relating to the welfare and best interests of a child.
Stuart C. McDonald
Those exemptions are good and it is absolutely right to have them, but why not have the same exemptions for kids who are entitled to British citizenship and who are supported by a local authority, or whose families are destitute? They are entitled to British citizenship. Why deprive them of it?
Caroline Nokes
As I have indicated, the Home Secretary is keen to keep the matter under review. We are looking closely at it, and particularly at child citizenship fees. In summary, the requirement to pay a fee for citizenship does not disproportionately interfere with human rights, because of the exemptions I have described. The requirement to pay a fee is not contrary to a child’s best interest, which is to be with their family. Not having citizenship does not prevent them from doing so. Any assessment of a child's best interests is intensely fact-sensitive, so it cannot be said, as a generalisation, that it will always be in a child’s best interests to acquire citizenship. It may, for example, be in his or her best interests to preserve links to another country. As I have set out, the proposals undermine our existing statutory framework for making provision relating to fees and charges in the Bill.
New clause 45(1) raises many of the same issues about British citizenship fees for EEA nationals as new clause 38(3) did, and I refer the Committee to my earlier comments. New clause 45(2) and (3) provide that the Secretary of State may not charge the child of a person who has exercised free movement rights, which are repealed by this Bill, a fee to register as a British citizen if that child is in receipt of local authority assistance or if that child or their parents cannot afford the fee. That addresses a point similar to that in new clause 38(2). I refer Members to my previous point: the Bill is not the appropriate place to address child citizenship fees, which we are considering in the round.
New clause 45(4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to make persons who have exercised free movement rights aware of their rights to obtain British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981. Information about becoming a British citizen is already published in guidance on gov.uk, and we are committed to ensuring that information of that nature is fully accessible.
It is right that, in the run-up to and immediate aftermath of the UK’s departure from the EU, the Government’s communications focus on the EU settlement scheme and what EEA nationals in the UK need to do to secure their status. We are launching a wide-ranging marketing campaign to encourage EEA nationals to apply. We do, however, make it clear when explaining the rights afforded by settled status that they may include a right to apply for British citizenship, provided that eligibility requirements are met. I hope that that reassures the Committee that we are taking steps to make people aware of their rights.
I turn to new clause 39, which concerns the immigration skills charge. Hon. Members may be aware that the charge was introduced in April 2017 as part of a major reform of the tier 2 skilled worker route. It is designed to ensure that UK-based sponsoring employers make a contribution to the upskilling and training of the resident workforce. Investing in skills is vital to achieving our ambition to increase UK productivity.
Data shows that, on average, employers in the UK under-invest in training compared with other countries. The Government have always been clear that it is right that employers should be incentivised to contribute to the upskilling and training of workers, and we have taken a carefully considered approach to the application of the charge. That is why we have provided exemptions for employers sponsoring migrants working in PhD-level occupations, as specified in the immigration rules; students switching from tier 4 to tier 2 to take up a graduate-level position in the UK; and the intra-company transfer graduate trainee category. Those exemptions build on the Government’s strong post-study work offer for international students and are intended to protect the UK’s position as a centre of excellence for education and research.
Underlying MAC’s recommendation in its final report on EEA migration, which was published last September, is the importance of retaining the charge as a key counterbalance to the recommended abolition of the resident labour market test in the proposed future skilled worker route. This will ensure the continued protection of resident workers in the future system and will provide one element of control after free movement has ended. New clause 39 runs directly contrary to the advice of MAC, which believes that it would be appropriate to apply the charge to EEA nationals in the future.
It is important to note that in the future system, the charge will apply only to employers that sponsor migrant workers under the skilled worker route. It will not apply to individual migrants who may come to the UK to work temporarily under the transitional temporary work route, and who will not be sponsored by an individual employer.
As Committee members are aware, the Government are not complacent. We have set out our intention to engage with businesses and organisations over the next 12 months, and to listen to their concerns and thoughts in response to the proposals in the White Paper. Accordingly, for all the reasons I have given, I invite the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for her detailed answers. There was a lot of helpful information in there, but there was also a lot that I do not agree with and am not yet quite persuaded about. I will certainly persist, particularly on fees for the registration of children as British citizens, but that is for another day. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Derived Rights
“(1) Any person who has resided in the UK with derived rights under relevant EU caselaw shall be treated for the purposes of an application for leave to remain under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules (whether for settled or pre-settled status) on the same basis as an EEA or Swiss national who has resided in the UK.
(2) In this section, ‘relevant EU caselaw’ means—
(a) Zambrano (Case C-34/09 of the European Court of Justice);
(b) Chen (Case C-200/02);
(c) Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira (Case C-480/08).”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would mean that non-EEA nationals with derived rights under EU caselaw would be treated on the same basis as EEA or Swiss nationals who had resided in the UK when applying for settled or pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief. The Minister will know that I have raised various points about non-EEA nationals and derived rights on previous occasions. The new clause would simply ensure that those people were treated on the same basis as EEA or Swiss nationals who reside in the UK, if and when they apply for settled status under the immigration rules.
My understanding is that Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira carers are all covered by the withdrawal agreement, but Zambrano carers are not. There are also questions about what will happen to all those groups if there is not a deal. In a Westminster Hall debate, the Minister made positive noises about ensuring that their rights are protected, but I am still struggling to find detailed provisions for what will happen to each of those groups. I would appreciate an update on that.
Paul Blomfield
I will be even briefer, which I am sure will be generally welcomed. We support the new clause, which concerns an important group of people with derived rights who have been left without certainty about their position. There is a strong imperative for that to be resolved, and for us to extend the same rights to them as to others.
Caroline Nokes
I, too, will be as brief as I can. I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their new clause 37, which seeks to give those with a derivative right of residence access to the EU settlement scheme.
It may be helpful if I explain that a derivative right of residence is one that stems from the EU treaties rather than from the free movement directive, and it has been established through Court of Justice of the European Union judgments. The rights identified by the Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira cases are protected by the draft withdrawal agreement. The rights of Zambrano carers are not protected by the agreement.
The Government have been clear that provision will be made in the immigration rules for individuals currently resident with a derivative right of residence. I fully appreciate that those people need certainty about their status. We are resolving the final details within Government, in consultation with other affected Departments. Subject to securing my colleagues’ agreement, I expect to be able to confirm the position for that cohort in the immigration rules to be laid before Parliament shortly.
In summary, the Government agree that we need to protect the rights of those who are resident here on the basis of derivative rights. We have already committed to making provision for them in the immigration rules, and we are just finalising precisely how we will achieve that. I hope to have further positive news for the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East shortly. For that reason, I ask him to consider whether it is necessary to press the new clause to a vote.
Stuart C. McDonald
That just goes to show that short exchanges can be useful. The only thing I would add is that I hope the Home Office scheme for these groups of people is as generous as possible and does not, for example, set them off on long routes to settlement with thousands of pounds of charges in between. I hope they are offered something close to, if not exactly the same as, what is offered to EEA or Swiss nationals. I am grateful to the Minister for her answer, and I look forward to finding out more very soon. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 44
No comprehensive sickness insurance requirement
“Rules in Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, or any replacement scheme, may not include a requirement for an applicant for leave to remain (whether settled or pre-settled status) to show that they have or have ever had comprehensive sickness insurance.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
The withdrawal agreement allows for certain EU nationals to be required to show they have comprehensive sickness insurance. This new clause would mean that no such requirement would be implemented.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Members will be aware that there were some concerns about the terms of the withdrawal agreement in relation to citizens’ rights, including about the apparent requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance. I very much welcome what the Government have said about being more generous in that respect and not requiring evidence of comprehensive sickness insurance. The new clause would simply put that commitment in the Bill.
This ground was largely covered in our debate on new clause 17, including by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, so I do not need to say much more. We simply seek reassurance from the Minister that that remains the Government’s position and that they have no plans to change it, and ask whether she will consider putting that in the Bill.
Paul Blomfield
We support the new clause. The Minister wrote to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton to say that the Government have no intention of requiring comprehensive sickness insurance, so I assume they would have no issue with putting it in legislation. If they agreed to do so, they would send a very strong signal of their intentions.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their new clause 44, which seeks to ensure that the EU settlement scheme does not place a requirement on applicants to hold, or to have held, comprehensive sickness insurance. I welcome the intention of the new clause, but it is not necessary. The Government have been clear from the beginning that we would not be testing for comprehensive sickness insurance. We made that clear as early as June 2017, when we published our public document on safeguarding the position of EU citizens, and the Prime Minister reiterated it in October 2017 in her open letter to EU citizens.
Appendix EU to the immigration rules does not contain a requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance, and that will not change. Eligibility for the scheme will continue to be based on residence and not permitted activity. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I regret that the Minister is not willing to put the policy into the Bill. It is important for the 3 million that these policies are not just left to the immigration rules, which, as we have stated, are all too often changed in the blink of an eye, with little or no scrutiny. There would be a benefit to having some of these policies, which are very welcome, written into the statute, but I will not put the new clause to the vote today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 50
Citizens’ Rights
“A Minister of the Crown must seek to secure at the earliest opportunity a joint UK-EU commitment to adopt part two of the Withdrawal Agreement on Citizens Rights, particularly as it affects people whose right of free movement has been removed by section 1 and schedule 1, and ensure its implementation prior to the UK exiting the European Union, or as soon as possible thereafter.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
If I had had some foresight, I should maybe have withdrawn this new clause in advance. This is a version of the Costa amendment, which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) very ably saw through Parliament last week. I congratulate him on achieving very widespread support.
The Chair
Does the hon. Gentleman not wish to move that the clause be read a Second time?
The Chair
The new clause is not moved.
New Clause 51
Refugee family reunion
“The Secretary of State must make rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to allow any person who has exercised a right brought to an end by Section 1 and Schedule 1 and who has been recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom to sponsor their—
(a) children under the age of 25 who were either under the age of 18, or unmarried, at the time the person granted asylum left the country of their habitual residence in order to seek asylum;
(b) parents; or
(c) siblings under the age of 25 who were either under the age of 18, or unmarried, at the time the person granted asylum left the country of their habitual residence in order to seek asylum;
to join them in the United Kingdom.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would expand refugee family reunion rules for EEA and Swiss nationals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 51 relates to refugee family reunions. Again, I have encountered a problem with the scope of the Bill, as my new clause would extend the scope of refugee family reunion rules to EEA and Swiss nationals. That would obviously be a fairly rare occurrence; nevertheless, I think some of these amendments and new clauses would establish a principle. As I said to the Immigration Minister not long ago, if it gives rise to inequalities and problems, the answer is for the Government to equalise the situation by raising the standards in relation to non-EEA nationals who are also refugees.
Due to the restrictive rules about who is eligible, many people are not allowed to reunite under family reunion rules. Currently, the UK immigration rules state that
“adult refugees in the UK can be joined via family reunion by their spouse/partner and their dependent children who are under the age of 18.”
Those restrictions mean, for example, that parents are not automatically able to bring their children who have turned 18 to the UK, even if the child is still dependent on them and has not yet married or formed their own family. While the family reunion guidance allows some cases outside the rules to be granted in exceptional circumstances, in reality that rarely happens.
Furthermore, unlike adult refugees, children who are in the UK alone and have refugee status have no right to be reunited with even their closest family members. Again, in this regard the UK is an outlier. These are children who have often endured hardship and trauma and have been recognised by the Government as having the right to stay in the UK. They now find themselves alone in an unfamiliar country and having to navigate the immigration system themselves.
The Government argue that granting refugee children the right to sponsor family members to come to the UK would be a pull factor and incentivise or force more children to make dangerous journeys to the UK. However, there is no evidence to support that claim, and in every other EU member state refugee children can sponsor close relatives to join them.
In the 12 months before September 2018, for instance, 811 separated children were granted asylum in the UK, more than a quarter of whom had fled Eritrea. These children have been recognised by the Government as being in need of international protection, where it is not safe for them to be returned to their home country. Where possible, and where it is in their best interest, children should be able to be with their parents. Granting separated children family reunion rights would allow that to happen. That, in short, is what the new clause seeks to put us on the road to achieving.
The other point I want to make is that Parliament of course debated all this and heard all the Government’s arguments during the Second Reading debate on the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). Considerable effort was made to ensure that sufficient Members would be present at a Friday sitting to debate that private Member’s Bill. There was a vote and there was overwhelming support for its Second Reading. There is growing frustration about the delay in bringing forward the money resolution to enable that Bill to go to the next stage—Committee. I would therefore like the Minister to explain what is happening and when we will see the Bill get to Committee, because we are running out of time and it would be outrageous if all that good work was stymied by Government use of procedures.
Afzal Khan
We support this new clause. I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the private Member’s Bill that would have implemented these changes. I commend the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for once again bringing this issue to our attention through this Bill.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, along with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, for raising, through new clause 51, the important issue of refugees’ rights to family reunion.
The new clause is designed to allow EEA and Swiss national refugees, including those who are nationals of EEA countries that are not part of the EU, to sponsor certain family members to join them in the UK. I spoke last week about the inadmissibility of asylum claims from the EU and about the Spanish protocol and do not intend to repeat today what I said then. It is the Government’s view, which I hope all members of the Committee share, that all Swiss and EEA nationals are from safe countries and are highly unlikely to suffer a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm there, save in very exceptional circumstances. For those reasons and because we do not foresee a change in these circumstances, we intend to continue our policy on the inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals, as well as treating claims from Swiss and EEA nationals as clearly unfounded, post EU exit.
I hope that hon. Members can see that treating asylum seekers from Switzerland and the EEA differently from those from the rest of the world on the grounds of their nationality would be illogical and discriminatory. It would be unlikely to comply with our equalities obligations and would offer a clear avenue of challenge on human rights grounds. I appreciate that that may not have been the intention behind the new clause, but it would be its effect. In any event, in a deal scenario, which remains the Government’s priority, we will already be providing family reunification rights. New clause 51 is therefore unnecessary to secure the rights of EEA and Swiss nationals to sponsor their family members.
I know that hon. Members are keen to address refugee family reunion more broadly, and I am conscious that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East asked a question about the private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Of course, it is the usual channels that decide money resolutions. That is entirely outside my hands, but I can comment on the Government’s family reunion policy. That provides a safe and legal route to bring families together. It allows adult refugees who are granted protection in the UK to sponsor a partner and children under 18 to join them, if they formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country. Under that policy, we have granted visas to more than 26,000 partners and children of those granted protection in the UK in the past five years; that is more than 5,000 people a year.
Furthermore, our family reunion policy offers clear discretion to grant leave outside the immigration rules. That caters for children over 18 where there are exceptional circumstances or compassionate factors—for example, where they would be left in a conflict zone or a dangerous situation.
The types of family member that the new clause is aimed at can apply under alternative routes. Under the immigration rules, adult refugees can sponsor adult dependent relatives. That includes parents, grandparents, children over 18 and siblings over 18 living overseas where, because of age, illness or disability, the person requires long-term personal care that can be provided only by their sponsor in the UK, and that will be without recourse to public funds.
Moreover, there are separate provisions in the rules to allow extended family who are adult refugees in the UK to sponsor children to come here where there are serious and compelling family or other considerations. That is an important measure, as it enables children to join family members in the UK through safe and legal means.
It is imperative that we think carefully about this issue. Adopting new clause 51 could significantly increase the number of people who could qualify to come here, not just from conflict regions, and irrespective of whether they needed international protection. That would risk reducing our capacity to assist the most vulnerable refugees.
We must also consider community and local authority capacity. I understand that this is a complex and emotive issue, which is why we are listening carefully to calls to extend family reunion and closely following the passage of the private Members’ Bills on this subject, and will continue our productive discussions with key partners. It is particularly important to me that hon. Members are reassured that we are taking this matter seriously, and I hope that I have gone some way in ensuring that. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw new clause 51.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for her answer and for stating that the Government are still listening on this important issue. The usual channels have also got the message that there is some disquiet over the lack of progress in relation to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 52
Illegal working: EEA and Swiss nationals
“Section 24B of the Immigration Act 1971 does not apply to any work undertaken by an EEA or Swiss national.” —(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would limit the offence of illegal working so that it did not apply to EEA or Swiss nationals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 53—Illegal working: people who qualify for settled or pre-settled status—
“Section 24B of the Immigration Act 1971 does not apply to any work undertaken by a person who qualifies for settled or pre-settled status under Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules, but fails to apply for such status by the time of any deadline put in place in relation to such applications.”
This new clause would limit the offence of illegal working so that it does not apply to EEA or Swiss nationals who qualified for settled status, but failed to apply in time.
Stuart C. McDonald
These new clauses relate to the offence of illegal working, which we heard about in the evidence to the Committee. The substance of that evidence was essentially that the offence of illegal working is driving people into exploitative employment relationships. Obviously, that is complete anathema to the Government’s stated anti-slavery objectives.
We heard from Focus on Labour Exploitation, whose research has clearly shown that undocumented people are unlikely to come forward to labour inspectorates about abuse if they fear immigration repercussions, which has a triple effect. First, they are not identified as victims or supported. Secondly, abusive employers can operate with relative impunity because the immigration regime effectively hands them exploitable workers. Thirdly, that serves to undercut other workers, who have legal rights, thereby dragging the whole labour market down.
I am loth to see the offence extended to EEA and Swiss nationals. This offence is a year or two old now; has the Home Office done any research on the impact of its creation? What have been the implications on the Government’s efforts to tackle modern slavery? At the very least, we need to be reassured that the Home Office is alive to these concerns and will take them seriously. In the absence of such reassurance, we cannot just head off and extend the scope of those offences further.
Afzal Khan
We support the new clauses. As has been set out by the TUC and Focus on Labour Exploitation, it is essential that migrants are able to claim their rights at work. That means not being arrested for criminal offences when attempting to report abusive employers. Our labour market enforcement capacity is one of the weakest in Europe. We need to set high standards for wages and workers’ conditions, significantly improve our inspection capacity, and remove the offence of illegal working. This offence makes it less likely that people will come forward to the UK national referral for trafficking and modern slavery.
We know that many trafficking victims are already in immigration detention. In her evidence to us, Bella Sankey from Detention Action provided a powerful example of a Chinese woman who was a victim of trafficking. She was picked up at a brothel after a tip-off, but instead of being treated as a victim of modern-day slavery and trafficking, she was taken to a detention centre and held for six months. Clearly, many things went wrong at many stages of that woman’s journey through the immigration system, but removing the offence of illegal working would at least help to remove one barrier to her getting the help she needs.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling these amendments. I also welcome the opportunity to explain how the offence of illegal working will be applied to EEA and Swiss nationals after we have left the EU, and how our approach to the EU settlement scheme will minimise any risk of those nationals being subject to the offence of illegal working post-EU exit. The Government have made clear our commitment to protecting the rights of EEA and Swiss nationals who are resident in the UK before exit. I recognise the concerns and the intention behind both new clauses, but they are unnecessary and discriminatory. They are also incompatible with our commitment in the White Paper to establishing a single, skills-based immigration system for all migrants coming to live and work in the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for her answer. There were some helpful pieces of information in there. I again emphasise that the discrimination argument is not really an argument against the principle behind the new clause. If the new clause was accepted, we would also push for the Government to go further and remove the offence for all nationalities.
I particularly note the Minister’s candid admission that no evaluation of the impact of the offence has been made to date. I hope that the Home Office undertakes such an evaluation soon. The Minister can expect to hear from me very shortly if I do not hear any evidence that it has done that. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 56
Recourse to public funds: EEA and Swiss nationals with children
‘(1) EEA and Swiss nationals with dependants under the age of 18 must be exempt from any no recourse to public funds condition that would otherwise be placed on them under Immigration Rules.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a public fund is defined as any of the following—
(a) attendance allowance;
(b) carer’s allowance;
(c) child benefit;
(d) child tax credit;
(e) council tax benefit;
(f) council tax reduction;
(g) disability living allowance;
(h) discretionary support payments by local authorities or the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland which replace the discretionary social fund;
(i) housing and homelessness assistance;
(j) housing benefit;
(k) income-based jobseeker’s allowance;
(l) income related employment and support allowance (ESA);
(m) income support;
(n) personal independence payment;
(o) severe disablement allowance;
(p) social fund payment;
(q) state pension credit;
(r) universal credit;
(s) working tax credit.’—(Kate Green.)
This new clause would prevent EEA and Swiss families with children under the age of 18 from being given the right to remain in the UK but not being allowed access to public funds.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kate Green
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would prevent EEA and Swiss families with children under the age of 18 from being given the right to remain in the UK without being allowed to access public funds. I am grateful to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium and, particularly, the Children’s Society for helping me to prepare for this debate.
In light of what the Minister has been saying in response to a number of recent new clauses, I am aware that she will probably argue that this would be discriminatory. However, I point out that there is a very strong moral imperative on us to ensure the wellbeing of every child in this country. In particular, we are talking about the children of EEA nationals, many of whom will themselves be entitled to British citizenship or on a ten-year path to settlement.
I do not believe that the “no recourse to public funds” provisions in the immigration system are fair or necessary. We already have a very robust social security system with tough, stringent tests of people’s need for benefits and entitlement to access them. I also think it is wrong to put people in a position where they may be working and contributing to this country, in many cases through tax and national insurance contributions, but none the less are unable to avail themselves of our benefits system, to support their families and, in particular, their children.
We can see that lack of access to support for these children is very damaging. It includes, for example, lack of access to free school meals, social security benefits, and free nursery places, which are offered to disadvantaged two-year-olds. Not only is that extremely damaging to each individual child’s wellbeing, it is damaging to the welfare of the whole country in the long term. We should bear in mind that the majority of these children are likely to stay here and continue to be part of our community.
When families have no recourse to public funds, but children are at risk of destitution, there is an immediate short-term cost, which falls on local authorities. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities are required to take action to prevent children from falling into destitution. The number of such children is increasing for a number of local authorities, and they simply do not have the resources to discharge their statutory obligations adequately. For example, my own borough of Trafford is already facing a substantial shortfall in its children’s services budget for the future.
The significant difficulties that the section 17 provisions place on local authorities are growing and are likely to grow further after Brexit. If the Minister is not minded to accept the exact wording of my new clause, I think it is incumbent on the Government, if they continue to rely on local authorities to pick up the tab, to ensure that the local authorities involved are adequately resourced to do so.
It is extremely difficult for families subject to a “no recourse to public funds” order to have that condition removed from their immigration status. It is very difficult for them to get advice on that matter. As we heard in earlier debates, they are unlikely to be able to access legal aid to make a case for that condition to be reconsidered.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say something strong to the Committee, which will assure us that the “no recourse to public funds” condition will not be applied to children in a way that will leave them destitute. I hope that she will be able to say specifically that those who do not get settled status by the application deadline, or who only attain pre-settled status, will still be able to access all mainstream benefits and will not be subject to “no recourse to public funds” provisions.
I hope she will also be able to say that she will take forward conversations with her colleagues in other Government Departments, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, so that we can ensure that we have a proper, comprehensive and adequate system of support for families with children, and that the “no recourse to public funds” condition will not be maintained in a way that puts those children at risk of destitution.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for proposing new clause 56 on recourse to public funds when granting leave to remain to EEA and Swiss nationals with children. I appreciate that the intention behind this new clause is clearly to protect the wellbeing of children. By way of background, EEA and Swiss nationals may currently access the benefits included in the new clause, broadly speaking only when they are exercising treaty rights through employment or self-employment, or where they have become permanent residents. The new clause would provide that EEA nationals here with a child, for whatever period, could qualify for benefits, thereby potentially creating new entitlements to benefits based solely on the EEA or Swiss nationality of the parent or legal guardian of the children. I am sure that that was not the intention.
As I have said before, the Government have been clear about their intention to protect the entitlements of EEA and Swiss nationals already resident here, as we leave the EU, and to introduce no new restrictions until the future skills-based immigration system is introduced. All leave issued under the EU settlement scheme does not and will not include a no recourse to public funds condition.
I should like to explain in a bit more detail. The new clause would under the future system provide a significant advantage to EEA and Swiss nationals over non-EEA nationals, who generally qualify for access to public funds only when they acquire indefinite leave to remain, subject to exceptions for refugees and other groups. We believe that that general qualifying threshold for access to benefits for migrants is the right one, as it reflects the strength of a migrant’s connection to the United Kingdom and the principle that migrants should come to the UK to contribute rather than to place pressures on taxpayer-funded services.
Non-EEA migrants coming to live in the UK are currently expected to provide for any children they have without recourse to public funds. There is no reasonable justification for adopting a different principle for EEA nationals arriving in the UK when the new system is introduced.
Further, EEA nationals entering the country under the future immigration system will still be eligible to qualify for contribution-based benefits once they have paid sufficient national insurance contributions. As with non-EEA nationals, full access to our benefits system would be available under the immigration rules after settled status was granted—usually after five years, on a route that leads to settlement.
As I have said, I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the wellbeing of children. However, I reassure her and the other hon. Members who supported the new clause that the safeguards already in place for the vulnerable will be retained. For example, immigration legislation already provides that local authorities may intervene where required, regardless of the immigration status or nationality of the child or parent. However, it is only right that the future immigration system should also continue to play a part in ensuring that public funds are protected for the lawful residents of the UK, and in assuring the public that immigration continues to benefit the country as a whole.
Kate Green
The Minister is right to highlight again the role of local authorities, where support is required, but will she undertake to have ongoing discussions with her colleagues in other Departments—particularly the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—about funding for local authorities? Those that have particularly high numbers of such families face significant cost pressures, which they struggle to meet.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady is right to point out the cost pressures on local authorities in relation to that role. I regularly meet not only Ministers, across Government, but the Local Government Association and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which are always keen to reinforce the issues for me.
I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the Government’s approach is right, and I invite her to withdraw the new clause.
Kate Green
I am grateful for the Minister’s understanding of the challenge that local authorities face and the importance of protecting every child in the country from the risk of destitution. I beg to ask to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 57
Short-term visas
‘(1) The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 3(1)(c) insert—
“(d) construction work undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals;
(e) cleaning work undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals;
(f) care work undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals;
(g) hospitality work undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals.”
(3) After Section 3(2) insert—
“(2A) In subsection 1 above—
(a) “construction work” means work in the construction industry;
(b) “cleaning work” means work as a cleaner;
(c) “care work” means work as a carer;
(d) “hospitality work” means work in the hospitality and services sector.”
(4) After Section 4(5)(c) insert—
“(d) using or employing EEA or Swiss nationals to undertake construction work;
(e) using or employing EEA or Swiss nationals to undertake commercial cleaning activities;
(f) using or employing EEA or Swiss nationals to undertake care work;
(g) using or employing EEA or Swiss nationals to undertake work in the service industry, including but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, bars and nightclubs.””—(Kate Green.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kate Green
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would extend the licensing standards of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to more sectors. As with the new clauses that we discussed a few moments ago, I am grateful to Focus on Labour Exploitation for its help with drafting.
Currently, the GLAA licenses four sectors: agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and any associated processing and packaging. The new clause would extend its licensing remit to construction, cleaning, care and hospitality. I am moving the new clause against a backdrop of Government plans for short-term work visas following the ending of free movement, as set out in the immigration White Paper, and out of concern to ensure that there is protection from exploitation for potentially vulnerable workers in sectors that have traditionally relied on migrant labour.
As members of the Committee will know, the GLAA was established in the wake of the Morecambe Bay tragedy in 2004, originally as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Under the Immigration Act 2016, it was renamed and its remit was increased to give it police-style powers across the labour market. Anyone who supplies labour—so-called gangmasters—to the specified sectors must have a licence and it is a criminal offence to do so without one. A licence can be granted to any kind of legal entity, such as an individual, a company or a partnership.
Afzal Khan
We support the new clause to expand the remit of the GLAA. The GLAA performs a vital role in safeguarding the rights of workers and it is right that that should extend to the widest categories of vulnerable workers. My final point, which my hon. Friend has already made, is that the GLAA is chronically under- funded. We need to have more respect for the job it does.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for introducing the new clause and giving us further opportunity to consider the critical matter of protecting the rights of migrant workers.
New clause 57 raises an important issue and I appreciate the intention behind it. As I indicated, I share the hon. Member’s concern that overseas workers—indeed, all workers—should be safe from abusive employment practices. Although I sympathise with the sentiment behind the new clause, I do not think it would be appropriate to change the Bill in the way proposed, for reasons I will explain.
First, it presumes that the employment practices for the sectors mentioned in the new clause are the same as the sectors currently licensed by the GLAA. They are not. The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 applies only to the agricultural, shellfish gathering, and food packaging and processing sectors, as that employment method is particular to those sectors. While gangmasters may be used in some cases, the practice is not prevalent in the supply of labour in the sectors covered by this new clause. In some sectors, such as construction, many workers are self-employed and in others workers are recruited directly, such as with people employed to do cleaning work.
If this new clause were to be passed, the consequence would be that many thousands of extra businesses—potentially every café or care home—would have to register as a gangmaster, with considerable expense but potentially little benefit. The new clause would in effect extend the scope of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to construction, cleaning, care or hospitality work, but only where that work is undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals, and only where those individuals have come by that work through a particular route. That restriction does not sit comfortably in the existing regime, which defines scope through work sector and not through the characteristics of the individuals undertaking the work. The effect of the new clause would be to create a two-tier system, resulting in EEA and Swiss nationals receiving a greater degree of labour market protection.
The Government are fully committed to protecting the rights of migrant workers and I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are giving active and serious consideration to these matters. I hope to be able to say more on that in the coming weeks. As I set out at length in earlier sittings, it is of the highest importance that everyone working within our economy is safe and is treated fairly and with respect. I am proud of the Government’s track record on this issue, with the introduction of the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the further powers we have given to the GLAA. We will not be complacent.
Let me be clear: migrants working lawfully in the UK are entitled to all the protections of UK law while they are here, whether it is entitlement to the minimum wage, health and safety legislation, working conditions, working time rules, maternity and paternity arrangements, the right to join a trade union, the right to strike, statutory rights, holiday and sick pay, and any of the other myriad protections that exist in UK law for workers. They apply to those who are in the UK on work visas every bit as much as they do for the resident workforce. That applies to both migrant workers who are here under the current immigration system and to those who may come in the future, under the new immigration system.
The Immigration Act 2016 created a new power to extend statutory licensing of gangmasters to new commercial sectors by secondary legislation, so the proposed new clause is not necessary. Although I am loth to say it, this demonstrates yet again that we could make the changes through the immigration rules, which might provide a convenient route to do so. In deciding whether to extend gangmaster licensing, the Government would need clear evidence that that is the right course and would draw advice from the Director of Labour Market Enforcement. I hope that having further considered the wider impacts of this new clause and heard my assurance that the protection of migrant workers is at the forefront of the Government’s thinking, the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Kate Green
Yet again the Minister has missed the point about this new clause, as with others that apply to EEA nationals. Of course we would much rather apply such provisions to nationals of all countries, but as colleagues have said we are constrained by the scope of the Bill.
I am encouraged by some things the Minister has said, and particularly the possibility she sees of using the new immigration rules to extend the number of sectors covered by these provisions. I am not quite sure that it is right to say that some of the sectors we are talking about—construction, for example—do not make use of labour providers. I think they do. Self-employment status is often quasi self-employment in that sector. There is quite a lot of work that might be done with the Government to ensure that we have provisions that really work for the characteristics of those different sectors, whatever official names they may seek to attach to their model of labour requirement.
I am grateful that the Minister will say more about the Government’s plans for further protection of all workers. I am particularly interested in how those plans will benefit non-UK workers, including those coming in under immigration arrangements in the coming weeks. I very much encourage her to continue conversations with colleagues who take an interest in these matters and with the advocacy bodies that speak for these vulnerable workers, some of which gave the Committee very impressive evidence a couple of weeks ago.
In the light of the Minister’s encouraging response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Caroline Nokes
As we have now concluded the Bill’s Committee stage, I thank both you, Mr Stringer, and your co-Chair, Sir David Amess, for your effective chairmanship and for keeping us all in order. It might be only me who tried your patience—I am sure other Members have a view on that. I know you have been advised throughout by the Clerks to the Committee, who have acted with a great deal of professionalism. I extend my gratitude to them.
I thank all the Committee members for their thoughtful consideration of the issues we have debated over the past few weeks. Although we by no means agreed on everything, we debated important points in a constructive spirit and considered a wide range of matters very carefully. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—I have said that constituency name an awful lot over the past fortnight; I hope I have pronounced it correctly—for their valuable contributions on a range of important issues. I suspect those will not be their last words on the Bill.
I thank the policemen and the Doorkeepers, who kept us safe and ensured that everyone received the support they needed, and the staff of the Official Report, who ensured that all our pearls of wisdom were faithfully recorded. Finally, I thank my Bill team, who have been unfailingly good humoured in keeping me in line and helping me through my first Bill Committee in this role. I am very much indebted to them. I look forward to considering the Bill during its next stage.
Afzal Khan
May I add my thanks to you, Mr Stringer, and your colleague, Sir David Amess, for the excellent job you have done of steering us through the Bill? I thank the Clerks for all the help they have provided, not only here but outside this room. I also thank all the Committee members; like the Minister, this is my first attempt at a Bill Committee, so I am particularly grateful to my Front-Bench colleagues for all their help. Let us not forget all the other staff who helped us, too. I look forward to the next stage of the Bill.
The Chair
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their kind words, and I thank Committee members for their good humour and for getting through the business so quickly and effectively.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Will people please make sure their mobile devices are off or on silent? Also, we do not normally have coffee in Committees.
Resolved,
That the Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [Lords] do meet on Tuesdays when the House is sitting at 9.25 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.—(Zac Goldsmith.)
The Chair
We now come to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. That shows how the clauses and any selected amendments have been grouped for debate.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. I notified you in advance that I would raise this point of order. As I understand it, you have ruled that my two new clauses are out of scope of the Bill. As it happens, I completely agree. I consulted the excellent Clerk to the Committee, who helped me with this and also gave me that advice. You are both absolutely right.
I just want to explain to the Committee that the reason I tabled the new clauses was not that I wanted to affect or damage the Bill, or to harm its prospects in any way—quite the opposite; I want to ensure that it has smooth passage. However, I thought wider issues such as our international development work and the impact on the family courts were worthy of the Committee’s consideration.
Be that as it may, I do not seek to overturn your ruling, Mr McCabe, which was absolutely right. However, it seems that scope has some elasticity and flexibility when it comes to Brexit business, but that the old rules apply when it comes to the important issue of female genital mutilation, and I am bound to say that I want that placed on the record.
The Chair
I am delighted that I have no responsibility for the Brexit arrangements, but you have managed to make your point, Mr Tomlinson, and it is on the record. No one doubts your good intentions, but the new clauses are beyond the scope of the Bill. I think we will leave the matter there.
Clause 1
Amendment to the Children Act 1989
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank hon. Members for attending. I do not think this will be a lengthy session, as, thankfully, neither of the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole have been selected. That is not to say they do not raise valuable points, but obviously I have an interest in the Bill making a smooth transition through this place into law, and not being sent back to the House of Lords if at all possible. The Bill received cross-party support in the Second Reading Committee last week, and I am grateful to hon. Members for giving it the green light.
This is a very simple two-clause Bill that seeks to remedy an omission in existing child protection law where family courts do not have the power to compel the involvement of a local authority in an interim care order relating to FGM. Clause 1, the only substantive clause of this very short Bill, seeks to amend section 8 of the Children Act 1989 by inserting a reference to part 1 of schedule 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. I will explain very briefly what section 8 of the 1989 Act and schedule 2 to the 2003 Act do, and then, equally briefly, how the Bill is designed to allow proceedings under those Acts to be considered at the same time.
Schedule 2 to the FGM Act makes provision for female genital mutilation protection orders. Those are civil orders designed to protect girls at risk of FGM. Section 8 of the 1989 Act defines what is meant by “family proceedings” and lists several enactments that, for the purpose of that Act, are considered as family proceedings. Where an enactment is listed, section 8 allows the court, in proceedings under that enactment, to use its powers under the 1989 Act to protect children by granting child arrangements orders and other orders with respect to children. That power is not currently available to the court in FGM protection order proceedings, because the enactment under which those proceedings have commenced is not currently listed in section 8. Clause 1 of the Bill rectifies that by adding
“Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003”
to the list of enactments in section 8 of the 1989 Act. That will allow proceedings for FGM protection orders to be recognised as family proceedings for the purposes of that Act.
I will conclude with two small points of detail to clarify the application of clause 1. The 1989 Act only applies to England and Wales; clause 1 therefore refers specifically to
“Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003”,
which applies to England and Wales, to ensure that the amendments to the Act made by the Bill affect only FGM protection order proceedings that take place in England and Wales.
Finally, clause 1 excludes paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to the 2003 Act, which provides for circumstances in which FGM protection orders may be made by the court during criminal proceedings. That is to make clear that criminal proceedings are not to be defined as family proceedings for the purposes of the 1989 Act. That does not dilute the powers of the court; it simply means that criminal matters are dealt with by the criminal courts. In short, clause 1 simply inserts that part of the 2003 Act that relates to FGM protection orders into section 8 of the 1989 Act, which makes a FGM protection order proceeding a family proceeding for the purpose of issuing care orders under that Act.
Clause 2 provides for the extent of the Bill, its commencement and its short title. As I have said, the Bill extends to England and Wales only. Regarding its commencement, the provisions of the Bill come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent, which is known as early commencement. The policy and public interest justification for doing so is to ensure that if any FGM protection order proceedings are ongoing at the time of the legislation, the family court or High Court will have the power, should circumstances require, to make interim care and supervision orders or other Children Act orders in the same set of proceedings. That will reduce delay, and therefore give immediate protection to any child at risk of significant harm. I am happy to confirm that the Law Officers have agreed to the Bill coming into force in this way.
In closing, I thank all Members here for their support. I thank in particular the Clerks, the Whips Office and the Ministry of Justice’s Bill team, who have been absolutely superb and extremely helpful in getting us this far.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I welcome the opportunity to once again discuss how we can tackle this issue, which is of great significance to a number of people across the UK. What is more, it is refreshing and reassuring to do so in agreement with Members on both sides of the House. At a time when vulnerable people are at risk from the painful and harmful practice of female genital mutilation, our being able to come together in this place is a testament to the fact that those people can rely on us to protect them. Hopefully we can do just that.
Given the relatively straightforward nature of the Bill, there is little I can say that has not already been said by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. To repeat what I said during the Bill’s previous stage, amending the Children Act to allow courts to make temporary care orders in cases of FGM seems like a reasonable and sensible solution to what appears to be an oversight in current legislation. Such orders have worked in cases of molestation, violence and forced marriage; they can work for FGM too. This Bill gives courts an extra tool to use when addressing this horrendous practice, and a significantly greater ability to actively prevent FGM, rather than responding to those who have already committed this act. However, I also repeat that while the Bill is a welcome step in the right direction, it is no cure-all solution, and as many campaigners agree, more must be done by the Government.
On that note, I wish to press the Minister on a few issues. Can she tell me what the Government are doing to identify vulnerable girls and women? How do the Government intend to give confidence to those identified, in order to enable them to speak up about this practice and speak out against those performing operations? Will the Government take a greater look at the numbers affected, to provide a more accurate indication of how many people are affected across the UK, and, given the almost negligible number of those prosecuted for FGM in the UK, can the Minister tell me what more the Government are doing to prosecute those involved?
In the spirit of this discussion, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the Government’s vital role in doing more to eliminate FGM, and will provide answers to those points. Drafted with the same desire to eradicate the barbaric practice of FGM, the Bill is a welcome step towards doing just that, and we will certainly not prevent or delay it, or stand in its way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr McCabe. The Government support this small but very helpful Bill, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, the hon. Member for Ashfield, all members of the Committee, our Whip, the officials in my Department, Lord Berkeley and the campaigners on this very important issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, the Bill provides further protection—it is important to state that it is further protection—for those who may be victims of FGM. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked some very important questions on what the Government are doing in this important area. I said “further protection” because for many years the Government have been doing a significant number of things in this area.
In 2015, we strengthened the law to provide and improve protection for victims by introducing the new offence of failing to protect a girl from FGM. We extended the reach of extraterritorial offences, and introduced lifelong anonymity for victims of FGM, enabling them to come forward. We also introduced civil FGM protection orders and a mandatory reporting duty for known cases among under-18s.
In addition to that, the Government have provided resources for frontline professionals, including training and communication materials. The Home Office has an FGM unit, which has participated in more than 100 outreach events to raise awareness of FGM. The Department of Health and Social Care has provided £4 million for the national FGM prevention programme in partnership with NHS England. The Department for Education has announced its intention to reform the curriculum in schools to teach children about the physical and emotional damage caused by FGM, to ensure that pupils are aware that it is against the law.
I hope that members of the Committee can see that the Government, across Departments, are doing what they can to tackle this horrific crime. We in the Ministry of Justice are very pleased to play our part in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. On that basis, we are delighted to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Ninth sitting)
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have some housekeeping announcements. Hon. Members should ensure that electronic devices are switched to silent or off. I remind them that tea and coffee are not allowed in the room during sittings.
We now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill, starting with new clauses. Some new clauses have already been debated as part of earlier groups. There will be no debate on them, but Members will be able to move them formally at the appropriate point if they so wish. Members will need to indicate to me if they intend to move any of the new clauses.
New Clause 1
Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals
“(1) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) who has had their right of free movement removed by the provisions of this Act under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.
(2) If “P” remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—
(a) the Secretary of State shall release P forthwith; and
(b) the Secretary of State may not re-detain P under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since “P’s” release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention for EEA and Swiss nationals: criteria and duration] are met.
(3) In this Act, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—
(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or
(d) section 36(1) of UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(4) In this Act, “relevant time” means the time at which “P” is first detained under a relevant detention power.”—(Afzal Khan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Initial detention for EEA and Swiss nationals: criteria and duration—
“(1) Any person (“P”) who section [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies to may not be detained under a relevant detention power other than for the purposes of examination, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
(a) the person can be shortly removed from the United Kingdom;
(b) detention is strictly necessary to affect the person’s deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; and
(c) the detention of “P” is in all circumstances proportionate.
(2) The Secretary of State may not detain any person (“P”) who section [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies to under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 96 hours from the relevant time, unless—
(a) “P” has been refused bail at an initial bail hearing in accordance with subsection (4)(b) of section [Bail hearings]; or
(b) the Secretary of State has arranged a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to “P” in accordance with subsection (1)(c) of section [Bail hearings] and that hearing has not yet taken place.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall authorise the Secretary of State to detain “P” under a relevant detention power if such detention would, apart from this section, be unlawful.
(4) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(5) In this section, “relevant detention power” has the meaning given in section [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals].”
This new clause is consequential on NC1.
New clause 3—Bail hearings for EEA and Swiss nationals—
“(1) Before the expiry of a period of 96 hours from the relevant time, the Secretary of State must—
(a) release any person (“P”) who section [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals] applies to;
(b) grant immigration bail to “P” under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(c) arrange a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to “P”.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), when the Secretary of State arranges a reference to the Tribunal under subsection (1)(c), the Tribunal must hold an oral hearing (“an initial bail hearing”) which must commence within 24 hours of the time at which the reference is made.
(3) If the period of 24 hours in subsection (2) ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank holiday, the Tribunal must hold an initial bail hearing on the next working day.
(4) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal must—
(a) grant immigration bail to “P” under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(b) refuse to grant immigration bail to “P”.
(5) Subject to subsection (6), the Tribunal must grant immigration bail to “P” at a bail hearing unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention for EEA and Swiss nationals: criteria and duration] are met and that, in addition—
(a) directions have been given for “P’s” removal from the United Kingdom and such removal is to take place within 96 hours;
(b) a travel document is available for the purposes of “P’s” removal or deportation; and
(c) there are no outstanding legal barriers to removal.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention for EEA and Swiss nationals: criteria and duration] are met and that there are very exceptional circumstances which justify maintaining detention.
(7) In subsection (5) above, “a bail hearing” includes—
(a) an initial bail hearing under subsection (2) above; and
(b) the hearing of an application for immigration bail under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.
(8) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(9) The Secretary of State shall provide to “P” or “P’s” legal representative, not more than 24 hours after the relevant time, copies of all documents in the Secretary of State’s possession which are relevant to the decision to detain.
(10) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal shall not consider any documents relied upon by the Secretary of State which were not provided to “P” or “P’s” legal representative in accordance with subsection (8), unless—
(a) “P” consents to the documents being considered; or
(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal there is a good reason why the documents were not provided to “P” or to “P’s” legal representative in accordance with subsection (8).
(11) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows—
(a) After paragraph 12(4) of schedule 10 insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if the refusal of bail by the First tier Tribunal took place at an initial bail hearing within the meaning of section [Bail hearings for EEA and Swiss nationals] of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2019.”.”
This new clause is consequential on NC1.
New clause 4—Commencement of provisions on detention of EEA nationals—
“(1) Sections [Time limit on detention for EEA and Swiss nationals], [Initial detention for EEA and Swiss nationals: criteria and duration] and [Bail hearings for EEA and Swiss nationals] come into force three months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause is consequential on NC1.
Afzal Khan
Good morning, Mr Stringer. The Bill has the far-reaching potential to make many more people liable to immigration detention. Despite estimating that 26,000 more people could be liable, the Government have carried out no assessment of the Bill’s impact on the detention estate. Our detention system is broken. Its most glaring failure is the lack of a time limit on detention. We are the only country in Europe that detains people indefinitely.
The Minister has previously shown some openness on the issue. She will be well aware of the breadth of support for a time limit, including from members of her own party. Labour’s new clauses have been signed by the SNP, the Green party, the Liberal Democrats and Conservative MPs. I am keen to work constructively with the Government. The new clauses set out the position that we want, whereby independent checks and balances ensure that immigration detainees do not have fewer rights than people in the criminal justice system.
As is clear from the new clauses that I have tabled, our preference is for a time limit on detention for everyone, no matter what country they are from, but to get the provision within the scope of the Bill, we have narrowed it to just those who lose their right to free movement as a result of the Bill. I will confine my remarks today to that group.
I am grateful to all the organisations that have been making the case for a time limit on immigration detention and, in particular, to Detention Action, Liberty and Refugee Tales for their help with the drafting of the provision.
Before getting into the detail of the new clauses, I will give some background to the arguments for a time limit on immigration detention. Labour has been making the case for a time limit for some time. We called for one in our 2017 manifesto. The argument can be made from multiple angles. This is a rule-of-law issue. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society all support a time limit. Wherever the state deprives someone of their liberty, as happens with immigration detention, there should in principle be independent judicial oversight and time limits at every stage. Detention is currently an administrative process whereby the Government are allowed to mark their own homework. The detention of Windrush people showed that current oversight is severely lacking.
This is a health issue. The British Medical Association supports Labour’s proposal. Its report entitled “Locked up, locked out: health and human rights in immigration detention” states:
“Depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder…are the most common mental health problems, and women, asylum seekers, and victims of torture are particularly vulnerable. Even if it does not reach a clinical threshold, all immigration detainees will face challenges to their wellbeing during their time in detention.”
Those issues are worsened when detention is indefinite. There is a widespread crisis of self-harm in immigration detention. Stephen Shaw’s report on the issue found that the current safeguards for vulnerable people were not working effectively enough.
This is an equalities and human rights issue. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has called for a 28-day time limit and recommends using the Bill to implement it. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and Liberty support our new clause. The EHRC’s briefing for the debate points to various human rights articles violated by indefinite detention, including the European convention on human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights and the United Nations convention against torture.
This is also a cost issue, as immigration detention simply does not work; the majority of people in immigration detention will later be released back into the community. That point was made by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration in their joint report, as well as by the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and on migration. The detention estate costs £30,000 per person detained per year, and a 2015 estimate put the total annual cost at £164.4 million. In addition, the Home Office last year announced that it had paid out £21 million in just five years for wrongfully detaining 850 people in immigration removal centres.
So there is a wealth of evidence from a number of different angles on the need for a time limit on immigration detention. The next question is why Labour has tabled these new clauses in particular. There is a lot in this group of new clauses, so if the Committee will allow me, I will briefly go through what each one would do and why it is needed.
New clause 1 prescribes an overall time limit of 28 days for all immigration detention, after which a person must be released and cannot be re-detained unless there is a material change of circumstances. We need this provision to avoid a cat-and-mouse situation in which the Government can detain someone for 28 days, release them and then immediately detain them for another 28 days.
The reason for 28 days, as opposed to some other time limit, came up in evidence sessions and has been questioned elsewhere. Home Office guidance says that detention should be used only when removal is imminent—defined as three to four weeks—which is a maximum of 28 days, so 28 days is really the Home Office’s definition. Although, since 2015, the detention population and average length of detention have decreased, the number of people detained for longer than six months has increased. The new clause would put the commitment to detain only if removal is imminent on a statutory footing for the first time.
New clause 2 sets out the general criteria for detention, preventing detention unless a person can shortly be removed from the United Kingdom and their detention is strictly necessary to effect their deportation or removal from the United Kingdom, and stating that their detention must in all circumstances be proportionate. This is intended to ensure that detention will be used only when really necessary.
New clause 3 provides for a system of automatic bail hearings. There is currently an immigration bail provision at four months, and the Government are piloting a two-month timeframe. However, we believe that that should come in much sooner—after 96 hours—to bring immigration in line with the criminal justice system. Bail hearings after two or four months are often too little, too late. We also believe that bail hearings should allow for release; at the moment, a detainee may only be bailed or detained following a hearing. The president of the first-tier immigration appeal tribunal said in evidence to the JCHR that the tribunal would need few additional resources to review all immigration detention cases. He favoured such a review to limit the use of detention and ensure that it is used for the shortest time necessary.
Before I conclude, I will touch briefly on foreign national offenders, who also came up during our evidence sessions. Labour’s view is that we should not have an immigration detention system that treats foreign national offenders differently from everybody else. First, many people detained as foreign national offenders will in fact be victims of trafficking and modern-day slavery who were coerced into criminality. The Government have made a lot of noise about their commitment to tackling modern-day slavery, but the fact is that victims are still routinely detained for extended periods, despite showing extreme signs of distress and vulnerability.
Secondly, to go back to the rule of law argument, people who have been convicted of a criminal offence will have served their sentence. Continued detention, and therefore punishment, cannot be justified by their initial trial and sentencing, unless otherwise specified by a judge or similar. Thirdly, in practical terms, the Government will have had ample time, while someone is serving their custodial sentence, to prepare for deportation upon their release.
There is a separate issue about people who are deemed to be a risk to national security. There currently exists a separate system for immigration detention cases that relate to national security. Bail applications are heard through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, rather than the normal First-tier Tribunal, and separate law, regulations and case law govern the commission’s operation. Although the SIAC system is in need of reform—we believe that indefinite detention is not justified in any circumstances—there is a case for this to be addressed and reformed separately. We would be happy to make that clear in our new clause on Report.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mr Stringer. I have spoken many times about immigration detention. I will essentially echo all the shadow Minister’s points, so I will be brief. As he said, there is cross-party support for these new clauses, and the Scottish National party is four square behind them.
Immigration detention for too long has become an accepted part of life, at least among politicians, but, for the reasons that the shadow Minister gave, I detect that that is changing, and not before time. Politicians have probably been out of step with the public in that regard. Every time I have a discussion with members of the public and explain to them the existing system of detention, they are actually quite horrified to hear what goes on out of sight and out of mind. Ultimately, we are talking about the indefinite deprivation of liberty in what are basically private prisons. There is little in the way of independent oversight, and all of this is done for administrative reasons. That is a huge invasion of fundamental rights.
We detain far too many people. The Minister will often say that the vast majority are not detained but are managed in the community. However, that is not the point. We are still talking about significant numbers of people—25,000 or so every year. That is a welcome improvement on previous years—let me put that on record—but there is a long way to go before we are anywhere near an acceptable position. We have a bloated immigration estate compared to many of our European neighbours, and we are still detaining far too many vulnerable people. The changes made in light of the first Shaw report have not made the difference that we would have expected or wanted so far.
As the shadow Minister said, half of all these people are released. Detention should be a matter of absolute last resort, but instead we are detaining so many people that we just release half of them again. That is completely unacceptable. The UK is an outlier in terms of international practice. This country has a long history of being very precious about the right to liberty, with severe and strict safeguards on the Government’s power to interfere with that.
We all know—I think it is inarguable—that detention is harmful. One key harm inflicted on detainees is the uncertainty—as has been evidenced in all sort of reports—of not knowing when their detention will come to an end. For all the reasons that the shadow Minister has given, there are no excuses for applying different rules to different people, and foreign national offenders should be included in the regime that we are proposing. We also need greater scrutiny of who goes into detention. Safeguards in relation to vulnerable people are still not working. Gatekeeping is not working.
These new clauses achieve two goals. They put in place a time limit and significantly improve oversight of who is being detained. I want to put on record my gratitude to all the organisations involved in drafting the new clauses, and to all sorts of organisations who, for many years, have documented the harm that is done by immigration detention and have kept it on the agenda, even when it was at severe risk of falling off.
There is a breadth of support for this new clause. The time limit is overdue. I think it will happen this time—I hope that is the case. Like the shadow Minister, I am keen to work with all parties, including the Government, to ensure that we put in place a system that is robust and fair but respects people’s right to liberty rather than detaining them for administrative reasons.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I want to add my voice to support my colleagues on this, because in 2014 I was vice-chair of a cross-party inquiry into immigration detention. Although the focus of this Bill, and therefore of this new clause, is European economic area nationals, any decision that we make in relation to them should be seen as a stepping-stone to progress.
This is something on which I am confident we will make progress—I hope that we can make progress this morning—because there is not only strong cross-party support but very considerable support on the Conservative Benches, as the Minister knows, from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) through to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis); I do not think we could get much broader than that in the Conservative party at the moment.
On our inquiry team there were parliamentarians from both Houses and all the main parties, who brought in huge experience. They included a retired law lord and a former chief inspector of prisons. There were more Government Members among the inquiry team than those of us from the Opposition, including the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), with whom I have met the Minister to talk about these issues, as well as David Burrowes and Richard Fuller, who are no longer Members of the House, but to whose work I pay tribute.
The panel was brought together by the all-party parliamentary group on migration, which at that time I chaired, although it is now more ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, who is not in her place at the moment, and by the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, which is currently chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who I am pleased to see joining us in the gallery today. I also pay tribute to Sarah Teather, who chaired the inquiry throughout its eight-month period of evidence taking.
After that eight-month period, our recommendations, which included the limit on detention contained in new clause 1, were endorsed by the House of Commons on 10 September 2015. It is thus disappointing that, although there is growing recognition of the issue in the Home Office and there have been some welcome moves, we have not seen progress on the central recommendation of introducing a statutory time limit on detention. We are unusual in this country in not having one, and without it we have become increasingly dependent on detention.
Detention takes place within immigration removal centres—it is important that we listen to those words, because the clue is in the title. They are intended for short-term stays, but we have become increasingly reliant on them. I recognise that we have done so under successive Governments; I am not pinning the responsibility for it on the current Government. In 1993 we had 250 detention places in the UK. By 2009, it had risen to 2,665 and by 2014, when we conducted our inquiry, it was almost 4,000. The number of people entering detention in the latest year for which figures are available, through to June 2017, was 27,300. That is a slight drop from the previous high of 32,000, but by contrast, Sweden detains something like a 10th of that number and Germany around a fifth.
Home Office policy states:
“Detention must be used sparingly,”
but the reality is clearly very different. Hon. Members will be aware of a number of high-profile incidents in immigration removal centres, including deaths and allegations of sexual assault. That was reflected in the evidence that our joint inquiry heard over three oral evidence sessions and more than 200 written evidence submissions.
At our first oral evidence session, we heard from non-governmental organisations and medical experts, but we most powerfully heard from three people directly detained at that time. We questioned them over a phone link in their detention centres. One young man, who was from a disputed territory on the Cameroon-Nigeria border, told us that he had been trafficked to Hungary as a 16-year-old, where he had been beaten, raped and tortured. He had managed to escape and eventually made his way to Heathrow using a false passport, which was discovered on his arrival, and he was detained. We then asked him how long he had been detained and he told us three years—three years in an immigration removal centre. His detention conflicts with three stated aims of the Home Office: that those who have been trafficked should not be detained; that those who have been tortured should not be detained; and that detention should be for the shortest period possible.
Time and again, we were told that detention was worse than prison. Initially, that was puzzling, but it was explained to us that, in prison, people at least know when they are going to get out.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
At the British Film Institute last week, I saw a documentary called “Island of Hungry Ghosts”, which I commend to all Committee members. It is about the Australian Government’s approach to detention on Christmas Island. The big issues are indefinite detention, not knowing what has happened and the lack of control, which are exactly what my hon. Friend is pointing out.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I will make sure to see the film.
The point was driven home by a detainee who said to us:
“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”
Medical experts told us that that sense of being in limbo—of hopelessness and despair—leads to deteriorating mental health. One expert from the Helen Bamber Foundation told us that those who are detained for more than 30 days, which is relevant to the limit we are looking for, had significantly higher levels of mental health problems.
New clause 1 would have an impact beyond those who are detained. A team leader from the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of time limit encourages poor caseworking in the Home Office. He said that a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention it had considered were a result of inefficient caseworking.
Prolonged detention does not happen because it is inappropriate for people to be released. Despite these places being called immigration removal centres, we have found—everybody needs to focus on this fact—that most people are released from detention for reasons other than being removed from the UK. They are released back into the community.
The system is not only bad for those who are involved, but expensive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out. The recommendation in new clause 1 for a maximum time limit to be set in statute is about not simply righting the wrong of indefinite detention, but changing the culture that is endemic in the system.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on his speech; he is demolishing the case for indefinite detention. Does he agree that it is not just about the welfare of the individuals involved—although, clearly, the limbo they have been left in is unacceptable—but about improving the way that the Home Office works?
Paul Blomfield
I agree with my hon. Friend. Although that was not the reason why we conducted the inquiry, it became clear through the inquiry that there would be significant benefits in terms of the Home Office’s operation, as well as cost and compliance, which I will come to. Those benefits underlined the recommendation, which had initially been driven by common humanity and the way the system operates.
In trying to change the culture that is endemic in the system, we are trying to meet the aims of the Home Office’s own guidance, with detention used more sparingly and only as a genuine last resort. The proposed time limit is 28 days, which reflects best practice in other countries and is workable for the Home Office. Home Office guidance describes detention as being for imminent removal and defines “imminent” as four weeks—that is, 28 days. That is the recommendation of the report and the principle behind new clause 1.
Deprivation of liberty should not be a decision taken lightly or arbitrarily. Currently, decisions are taken by relatively junior Home Office officials, with no automatic judicial oversight. Without a time limit, it simply becomes too easy for people to be detained for months on end with no meaningful way of challenging continued detention.
The introduction of a time limit and the reduction in reliance on detention would be a significant change because, to detain fewer people for shorter periods, the Government would need to introduce a wider range of community-based alternatives. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe talk about Australia, which is often seen as a hard-line country on immigration. Some of the detention practices there are abhorrent, but there is wider use of community-based alternatives to detention than in the UK. I appreciate that the Home Office is running a pilot about that—as I said earlier, I met the right hon. Member for Meriden and the Minister, and we had a really useful discussion—and I am certainly convinced that it is putting genuine effort into developing community-based alternatives in a thoughtful way.
There is a precedent in the UK. When the coalition Government committed to reducing the number of children detained, they introduced a family returns process, which the House of Commons Library described as intended
“to encourage refused families to comply with instructions to depart from the UK at an earlier stage, such as by giving them more control over the circumstances of their departure.”
It worked; there was a dramatic fall in the number of children detained, and the Home Office’s own evaluation of the scheme found that most families complied with the process, with no increase in absconding.
In conclusion, I quote Nick Hardwick, who was Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons at the time of our inquiry. After he made an unannounced inspection of Yarl's Wood, he said that
“well-respected bodies have recently called for time limits on administrative detention…In my view, the rigorously evidenced concerns we have identified in this inspection provide strong support for these calls, and a strict time limit must now be introduced on the length of time that anyone can be administratively detained.”
In supporting new clause 1, we are not proposing to end indefinite administrative detention simply because that would be the just and humane thing to do—although, for goodness’ sake, that is a good enough reason—but because it would be less expensive, improve procedures in the Home Office and be more effective in securing compliance.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I rise briefly to raise a specific issue that a constituent has brought to me, but also to recognise that the Home Office has done a significant amount of work to reduce the time people are in detention. I am sure members of the Committee are aware that 42% of detainees spend between one and 28 days in detention, which is much better than in 2017, when it was only 30%. However, the statistics show that 33% still spend one to three months in detention, and 13% still spend three to six months in detention. I have sympathy with a new clause that limits detention time, although I still need to be persuaded on the issue of excluding foreign national offenders.
From the evidence session and the questions that Tory colleagues asked, I recognise that there is a measure of sympathy on this issue. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton was correct when he talked about the impact on mental health, and there are colleagues who recognise that detention has a damaging impact on people’s mental health. Whether there is indefinite detention or a specific time limit is something that still needs to be discussed, although I am aware that in the public health, counter-terrorism and criminal justice systems, where individuals face the possibility of detention without charge, 28 days or lower is considered sufficient time. There is further debate needed as to whether it has to be 28 days, or whether it could be 30 or 40 days. That is an issue we still need to consider carefully.
My constituent Dane Buckley is the support services co-ordinator for the UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group and specifically wanted me to raise the issue of detention of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex + people. I am sure that the Minister is aware that in 2016 UKLGIG and Stonewall published research, called “No Safe Refuge”, on the experiences of LGBTQI+ people seeking asylum while in detention. The report highlights the systemic discrimination, abuse and harassment that they face from staff and people who have been detained. It contains shocking examples of acts committed by fellow detainees and staff, and incidents where staff have failed to protect individuals.
In June 2016 the UN special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, alongside the chair of the UN Committee against Torture and the chair of the board of trustees of the UN voluntary fund for victims of torture, called on member states to redouble their efforts to prevent ill treatment or torture of LGBTQI+ people in places of detention. The ninth annual report of the sub-committee on prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raised similar concerns, stating that LGBTQI+ people were
“at the bottom of the hierarchy”
in detention. I think we are all acutely conscious of the vulnerability of LGB asylum seekers in detention, and recent court cases have asserted that.
My constituent suggests that detention has a direct impact on the prospects of LGBTQI+ people to claim asylum successfully. To convince the Home Office or a tribunal that they are LGBTQI+ as claimed, asylum seekers must be in a situation of trust and security, in which to consider and discuss their sexual orientation or gender identity. That can be extremely difficult if someone comes from a country where persecution has meant they have never spoken about their sexual orientation or gender identity, or if they have experienced trauma. It can be an impossible task in detention, where fear of discrimination or harassment requires them to conceal their identity as much as possible. In obtaining a legal aid lawyer, people are limited to the specific contractors for each detention centre. With the greatest respect, those advisers do not necessarily have the specialist knowledge required for asylum claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Added to that is the difficulty in amassing the kind of corroborating evidence that decision makers routinely expect when someone is in detention, especially if the person is trying to avoid being outed to staff and other detainees. Home Office caseworkers and decision makers frequently ask, or indeed expect, LGBTQI+ asylum seekers to offer witnesses, including ex-lovers, who will attest to knowledge that the asylum seeker is LGBTQI+ as claimed. Clearly that can be incredibly difficult if the person does not live openly in their home country because of the fear of persecution. An additional issue is the fact that the Government do not keep statistics on the number of LGBTQI+ people who are detained. Perhaps the Minister could address that.
I wanted to raise that particularly sensitive issue of sexual or gender orientation of people in detention on behalf of my constituent and to offer sympathetic support to the idea of making sure there is a time limit on detention, for the mental health and wellbeing of those detained. Whether that is 28 days is a matter that still needs to be bolted down, but I do not personally support including foreign national offenders in that; we still need to consider that further.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton for tabling the new clauses. I note that they are supported by other right hon. and hon. Members, including other members of the Committee. I am grateful to those who have spoken.
The new clauses raise an incredibly important issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about immigration detention. We certainly do not take the issue lightly, and we recognise that the deprivation of liberty for immigration purposes is a significant use of state power, with potentially life-changing implications for those involved. It is vital to have a detention system that is fair to those who may be detained, that upholds our immigration policies, and that acts as a deterrent to those who might seek to frustrate those policies. At the same time, the welfare of detainees is a priority for us, and we believe that the use of detention should always be open to scrutiny and, indeed, reform.
Stuart C. McDonald
That argument was made by successive Ministers, but the idea that there is no indefinite detention because Home Office guidance says somebody cannot be detained forever is nonsense. Folk do not know how long they are being detained for; that is what is harmful —indeed, it is harmful for everyone, whether or not they are detained for more or less than 28 days. There is indefinite detention—this is surely a matter of semantics.
Caroline Nokes
I do not think it is a matter of semantics. Since becoming Minister, I have been careful to ensure that, in cases when people have been in detention for a long time—there are some, and they are almost exclusively cases of foreign national offenders—we regularly review and carefully consider the circumstances of those whom we seek to remove from the country but whom, for reasons of public protection, we deem it would not be appropriate to manage in the community. Last year, 92% of those detained left detention within four months, and 69% in less than 29 days, which demonstrates our commitment in this regard.
Stuart C. McDonald
We are still talking about huge numbers of people—I think 10,000 or so were detained for over 28 days in 2017—but this is not just about those detained for more than 28 days. Whether people are detained for five, 10, 15 or 20 days, not know when they are getting out is harmful to their mental health, so this applies to everybody in detention.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am conscious that there are strong feelings on this issue. I am also conscious that in this country we have an ability to remove that in some cases is significantly better than that of our European counterparts and that we do succeed in removing people directly from detention. However, there are a number of challenges, which I will come to.
One significant challenge, and why I have such grave concerns about 28 days, is the time that it often takes to document individuals who may not have evidence of their identity or a travel document from their home country. It would be ideal if we could document people easily without their needing to be present, but unfortunately the vast majority of cases will require a visit from a foreign consulate, which takes time to arrange. In many instances, foreign consulates will not consider a visit until they know the individual is in detention. Although these are only management statistics, it has been indicated to me that it takes in the region of 30 days for an individual to be documented. In those circumstances, when it takes in the region of 30 days to get somebody with the appropriate travel document to be able to return, a time limit of 28 days would simply be unworkable.
Caroline Nokes
I will come to time limits. We have seen from the amendments that have been tabled and from the commentary that there is no widespread agreement on what the time limit should be. If we look at countries around the European Union, there are differing time limits. One example that springs instantly to mind currently has a limit of 45 days, which is about to be doubled to 90 days.
Stephen Shaw looked at time limits in his re-review and made some comments about that, as Members will have seen. There is certainly scope, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agrees, for us to look closely not only at different time limits around the world, useful though they are, but at some of the challenges we face in the UK with the documentation of individuals, so that we can best understand, were a time limit to be introduced, what the range might be.
Afzal Khan
The Minister referred to European countries. Is it not important to acknowledge the difference between two legal systems? The European system is more civil law-based, whereas others are more common law-based. They are not the same thing.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that they are not the same thing. While we might draw on the experience and evidence from other countries, it is important that we have a system that works within our own legal system.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister was talking about expert evidence and the importance of the view of our legal system. Does she note that the Bar Council recommends a 28-day time limit?
Caroline Nokes
I certainly welcome the Bar Council’s views feeding into this debate. However, very few countries have a time limit as short as those proposed in these new clauses. While some have time limits, recognising the practical challenges in effecting successful returns, some are looking at the issue again.
For example, the European Commission has recently proposed a new detention time limit of at least three months to give member states sufficient time to carry out return operations. In comparison with other countries, the UK performs well in achieving the removal of individuals who have no right to stay. I agree with Stephen Shaw when he said that he had yet to see a coherent account of how a proposal for 28 days had been reached. That different time limits have been proposed in different amendments shows that identifying an appropriate time limit might not necessarily be a simple exercise.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Minister is saying that there seems to be a growing cross-party consensus on the issue of a time limit. Does she not agree, therefore, that it would be wise to take this back to the Floor of the House before making a final decision on a time limit that could be accepted?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I suspect that she is correct that, ultimately, we might decide this matter on the Floor of the House. It is important that we reflect carefully on the evidence and weigh our own practical and legal considerations. While I am as one with Stephen Shaw when he makes his commentary on 28 days, I have heard representations from Members in this Committee and more widely as well. We have heard reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, who has been forceful on this issue, and to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who had me before her Committee towards the tail end of last year. We had a useful and constructive conversation around detention.
It is well documented and reported in the media how much I enjoy a Select Committee appearance—that one I actually did. I felt it was constructive, Members had given the issue significant thought, and we had a constructive conversation. I am aware of the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham that has been supported by many Members from this side of the House with much enthusiasm and determination.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The argument the Minister is using is about the length of time and the limit. Can we take it from her that she is not opposed to the principle of having a limit, even though there may be debate about its length?
Caroline Nokes
The debate is ongoing. Members have made some forceful arguments in favour of a limit and, in the Home Office, we have considered reflecting on those very carefully indeed.
Afzal Khan
Is the Minister aware that Parliament has considered this idea for the limitation? Recently, there was a discussion on 90 days, and then 42 days, and this was for terror suspects. Both were rejected by the House. Does she not think that if 42 days for terrorists was rejected, we should not have it for immigrants?
Caroline Nokes
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has made the point that there is not yet any agreement on reasonable time limits, given that, with both 90 days and 42 days—in this new clause we are discussing 28 days—there is a wide range of opinion on what a reasonable time limit might look like.
I wish to address—as I am sure the Chairman wants me to—the individual elements of the new clauses. First, and this has already been referenced, they would apply only to EEA and Swiss nationals. The effect of these new clauses would be to introduce a system that imposed time limits on the detention of individuals of certain nationalities but not on others. As I have said in relation to other amendments and clauses limited to EEA nationals, this would clearly be discriminatory on nationality grounds, going against Parliament’s proud history of promoting laws that protect human rights and protect individuals from discrimination. I cannot see any justification for Parliament to depart from those principles in the way proposed.
While new clause 1 would introduce a 28-day longstop time limit for exceptional cases, new clause 3 would provide for a 96-hour time limit. Both would have a major impact on our ability to remove and on the processes on which removal action is dependent. For example, in 2018, there were more than 8,500 removals directly from detention. More than 2,700 individuals were removed from the UK, having been detained for 29 days or more. We believe that introducing a 28-day longstop time limit would encourage people to change behaviours, so as to run down the clock to secure release. As it stands, a presumption of release after 96 hours, other than in the most restrictive of circumstances, would make it extremely difficult to remove any individuals from the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald
Surely it is unfair to characterise the 96 hours as a time limit. It is simply a deadline within which there should be a bail hearing. I do not see how anyone can argue, if they support strongly the presumption of liberty, that there should not be some sort of judicial oversight about whether or not someone is entered into detention in the first place.
Caroline Nokes
I will come to that point shortly. There was an example that I wanted to use to demonstrate to Members some of the challenges faced, including the many claims for asylum made by people who had opportunities to raise those issues earlier, with some even claiming asylum on the steps of a plane. I will illustrate our concerns with reference to a case study provided to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in December. In that case, a failed asylum seeker absconded for nine years before re-establishing contact with the Home Office and lodging a new claim. This was unsuccessful, as were all the subsequent appeals and further submissions. The individual was detained after having been encountered working illegally. He then disrupted attempts to effect removal by refusing to leave the centre until removal was eventually achieved. It took 54 days to remove the individual from the point of detention, which would not have been possible had the time limits enshrined in these new clauses been in place.
Moving on to the further details of the new clauses and the point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, the requirement for the judiciary to be involved in consideration of the case at or around the 96-hour point of detention would place significant additional burdens on the tribunal service. As it stands, bail cases are normally listed within three to six days. That means that a significant number of cases would fall outside the 96-hour period, and that is without taking into account the fact that there would be a dramatic increase in the number of cases being referred to the tribunal.
Such an increase would make the system unsustainable without significant reform, which could not be achieved within the three months before commencement proposed by new clause 4. However, the proposal would also require a different type of decision by judges, which would need careful consideration by the judiciary, given their independence.
We should not forget that detainees can apply for bail at any time of their choosing. Automatic referral for bail occurs at the four-month stage, and we are currently piloting automatic referral at two months. These bail hearings are supplemented by regular reviews and by case progression panels for those held in detention beyond three months. The new clauses would allow for an individual to be detained beyond the outcome of the initial bail hearing, though only for a maximum of 28 days in total, and only in very exceptional circumstances. These circumstances are not defined. I ask the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to consider whether he has in mind individuals seeking to frustrate the removals process. If so, what activity is regarded as frustrating the removal process, or does he have in mind individuals who are criminals? If so, how serious would the criminality have to be to justify continued detention? These matters are not clear, but they are fundamental to managing a detention system.
On the subject of criminality, let us assume that foreign criminals are intended to be included in the category of “very exceptional” circumstances, for the moment. The provision would allow the Government to detain such individuals for up to 28 days. At that point there would be no option other than release. No exceptions for dangerous criminals are built into the provision. If we could not deport individuals within 28 days, they would be released on to the streets, even if they presented a danger to the public.
The Government are under a statutory duty to deport foreign national criminals under the UK Borders Act 2007, and this duty would be seriously undermined if detention could not be used to effect removal. The same sort of issues would apply in respect of national security cases. The new clauses provide that an individual cannot be re-detained once the 28-day time limit has been reached unless there is a material change in their circumstances. What constitutes a material change is not defined. Again, these are serious matters on which the new clauses are not clear. For example, would it be possible to re-detain an individual who had been deported from the UK, but had re-entered in breach of the deportation order?
Would the failure of the person to comply with reporting requirements, or a breach of bail conditions, amount to “very exceptional’ circumstances? Finally, the three-month implementation timescale enshrined in new clause 4 is likely to be unworkable given the extensive changes to the immigration and judicial systems necessary to implement the envisaged changes.
The Government are of the view that the new clauses would significantly impair the UK’s ability to proportionately and efficiently remove from the UK individuals who have no right to be here and who, in some cases, represent a danger to the public.
Stuart C. McDonald
I suspect that the Minister anticipated lots of interest in these new clauses. I want to take her back to the issue of foreign national offenders, which she went through very quickly. She must agree that it is not acceptable to detain low-level foreign national offenders for months or years on end.
What exceptions does she think are necessary in order to make general inclusion of foreign national offenders in a time limit acceptable to the Government? We cannot detain everybody for ever simply because the Home Office fails to remove them by the end of their sentence.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course it is not just unacceptable but not lawful, in the case of foreign national offenders, to detain people for very long periods with no realistic prospect of removal. The Home Office works incredibly hard, sometimes in difficult circumstances, to seek documentation from different Governments in order to be able to effect the removal of foreign national offenders.
I do not pretend that any of this is easy. However, an amendment to the Bill—tightly drawn as it is to end free movement—is perhaps the wrong place to seek to implement such a significant change. That does not mean that my mind is closed; far from it. From the views that have been expressed to me over the past 12 months and this morning, I appreciate that we certainly need to do more. That is why I welcome the proposals that Stephen Shaw put forward in his re-report last year. Indeed, the Home Secretary grasped those changes with enthusiasm. There will always be more to do on the issue of detention, and I am absolutely committed to doing it. As Stephen Shaw said in his recent report, the call for the 28-day time limit,
“has been articulated more as a slogan than as a fully developed policy proposal”,
and I am inclined to agree with him. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to withdraw his amendment.
Afzal Khan
I thank the Minister for putting forward the Government’s position. We have had a good debate on the new clauses, but at this stage I am not minded to push for a vote. We will review the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
“Super-affirmative procedures for immigration rules
‘(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) After section 3(2) insert—
“(2A) Any statement of the rules, or of any changes to the rules, which affect the rights and obligations of persons who will lose their right of freedom of movement under the provisions of the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act may not be made or have effect unless the Secretary of State has complied with subsections (2B) to (2F) below.
(2B) If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules under section (2A) above, the Secretary of State must lay before parliament a document that—
(a) explains the proposal; and
(b) sets it out in the form of a draft order.
(2C) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (2B) (the “60-day period”), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modification).
(2D) In preparing a draft order under section (2A) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period—
(a) any representations; and
(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.
(2E) When laying before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document under subsection (2B).
(2F) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is not adjourned for more than 4 days.” —(Afzal Khan.)
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that any changes to the UK’s Immigration Rules which affect EEA or Swiss nationals must be made under the super affirmative procedure.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 40—Procedures before making and amending Immigration Rules—
“(1) Prior to making any amendments to Immigration Rules or making new Immigration Rules that impact upon persons whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1, the Secretary of State must lay before the House—
(a) an assessment of the impact of the proposed amendments or Rules on modern slavery, and
(b) an assessment of the impact of the proposed amendments or Rules on children.
(2) Prior to any amendments to Immigration Rules or new Rules coming into force that impact upon persons whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1, the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay a draft of the amendments or Rules before the House of Commons
(b) table an amendable motion for debate in respect of the draft amendments or Rules.
(3) Amendments to the motion tabled under subsection (2)(b) may instruct the Secretary of State to change the proposed amendments to the Immigration Rules or new Rules.”
This new clause would mean that changes to the Immigration Rules affecting people whose right of free movement is removed by the Bill were debated in Parliament, and that the Government could be instructed to amend the rules.
New clause 54—Immigration Rules Advisory Committee for relevant Immigration Rules—
“(1) Within 6 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must establish an Immigration Rules Advisory Committee to consider relevant Immigration Rules.
(2) In this section ‘relevant Immigration Rules’ mean Immigration Rules that apply to persons whose right of free movement is ended by section 1 and schedule 1 of this Act.
(3) The function of the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee shall be to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under this Act and in particular in relation to the making of relevant Immigration Rules.
(4) The constitution of the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee shall be set out in regulations.
(5) The Secretary of State shall furnish the Immigration Rules Advisory Committee with such information as the Committee may reasonably require for the proper discharge of its functions.”
Afzal Khan
This new clause requires that any changes to the UK’s immigration rules which affect EEA or Swiss nationals must be made under the super-affirmative procedure. As with many of our amendments, we would prefer the measure to be applied to rules affecting all migrants, but the scope of the Bill requires us to narrow it to EEA and Swiss nationals. The new clauses tabled by the SNP would similarly require a higher level of scrutiny for immigration rule changes, and, as such, we support them.
If the Secretary of State proposes to make changes to the rules, the super-affirmative procedure requires him or her to lay before Parliament a document that explains the proposal and sets it out in draft form. Over the years, immigration rules have become so long, complex and internally inconsistent that they are almost impossible for lawyers to understand, let alone for normal people who try to navigate them without legal aid or appeal rights. The new clause complements our efforts in amendments to clause 4, as well as in amendments 17 and 21 to clause 7 and in new clause 10, to make the immigration system intelligible and hold the Home Office sufficiently accountable for its decisions.
Not everything can be done through primary legislation, but since the Immigration Act 1971 almost everything has been done through secondary legislation. The negative procedure, whereby there is no discussion of the legislation unless parliamentarians kick up a fuss, has become the standard. Immigration rules are made very frequently, often in response to political scandals, without an eye on the long-term effects. Requiring rule changes to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure will give more time for scrutiny and encourage a more measured approach.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will speak to new clauses 40 and 54. I know that Members across the Committee will be enthralled by the prospect of an immigration rules advisory committee. Indeed, if new clause 54 is agreed to, I am sure that straight away, the Minister will be open to considering CVs from people who might serve on that committee.
As the shadow Minister said, the new clauses are all about increasing the level of scrutiny. New clause 40 would require an assessment of the impact of any changes to the immigration rules on modern slavery and on children to be laid before Parliament before the changes could be made. Just as significantly, it would give rise to the possibility of MPs actually being able to debate and amend proposed changes to the immigration rules. New clause 54 would put in place an immigration rules advisory committee.
The kernel of these ideas came from a recent report by British Future, which simply points out, as the shadow Minister has done, that changes to immigration rules have been rapid and incredibly complicated. The Home Office has made more than 5,700 changes since 2010, with the rules doubling in length over the same period. Little by way of explanation is provided to MPs when changes are proposed, and even less of scrutiny or debate. In such situations it is near impossible for most MPs to keep track of changes and to fulfil their role of scrutinising the Government’s work.
Social security offers a comparison with our proposal for an immigration rules advisory committee. Like social security laws, immigration rules are constantly changed by secondary legislation. However, there has been a social security advisory committee since as long ago as 1980. It has an independent remit to scrutinise draft secondary legislation on social security, making advice available to both the Government and Parliament. It has 14 members, who come from a wide range of professional backgrounds, and Ministers are usually required to submit regulations in draft to that committee, which may decide to scrutinise them formally. New clause 54 essentially copies the language of the enabling legislation for that committee and applies it to immigration rules.
While I welcome what the Minister and the previous Home Secretary have said about the need to simplify the immigration rules, we need to improve our procedures for scrutinising changes. Our new clauses offer two reasonable and practical proposals for exactly how that could be done.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for providing a further opportunity to discuss parliamentary scrutiny of immigration rules, which is raised in all three of these proposals. Parliamentary scrutiny is an important issue, and I am aware that Committee members are very interested in it. I will take each new clause in turn, but first I will briefly cover a few background points.
As Committee members will be aware, the detailed provisions on who is entitled to enter and remain in the UK, and on how to apply for such leave, are set out in the immigration rules. The rules are made under the power in section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. This power to change immigration rules, and the procedure for scrutiny of any changes, are long established. I remind hon. Members that the immigration rules were used, back in 2008, to introduce the points-based system that we currently operate.
I reiterate that none of the changes that we are making through the Bill are intended to affect that power or procedure. We will use that well-established power to set up the future immigration system once we have ended free movement and left the EU. I am in favour of parliamentary scrutiny of changes to the immigration rules, but I am not persuaded that there is any reason to depart from the existing scrutiny mechanism, which has been used to scrutinise all Governments, whether they are making minor or significant changes, for more than 45 years.
In addition, the new clauses are framed as applying only to those who lose their right to freedom of movement under the Bill. However, the Government have been clear that, once free movement ends, EEA nationals will be subject to UK immigration law, including the immigration rules. That means that all subsequent changes to the rules will potentially affect EEA nationals, so the new clauses would alter the parliamentary procedure for changing the immigration rules while purporting to be more limited.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister skirted around the fact that she thinks the current levels of scrutiny are absolutely fine, but without really drilling down into why. I wonder how many people in this room have ever looked at draft immigration rules that have been laid before Parliament. If they have done, how many actually understood what the draft changes were supposed to do? On the very few occasions I have managed to look at them, that has been hellishly difficult. Will the Minister explain why that level of scrutiny is appropriate?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that I said right at the beginning that I would give some background before delving into further detail. He need not worry; there is plenty to come.
I am committed to delivering a future immigration system that is fit for purpose and I acknowledge that in order to do that, we must put people first and make it easier for them to navigate our complex system. That is why the Law Commission has begun a consultation on simplifying the immigration rules; I look forward to receiving its recommendations later this year and seeing what more we can do in this area.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister makes a fair point that it would not be realistic to apply that procedure to every single immigration rule change. One alternative would be to use the nice new committee that we are going to set up using new clause 54 to decide what form of parliamentary procedure would be necessary. For example, if a change to immigration rules was urgent, the committee could say that the Government could go ahead and make it, but if a change was more significant and not time-pressing, there could be a proper and full debate on the Floor of the House.
Caroline Nokes
I am just coming on to the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for a sparkly new committee. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to establish an immigration rules advisory committee. I appreciate the concerns behind the new clause. Establishing a new set of immigration rules that will apply to all EEA and Swiss nationals is a big deal, and we need to get it right.
We have made a clear commitment that a wide range of stakeholders, including Parliament, will have an opportunity to contribute their views on the future system before the final policy decisions are made. That will help to ensure that the relevant immigration rules work for the whole United Kingdom. Clearly, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the rules throughout that process, using the well-established procedures that I have described. I note that we have never before had such an advisory committee for immigration rules. If the new clause were to be added to the Bill, we would not have a similar committee to scrutinise immigration rules that apply to persons who are not covered by the Bill.
As we have said, from 2021, the immigration rules will apply to EU and non-EU migrants alike in a single system that selects people on the basis of skill and talent, as opposed to nationality, so I regard such a committee as unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North see that their new clauses are unnecessary, and I invite the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to withdraw new clause 9.
Afzal Khan
We will not press new clause 9 to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Settled status: right to appeal
“(1) When a person whose right of free movement is removed by the provisions of this Act makes an application for settled or pre-settled status, that person may make an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) if—
(a) the application is turned down, or
(b) the person is granted pre-settled status but there is evidence to show that the person should have been granted settled status.
(2) Subsection (1) applies if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union—
(a) following a negotiated withdrawal agreement, or
(b) without a negotiated withdrawal agreement.”—(Afzal Khan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 14—Right of appeal against refusal of settled status—
“(1) Any person who—
(a) loses the right of free movement under the provisions of this Act; and
(b) is refused settled status; or
(c) is refused settled status but granted pre-settled status;
has the right of appeal to the Tribunal.
(2) In this section, ‘Tribunal’ means the First-Tier Tribunal.”
New clause 34—Right of appeal—
“(1) The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 82, insert—
‘82B Right of appeal for EEA and Swiss nationals
(1) This section applies where an EEA or Swiss national has applied for settled or pre-settled status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules and a decision has been made to refuse the application.
(2) Any person who has had their application for settled or pre-settled status refused may appeal to the Tribunal against that decision.
(3) In subsection (1) above, a refusal of the application includes where an application for settled status is refused but pre-settled status is granted instead.
(4) The lodging of an appeal under subsection (2) against a refusal to grant settled status has no impact on the grant of pre-settled status.’
(3) After section 84(5) insert—
‘(6) An appeal under section 82B may be brought on the grounds that the decision was not in accordance with the Immigration Rules.’”
This new clause would ensure a right of appeal for EEA and Swiss nationals refused status under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.
Afzal Khan
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, the shadow Minister, will speak to the new clause.
Paul Blomfield
New clause 10 is important because, as the Committee should be aware, the Bill removes the current right, under EU law, to appeal against decisions relating to settled status. The new clause seeks to fill that gap by giving the right to appeal to the immigration and asylum chamber of first-tier tribunal to those whose application is rejected and those who have been granted pre-settled status but there is evidence to show that they should have been granted settled status.
As discussed during the oral evidence sessions, as it stands the only right to appeal consists of an administrative review at a cost of £80 or a judicial review at a significantly greater cost and with a drawn-out, time-consuming process. Ms Blackstock from Justice told us that it
“seems to be the most bureaucratic and inappropriate method for what is…potentially a simple grey area that requires a simple review.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2019; c. 62, Q162.]
This is a problematic issue.
We also heard from Professor Smismans, who represents the3million, that there had been “considerable problems” with past administrative reviews by the Home Office. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. An administrative review may be fine as a first access point, but it is not sufficient on its own.
The Government clearly recognise the need to make the right of appeal available, as they have agreed that with the EU as part of the draft withdrawal agreement. That right exists under the withdrawal agreement that the Government have signed up to; UK courts and tribunals are authorised to refer cases on citizens’ rights to the European Court of Justice within eight years of the end of the transition period.
The withdrawal agreement also provides for an independent monitoring body to conduct inquiries into alleged breaches of part 2 of the withdrawal agreement. That body would also be able to receive complaints from EU nationals and bring legal action on their behalf.
So far so good, but both those mechanisms fall away in a no-deal situation. Following the delayed publication in December of the Government’s paper on citizens’ rights in the event of no deal, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and I wrote to the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) with our concerns. In reply, they stated their view that it is fair in a no-deal scenario to provide the remedies generally available to non-EU citizens refused leave to remain in the UK in other parts of the immigration system.
I ask the Minister: how is that fair? In the event of no deal, the Government are proposing to reduce the time that people have to apply for settled status. The process of registering 3 million people is already a challenge, and some people believe it might be beyond the Home Office. With less time comes greater risk of mistakes, so why are the Government reducing the means of appeal?
We are talking about a finite number of people who have already been subject to two and a half years of uncertainty. It is worth remembering that about 100 EEA citizens were erroneously threatened with deportation by the Home Office in 2017. Is it really fair to anybody that we are expected to trust the Home Office to mark its own homework? An accessible right of appeal under any terms on which we exit the European Union would provide much-needed reassurance to EU nationals.
Stuart C. McDonald
My original intention was to speak in support of new clause 34, but having considered the matter I have to say that new clause 10, which also covers family members of non-EEA nationals, is better drafted, so I will speak briefly in support of it instead. Hats off to the shadow Ministers for getting it right when I have not.
I echo everything said by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. He is right to characterise this not just as a failure to grant the right to appeal, but as the taking away of the right to appeal currently available to EEA nationals under European law. I remind the Minister that the Home Office statement of intent, published in June last year, said:
“Primary legislation is required to establish a right of appeal for the scheme, but subject to Parliamentary approval, we intend that those applying under the scheme from 30 March 2019 will be given a statutory right of appeal if their application is refused. This will allow the UK courts to examine the decision to refuse status under the scheme and the facts or circumstances on which the decision was based.”
The question is simple: why is that appropriate if there is a deal, but not appropriate if there is no deal? There should be a right of appeal regardless of whether a deal is reached. The distinction is absolutely unjustified.
From the point of view of principle and practice, appeal rights are hugely significant in immigration law. It is about the separation between those who review a decision and the decision makers themselves, and about not allowing the Home Office to mark its own homework, thereby ensuring a fair and independent hearing. It is also about the fact that the Home Office simply gets it wrong far too often. Before the current Prime Minister started her slash-and-burn approach to appeal rights, half of Home Office decisions were being overturned by the tribunal. Administrative reviews and judicial reviews are a sub-standard alternative.
Finally, we have to bear in mind that these decisions will have hugely significant consequences for those individuals affected. If the decisions are wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic. It is a small ask to ensure that they have appeal rights, regardless of whether a withdrawal agreement is reached.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I want to add to what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East have said about the importance of appeal rights. All of the new clauses make the same point. We all have suspicions that if the question of appeal rights is left unanswered, the process for EU citizens who need to apply for settled status might go terribly wrong.
There are two facts at the heart of this argument: first, the quality of Home Office decisions and the magnitude of the impact of the policy decision to end free movement; and secondly, the impact on a large number of people—some 3 million people and their families—in this country. We should not proceed without ensuring that protection is put in place in case the process goes wrong.
It seems absurd to have to offer any evidence of the quality of decisions taken by the Home Office, because as constituency Members of Parliament we deal fairly regularly with their inadequacy. That is not a comment on the Minister, who I have no doubt does her best to exercise good judgment on the issues put before her, but she has to do that far too frequently because of the poor quality of decisions taken, by and large, by the Home Office. This is not to point out the failings of individuals, either. I simply think that, systemically, the Home Office is not able to cope with the job that we task it to do.
We know that from recent media reports. We have already heard that when the Home Office appeals against immigration court decisions on asylum, it loses 75% of the cases. Mr Justice McCloskey, former president of the upper tribunal, said that the Home Office had launched one appeal
“on a wing and a prayer…It was manifestly devoid of any substance or merit and should have been exposed accordingly.”
The Law Society has described the Home Office processes as “seriously flawed”, and 50% of all appeals are upheld across the wider immigration and asylum system. We all know this to be true; these facts barely need repeating.
Caroline Nokes
Hon. Members have tabled three new clauses concerned with providing a right of appeal against refusals under the EU settlement scheme. I absolutely understand the sentiment behind the new clauses and would like to confirm that if there is a deal with the European Union, the Government will use the withdrawal agreement Bill to provide a right of appeal in respect of refusal of leave under the settlement scheme.
Unlike new clauses 10 and 14, under the withdrawal agreement Bill we plan to provide for an appeal right against refusal of settlement scheme leave even where the applicant continues to have a right of free movement in an implementation period. New clauses 10 and 14 are therefore less generous than the Government’s planned provision for appeal rights in a deal scenario.
New clause 34 is also more limited than the appeal rights that we propose in a deal scenario. Under the new clause, non-EEA family members eligible to apply under the settlement scheme would, if refused, not get a right of appeal. The Government’s intention is that, in the event of a deal with the EU, anyone refused leave under the settlement scheme will get a right of appeal.
I make those points not to pick holes in the new clauses but to demonstrate that appeal rights are complex and would require several consequential changes to legislation to ensure that they work effectively. However, I understand that hon. Members are concerned about what the Government intend on the issue, rather than about the wording of specific amendments, and I hope that I can provide some reassurance.
In setting up the EU settlement scheme, the Government have made a commitment to EU citizens, EEA and Swiss nationals, and their family members because we recognise that they make a huge contribution to our economy and our society. It is important to us that the settlement scheme works and that it works well. At the same time, in the event that we leave the EU without a deal and as we move towards a single immigration system, I believe that it is fair to provide consistency between the remedies available to those refused leave under the EU settlement scheme and the remedies generally available to non-EEA nationals.
Paul Blomfield
I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention on this point, because we have come to the nub of the debate. The Prime Minister and the Government have said consistently that EU and EEA nationals are our friends, our neighbours, valued members of our community and an important part of our workforce, and that they will not have diminished rights when we leave the European Union. What message does the Minister think is being sent to them by the proposal that in the event of no deal their right of appeal would be withdrawn?
Caroline Nokes
I was going to come on to talk about administrative review, which is available in the event of deal or no deal to those who are refused leave under the scheme on eligibility grounds. Under the settlement scheme, eligibility is focused primarily on how long an individual has been in the UK; it is not about demonstrating that individuals have been exercising free movement rights but simply about proving identity and that they are here. Administrative review will be able to correct any errors that might be made in calculating the time period, if necessary by considering new evidence. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that application under the EU settlement scheme is free—I welcome the change that the Prime Minister made by removing the fee. It would be open to any individual simply to reapply, rather than go through an appeal or administrative review process, because there is no charge.
When an applicant is refused on suitability grounds, they will not have a right to administrative review. Refusals on suitability grounds will be made, in particular, if there is evidence of serious criminality. However, where people are refused on criminality grounds and subject to deportation, they can make a human rights or protection claim against their removal; they will have a right of appeal under existing legislation if that claim is refused. In addition, applicants who are refused leave under the settlement scheme have the right to apply for judicial review of the refusal, as we have heard. Such remedies exist now for those refused under the EU settlement scheme.
We are committed to protecting EU citizens, and I hope that what I have said provides reassurance to hon. Members that adequate remedies are already available to those refused leave under the settlement scheme.
Afzal Khan
Does the Minister not accept that judicial review or an internal review is no match for the right of appeal? Judicial review is narrow in how it is done, and internal review is marking one’s own homework.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman has referred again to judicial review. I absolutely accept that it can be time consuming, and I recognise Members’ concerns about appeal rights in the event of no deal, but I sincerely hope that we will not be in that position and that we will be able to introduce appeal rights under the withdrawal Bill. However, it would be confusing to have different provisions on appeal rights in different legislation, which is why I think that the amendments are premature. Nevertheless, hon. Members in Committee and those outside this place, including at the evidence sessions, have made a number of points about further reassurance being required, so I will certainly reflect on that to see what more we can do.
Afzal Khan
The question was not just about judicial review being time consuming, which it is, but about the cost and how narrow it is in law.
Caroline Nokes
The point that I have to reflect back every single time is that the Government are working incredibly hard to ensure that we secure a deal with the EU. That is obviously the best way to avoid that scenario.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Sheffield Central wish to say anything before I ask the proposer of the new clause whether he wishes to withdraw it?
Paul Blomfield
I acknowledge that the Minister’s wish to reflect on some of the issues raised is helpful, but there are still fundamental matters on which we have had insufficient reassurance.
Afzal Khan
I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Afzal Khan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The amendment would ensure that the hostile environment was not applied to EU citizens until 3 million people had been registered, or until the end of the grace period—30 June 2021—whichever was later. The Government have made it clear that their intention is for EEA nationals to stay in the UK after we leave the EU, and we have serious concerns about their ability to register 3 million EU citizens in time for the end of the transition period, and even more so if there is no deal and the deadline is sooner.
Even where we have a declarative settled status scheme—Labour’s preference, as set out in new clause 15—it is vital that enough EU citizens have proof of their status in the UK before it is tested at every turn through the hostile environment. Under the hostile environment, a person’s ability to prove their right to be here is almost as important as having the right itself.
As discussed under amendment 23, the Government have set no targets for the numbers of people they intend to register for settled status before the deadline. The 3 million would seem to be the bare minimum, and I would welcome the Minister setting a more ambitious target, to which we can hold her Department when the time comes.
The issue of data gaps was raised by Madeleine Sumption at the Home Affairs Committee, and it is reflected in the Migration Observatory’s report, “Measuring Success”. Based on current statistics, it will be difficult to work out how many people miss out on settled status unless the numbers are very big. We do not have the precise figures of EU citizens living in the UK who plan to stay, so it is possible that tens of thousands will miss out on settled status without our knowing. Those most likely to miss out and fall through the cracks will probably be the most vulnerable.
The Migration Observatory’s report sets out steps that the Government could take to better evaluate the success of the settled status scheme and to estimate how many people have not registered, but, to my knowledge, they have not taken any of them. Windrush demonstrated the catastrophic and truly life-threatening consequences of the hostile environment.
This debate is all the more urgent in the light of Friday’s High Court ruling that the Government’s right to rent scheme causes racial discrimination, in breach of human rights. In a damning verdict, the judge found that the scheme causes landlords to discriminate where they otherwise would not. This is not the landlord’s fault. This proven discrimination is a direct result of Government policy, which goes straight to the Prime Minister, who introduced and championed the hostile environment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will speak briefly in support of the broad thrust of the new clause—I might have suggested a slightly different approach—which effectively draws attention to the hostile environment, or compliant environment, as it is sometimes known now. Essentially, in the light of the court case that the shadow Minister referred to, it is now absolutely time that we have to roll back on the hostile environment altogether.
I stumbled across some of my notes from during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016, when the Government essentially ignored all sorts of warnings about the right to rent and various other hostile environment measures and decided to press ahead. Thanks to the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, we have since found that the Government made next to no effort to monitor the impact of the measures they had introduced. That sequence of events is also exactly what happened with Windrush; warnings were ignored and the Government pressed ahead without looking at the consequences for the people they were warned might be adversely impacted. That is exactly the same as with the right to rent and other hostile environment measures.
I place on the record my congratulations and thanks to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Residential Landlords Association and various others involved in that case, which they have been fighting for a long time. Their briefings in 2016 were absolutely clear: their testing found that people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds were being discriminated against when they approached landlords, as was anyone who was not able to produce a British passport.
In the light of that scathing judgment from last week, surely the Government cannot just press ahead with the extension of hostile environment measures to EU nationals. Surely they must now say that they accept that judgment and intend to roll back from the right to rent and other hostile environment policies.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton for tabling the new clause, and I welcome the opportunity to explain how statutory eligibility controls operate for EEA nationals. The Government have made clear our commitment to protect the right of EEA nationals living in the UK before the new skills-based immigration system is introduced. While I recognise the intention behind the new clause, it is unnecessary. In some important respects, it is also technically deficient.
EEA nationals are already subject to the universal eligibility checks carried out by employers, landlords and the NHS. Those checks apply to everyone, regardless of nationality. EEA nationals currently evidence their eligibility to employers and landlords simply by producing their national passport or identity card. When accessing benefits and health services, they also need to demonstrate that they are habitually or ordinarily resident in the UK. We made it clear in our White Paper that EEA nationals will not be subject to additional requirements to demonstrate their status in the UK until the future skills-based immigration system is introduced. We recognise the importance of having an implementation or transition period to allow EEA nationals living here to secure their status in UK law by applying to the EU settlement scheme.
Importantly, the White Paper on the UK’s future skills-based immigration system also makes it clear that we will not require employers to undertake retrospective checks on existing employees when the new system is introduced in 2021. That is entirely consistent with the approach adopted by previous Governments when introducing changes to the checking arrangements. The new clause does not provide further meaningful safeguards to the commitments we have already given.
It is also important to highlight the fact that further secondary legislation would be required before EEA nationals could be compelled to produce evidence of UK immigration status in the same way that non-EEA migrants are currently required to do, to demonstrate their right to work or rent in the UK. Such legislation would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. I also reassure hon. Members that, in line with the draft withdrawal agreement, we will take a proportionate approach to those who for good reason miss the deadline to apply to the EU settlement scheme.
The new clause would also prevent NHS charges from applying to EEA nationals before 30 June 2021, or until 3 million people are granted settled status under the scheme. However, it makes reference to the National Health Service Act 2006, which applies only to NHS charges in England and Wales. The NHS in Scotland and Northern Ireland would be unaffected.
Charges have applied for NHS secondary care to people not ordinarily resident in the UK since 1982, except where an exemption from charge category applies. Entitlement to NHS-funded secondary care is based on ordinary residence in the UK, not nationality or payment of taxes. That means living in the UK on a lawful, properly settled basis, for the time being. EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who are or become ordinarily resident in the UK are therefore fully entitled to free NHS care in the same way as a British citizen who is ordinarily resident.
In the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the Government have made a unilateral offer on citizens’ rights. It is not dependent on EEA member states making similar assurances for UK citizens resident in those countries. Should EEA member states make less generous provision for UK nationals living or moving there, the new clause would result in a less favourable offer to EEA nationals in the UK.
The immigration exemption in paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 is entirely separate from measures designed to deal with eligibility checks on immigrants. It is a necessary and proportionate measure that we believe is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation. It can be applied only on a case-by-case basis, in limited circumstances, where complying with a certain data protection right would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of effective immigration control. It is misleading and unhelpful to frame the matter in such a way that it appears to be aimed at EU citizens. The exemption is a necessary measure, designed to protect our immigration system from those who seek to undermine and take advantage of it. New clause 11 does not provide any additional safeguards or assurances beyond those already planned or in place.
Finally, I want to respond to points made by hon. Members about the recent High Court judgment on the right to rent scheme. The scheme was introduced to defend an important principle. Those who have no right to be here should not be renting a property, and landlords should not be making profit renting to people without legal status here, which often happens in poor conditions. The Government consulted carefully on measures to require landlords to undertake right to rent checks. We developed the scheme in close collaboration with a consultative panel, which drew together experts from the sector. The scheme was trialled in the west midlands and rolled out to the rest of England only after a thorough evaluation, which was published in full in October 2015.
Stuart C. McDonald
My recollection is that originally there was supposed to be a detailed assessment of that pilot before it was rolled out, but that after the election of 2015 the Prime Minister said it would carry on regardless. Where is the evidence that it has had any positive impact, or that it has not had a discriminatory effect, as the High Court judge found last week?
Caroline Nokes
I am minded, given the High Court judgment of last week, to be careful what I say about the issue, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I just go on to speak a little about the evaluation of October 2015, which included 550 responses to online surveys, 12 focus groups, 36 one-on-one interviews and a mystery shopping exercise involving 332 encounters. That evaluation found that there was no systemic discrimination on the basis of race. The law was, and remains, absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out the checks is unlawful.
Despite that, as hon. Members have mentioned, on Friday last week the checks were declared incompatible with the European convention on human rights. We disagree with the finding and are appealing the judgment. We remain committed to the principle that if someone has no right to be in this country they should not be renting property. This country has a proud tradition of upholding and promoting human rights, and we have set the standard internationally for the strength of our legal protections against discrimination. The High Court decision is not something we should take lightly.
Afzal Khan
We hear what the Minister is saying about people who have no right to be here, but the fact is that people who have a right to be here can become a victim of the hostile environment. That is what happened with Windrush.
Caroline Nokes
As I was saying, the High Court decision is not something we take lightly, but we have been granted permission to appeal all aspects of the judgment. In the meantime, the provisions passed by this House in 2014 remain in force. Landlords and letting agents are still expected to conduct right-to-rent checks, as required in legislation, and they are still expected not to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their colour or where they come from.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has previously made clear, we are looking at options for evaluating the operation of the scheme, adding significantly to the evaluation that has previously been done. The Home Secretary has written to Wendy Williams to draw her attention to the High Court’s findings. The lessons learned review is identifying the key legislative, policy and operational failures that resulted in members of the Windrush generation becoming entangled in measures designed for illegal immigrants.
I will continue to chair meetings of the right-to-rent consultative panel with Lord Best, to discuss this and other matters relating to the operation of the scheme. I reiterate my steadfast commitment to tackling discrimination in all its forms, and I am committed to building an immigration system that provides control, but is also fair, humane and fully compliant with the law. I hope that in the light of these points the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.
Afzal Khan
I thank the Minister for what has been said this morning. However, we take the position that the hostile environment must be dismantled and we do not wish to see EU citizens going through what the Windrush generation has gone through.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
New clause 43—Future immigration policy—
“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out how any changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected the extent to which UK employers have adequate access to labour.”
This new clause would mean the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for drafting Immigration Rule changes that ensure employers have adequate access to labour.
Alison McGovern
I wish to speak about proposed new clause 13. Often this discussion is focused on the procedural matters of immigration law, and rightly so; as we have discussed, these are important issues that affect the lives of many of our constituents and they should be scrutinised in detail. However, my proposed new clause is concerned not with the detail of immigration law but rather with economic analysis of the impact of free movement on our labour market. It seeks to require the Secretary of State to conduct
“an annual review of the impact of the ending of free movement of people in the United Kingdom”,
specifically the impact on:
“(a) the UK economy;
(b) the NHS and social care workforce; and
(c) opportunities for British citizens in the European Economic Area.”
The Secretary of State should also “consult with UK businesses” and, I would add by way of commentary, others in the UK, including civil society and trade unions, about the impact they have experienced, should free movement end in this country. Such a review is necessary for several reasons, which I will explain briefly.
Maria Caulfield
On Friday, I went with the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) to Brighton University to see the new nursing apprenticeship schemes, which are enabling a new source of nurses—mature students—to train as student nurses, and earn while they learn. The students all said that that was better than the previous bursary scheme, as it provided them with better wages and more job security once they finished their training.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am perfectly happy for schemes to be called whatever they like; the fact is that we have to support nurses properly as they are training. The general point that I want to make, while accepting her experience of what sounds like a really good scheme, is that the general thrust of Government policy has not supported the training of staff for our national health service in recent times, and that has to change.
I will make one final specific point on this issue before I close, and it is about the social care sector. As the hon. Member has just mentioned, nurses are incredibly important and we have to get training and support for people coming into nursing, or back into nursing, correct, but social care is also important, and the pay in the social care sector is really dismal. It is a highly skilled job. If someone is working in a nursing home, they may have in their hands the care of the dying, and I do not think that there is a more important or dignified job in this country.
We have relied on EU nationals to a great extent and this Bill will have a huge impact on the social care sector. We have a massive staff shortage; there are hundreds of thousands of vacancies in the care sector. However, it is an interesting fact that that massive staff shortage has not increased pay in the care sector. If this was simply a matter of supply and demand, we might have expected wages in the care sector to rise quite rapidly over recent years, but the staff shortage has not increased pay, because in the end the funding for social care comes in large amount from the Government. That demonstrates the flaw in the argument that says, “Well, if we restrict immigration, that will necessarily put up pay”. Well, if in the end the funding—
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
Catholic Sixth-form Colleges
(5 years, 9 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
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Catholic sixth form colleges.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and at the outset of this debate I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it.
Catholic sixth-form colleges face double discrimination under the Government’s funding of post-16 education: they are not academies, so they receive less funding than colleges that have converted to become academies, but even if they wanted to become academies they cannot do so.
The Government have been aware of these problems for a number of years, but they have done little to address either concern. On top of the huge cuts in funding to post-16 education since 2010, this double discrimination is raising concerns within the Catholic community about the long-term future of all 14 Catholic sixth-form colleges in England.
Unlike Catholic schools, the religious character of Catholic sixth-form colleges is not protected in statute, so the trustees of Catholic sixth-form colleges such as the nationally renowned St Dominic’s in my constituency, even if they were huge fans of academising, could not switch their college to make it an academy and take advantage of the many financial inducements that such status might allow.
St Dominic’s has an impressive history. It was established 140 years ago, in 1879, as a school. When the London borough of Harrow reorganised its education system, creating a specific sixth-form sector, the Dominican nuns agreed to transfer the school grounds to the Diocese of Westminster as the site of a new Catholic sixth-form college.
St Dominic’s Sixth Form College opened its doors to its first 289 students—boys and girls—in September 1979. With more than 1,300 students, it attracts young men and women from a wide geographical area across north-west London, with a number travelling more than 15 miles a day to study for their level 3 qualifications. It is a great Catholic college, but it exists within a multi-faith and multi-cultural setting that reflects our very diverse local community in Harrow.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman wanted to add at this point the enormous concentration that that college and other Catholic sixth-form colleges have shown in relation to social justice. That has been a strong element of what those colleges teach and the way that they teach it.
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to take the opportunity to praise the contribution of Catholic sixth-form colleges in teaching about social justice. I do not know whether that is part of the reason that I keep getting elected. [Laughter.] Certainly, though, Catholic sixth-form colleges deserve his praise for their teaching about social justice.
The staff at St Dominic’s, to whom the hon. Gentleman was perhaps also alluding, are some of the best in the business. They are experts in their field who have devoted their careers to the education of post-16 students. They teach at a very high level, which in turn enables the students to get excellent results.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a great case for that specific sixth-form college, but I understand that 85% of these Catholic sixth-form colleges are rated “outstanding” or “good” by Ofsted, so clearly there is excellent teaching going on across all of them.
Gareth Thomas
I should not have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because he has stolen a line from later in my speech, but he makes a good point and I will return to it later.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for being unable to stay and make a speech in this debate—I have a meeting with a Minister—but I want to make this point. Does he agree that, given the fact that schools are increasingly becoming secularised, parents must have the option to have their child educated with faith as a cornerstone and to have an input into spiritual teaching, and that the Government cannot and must not ignore this point but instead must take it into consideration when allocating funding? Spiritual education is so important in this day and age.
Gareth Thomas
I recognise the continuing and strong support for spiritual education, and it continues to be a striking feature of many of our communities that there is strong support for faith schools. In the context of the debate, there is strong support for this Catholic sixth-form college, which inspired me to seek Backbench Business Committee approval for this debate, and I am sure that there is also strong support for the other Catholic sixth-form colleges across the country. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
Jim Shannon
To re-emphasise that point, when it comes to parents seeking a school for their children to go to, it is so important that they have a choice between secular teaching and faith-based teaching. When it comes to funding and assistance, we obviously look to the Minister for some support, but it is important that people have that choice and that that choice is available in Members’ own constituencies as well.
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about choice. I suppose the essential point of this debate is to say that there needs to be a level playing field in funding. A child who wants to go to a certain type of school or college should not see that there is better funding for one particular institution than there is for another down the road. I am sure that is a point he will agree with.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In relation to capital, particularly for colleges and their funding, sometimes Catholic schools have had to amalgamate to release property they can sell to raise capital funding. I have come across cases such as that—I do not know whether he has or not—because of the lack of capital funding.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the lack of capital funding, and access to capital funding is one way in which Catholic sixth-form colleges face the double discrimination that I talked about in my opening remarks. Later in my speech, I will give some detail about the issue of capital.
Until 1993, St Dominic’s Sixth Form College was part of Harrow’s local authority-maintained system, but following the Government’s post-16 reorganisation the college became independent within the state tertiary system, overseen by the Further Education Funding Council for England. That change brought about new challenges and pressures on the college, primarily to increase student numbers and its educational provision, in order to cater for the educational needs in our community.
The 21st century has seen a series of considerable successes for the college, as its reputation for delivering high-quality sixth-form education has continued to spread. By 2007, St Dominic’s Sixth Form College was among the small group of colleges that were awarded beacon status. The 2008 Ofsted inspection of the college judged it “outstanding”, which is a distinction it has held on to ever since. Indeed, the college is now regarded as being at the very top of the league of sixth-form colleges for “excellence” in its educational provision and for its A-level results. In 2017, The Sunday Times specifically recognised it as the best sixth-form college of the year.
Not surprisingly, therefore, St Dominic’s is heavily oversubscribed—typically, there are about 3,000 applications for the 700 places available annually—but in recent years the college has had to expand, in part to meet the financial challenges of a static budgetary settlement. However, with 1,300 students, the college is now full, with no capacity to expand further.
Without an increase in funding per student or additional students, revenue income will remain flat and with increased costs such as pensions, salaries and so on, the risk of further financial challenge becomes very real. The implications of that include the possibility of a reduced curriculum, at a time when the new Ofsted framework requires a rich and diverse curriculum offer, and the possibility of substantially increased teacher-to-student ratios.
The principal of St Dominic’s, the excellent Andrew Parkin, rightly describes his college as an “educational jewel” that is looking increasingly fragile, because there are no significant financial increases on the horizon.
There are 14 Catholic sixth-form colleges in England: Aquinas in Cheshire, Cardinal Newman in Preston, Carmel in St Helens, Christ the King in Lewisham, Holy Cross in Bury, Loreto in Manchester, Notre Dame in Leeds, St Brendan’s in Bristol, St Charles in Kensington, St Francis Xavier in Wandsworth, St John Rigby in Wigan, St Mary’s in Blackburn and Xaverian in Manchester, as well as my own, St Dominic’s. Like the wider sixth-form college sector, those are high-performing institutions, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes).
Catholic sixth-form colleges teach just over 27,000 pupils, and employ almost 2,500 teachers and support staff. Together, they educate about 3% of all 16 to 18-year-olds in publicly funded provision. They account for 4% of all A-level students and for 5% of students progressing to higher education, including to the most competitive universities. Some 86% of them, as the hon. Gentleman also mentioned, are rated outstanding or good by Ofsted. They have a justified reputation as centres of excellence and places of academic rigour and achievement. They give students the chance to excel, regardless of their previous academic achievement.
Catholic sixth-form colleges have many things in common, and most serve diverse and often deprived communities.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the excellent standard of education in Catholic sixth-form colleges. Does he agree that that is all the more commendable in relation to Carmel College in St Helens—a college of which we are very proud—where more than a third of the cohort is from a disadvantaged background? That high standard of educational excellence means that the college contributes strongly to social mobility in the borough.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point about Carmel College, which he knows very well. Catholic sixth-form colleges are generally regarded as a vital catalyst for social mobility in the areas they serve, and many have high levels of progression into further and higher education. Although they maintain a strong Catholic ethos, they are open to students of all faiths and none. Inevitably, many understandably cite their Catholic identity and vision as being key to their success.
I am told that Catholic dioceses across the country are developing multi-academy trusts so as not to suffer needless financial loss and because of the inducements on offer from the Government for conversion to academies. Within that construct, which is not of their choosing, they are, to their credit, trying to lock down school partnership and school-to-school support. Given the wealth of expertise within Catholic sixth-form colleges, one might have thought that the Government would have wanted them to be part of such multi-academy trust arrangements. However, even if the colleges want to join the trusts, they cannot do so at the moment.
The future of Catholic sixth-form colleges and their ongoing excellent performance largely depend on three things: revenue funding, capital funding and, in the worst case, the possibility of conversion to academies. On revenue funding, it is without question that sixth-form funding is in crisis. Two deep cuts to post-16 education funding were made after 2010. The national funding rate, which is by far the biggest component of the 16-to-18 funding formula, has been frozen at £4,000 per student per year since 2013, and funding for 18-year-olds was cut to just £3,300 per student in 2014. Expenditure on 16-to-19 education fell from £6.39 billion in 2010-11 to £5.68 billion in 2017-18—a reduction of more than 11% in cash terms and more than 20% in real terms. In 2018, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that, at 2018-19 prices, spending per full-time equivalent 16-to-19 student in further education fell from just over £6,200 in 2010-11 to £5,698 in 2017-18.
The cuts come against a backdrop of significant increases in running costs in education generally, and in colleges in particular. Since 2010, the Government have imposed a range of new requirements on institutions, which has left much less money for schools and colleges to spend on the frontline education of students, at a time when the needs of young people are becoming increasingly complex.
The future for Catholic sixth-form colleges also depends on changes to capital funding—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). A number of institutions are keen to expand but cannot access the necessary funding to educate more students. Others have increased student numbers as a response to funding pressures, but have reached maximum capacity and lack the capital needed to satisfy the demand for places. The absence of a sufficient national capital fund, as well as the growing reluctance of banks to lend for capital projects, means that many sixth-form colleges, including most Catholic ones, have nowhere to turn.
On academy conversions, I understand that some 23 sixth-form colleges have taken the opportunity to change their status and become 16-to-19 academies. That has allowed them to have their VAT costs refunded, and it provides, on average, more than £385,000 more to spend on the frontline education of students each year. Catholic sixth-form colleges, in common with all colleges that do not convert, face financial disadvantages also due to the Government’s implementation of the teachers’ pay grant. In September 2018, they extended the grant to cover 16-to-19 academies, but not sixth-form colleges or other colleges that had not converted. All Catholic sixth-form colleges were affected. They have the same workforce, pay rates and negotiating machinery as almost every 16-to-19 academy, and there is no justification for treating them differently when it comes to teachers’ pay.
Due to the religious character of Catholic sixth-form colleges, they do not have the option to convert to academies. Since they are not schools, they do not come within the legislative framework that applies to schools and which includes protections of a school’s religious character. As 16-to-19 academies, they would have to remain further education institutions but would not be governed by the statutory provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which contains the current legislative protections that enable them to be conducted as Catholic colleges.
An Act of Parliament or a change of legislation is not required to allow a sixth-form college to become a 16-to-19 academy. The position is, however, different for Catholic colleges. When maintained schools become academies they become independent schools that are subject to statutory provision and regulation, including protection of their religious character, which thereby enables them to be conducted, still, as Catholic schools. When sixth-form colleges become 16-to-19 academies, they do not come within the legislative framework that applies to independent schools, because they remain as further education institutions. However, they are also not governed by the statutory provisions of the 1992 Act. A review of the legislation, jointly undertaken by the Catholic Education Service and the Department for Education, has made it clear that the statutory protections will no longer apply to Catholic colleges post conversion to 16-to-19 academies. That includes protections in the areas of curriculum, acts of worship and the responsible body—in other words, the governance.
Furthermore, I understand that financial risk assessments for further education institutions that wish to convert into academies require any Church-controlled premises to be removed from the college’s balance sheet. That stipulation is likely to affect the perceived financial health of Catholic sixth-form colleges and place them in the position of being unable to pass the risk assessment needed to become an academy.
One solution to address those anomalies suggested by the Catholic Education Service is for the Government to explore legislative and non-legislative options for Catholic sixth-form colleges to convert while retaining their religious character. Such legislation would affect only Catholic sixth-form colleges, as there are no other religiously designated sixth-form colleges in the country. I understand that the Catholic Education Service has had useful discussions with the Department for Education about reinstating in a future education Bill the legislative protections for Catholic colleges that want to become 16-to-19 academies. Such a Bill could ensure that the protections that Catholic sixth-form colleges currently have would be mirrored if they converted into 16-to-19 academies. I understand that only a short clause would be needed, although it is difficult to know when such a Bill might emerge in a future Queen’s Speech, or, given the way that Brexit is affecting the parliamentary timetable, how soon the House of Commons and the House of Lords might realistically have a chance to debate such a provision. It is also not clear whether such a clause is the Government’s preferred option for protecting the future of Catholic sixth-form colleges.
It is worth noting that non-Catholic sixth-form colleges that want to become academies have benefited from some £10 million of Government funding through the area review restructuring facility. I understand that that facility, from which Catholic sixth-form colleges have been clearly unable to benefit, closes this month.
Conor McGinn
Does my hon. Friend agree that the sense of urgency within the Catholic sixth-form college sector about this matter cannot be stressed enough to the Minister? Representatives of Carmel College have told me that they have had to reduce the number of subjects they teach and have larger class sizes, but they are also having to lay off staff. That is not sustainable or viable, nor is it something that any of us wants, so I urge the Minister to address that anomaly quickly.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention on behalf of Carmel College; he makes his point extremely well. Capital funding, VAT refunds and the teachers’ pay grant are all areas of finance for post-16 academies that Catholic sixth-form colleges, like other non-academy post-16 colleges, are not benefiting from. That is short-changing Catholic students, and also many other students who benefit from attending those other institutions.
As the number of 16 to 18-year-olds is set to increase, it is important that funding is made available to deal with that demographic upturn. Sixth-form colleges, as large specialist 16-to-18 institutions with proven track records, are well placed to help to cater for the coming upturn in student numbers, but they urgently need access to sufficient capital funding to build the necessary capacity. The Sixth Form Colleges Association believes that establishing a capital expansion fund for dedicated 16-to-18 educational institutions such as sixth-form colleges is the way to break that capital impasse. Other colleges also deserve to be able to access proper capital funding, such as Harrow College and Stanmore College, which serve my constituency. That would help to increase the number of young people being educated in high-performing institutions, at a lower cost to the public purse and with a higher likelihood of success than continuing to establish new, usually much smaller providers.
The critical issue is that since 2010 the further education sector has been held back through lack of investment. Over the past 10 years, colleges have had to deal with an average funding cut of 30%, while at the same time costs have increased dramatically. As I alluded to, other colleges in Harrow such as Harrow College and Stanmore College have been hit financially, reflecting problems across the English post-16 sector. Further education is the only part of the education budget to have been cut year on year since 2010. That drop in funding has had a real impact on staff pay: on average, college teachers are now paid at less than 80% of the rate of school staff. The latest Association of Colleges workforce survey suggests that average lecturer pay in colleges is just over £30,000—significantly lower than average schoolteacher pay and university academic pay, which are £35,000 and just over £43,000 respectively. The value of staff pay has fallen by more than 25% since 2009, and staff turnover rates in colleges averaged 17% in 2017, which is the most recent year for which stats are available. The hardest-to-fill posts are teaching jobs in engineering, construction and mathematics.
The recent ring-fenced teachers’ pay grant for schools was not extended to further education colleges, which made it even more difficult for Catholic sixth-form colleges and other post-16 institutions to recruit the teachers they need. Schoolteachers received a pay rise of up to 3.5%, whereas college staff did not, which is simply unfair. Extending the teachers’ pay grant to Catholic sixth-form colleges and all other non-academy 16-to-19 institutions would relieve pressure on the frontline and begin to level the playing field between institutions that are delivering effectively the same type of education. The cost would be comparatively small, but the impact would be significant—not just on the financial position of individual colleges, but in reassuring the sector that its work, curriculum and workforce were properly understood and appreciated by the Government.
In short, students do not deserve to be discriminated against. If students attend a college that is not an academy, the Government are discriminating against them, as they allow academy colleges to be better funded. Catholic sixth-form colleges and their students are doubly disadvantaged, as those colleges cannot convert to become academies even if they want to. It is high time that Catholic sixth-form colleges, like other non-academy colleges, got the same funding as academies; that this double discrimination was brought to an end; and, crucially, that funding for all post-16 education was significantly improved. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, for what I believe is the first time. I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), on securing this debate at an important time for not only Catholic education, but education as a whole. It was a great pleasure to chair the Backbench Business Committee and give him the opportunity to hold this debate.
I rise for a number of reasons, the first of which is fairness. I have always strongly believed in a parent’s right to choose the type of education they want for their children, be that a church school, any other form of religious school, or a secular school—I do not take a particular view. Equally, parents should have the right to choose whether their child receives single-sex or mixed education. One of the great beauties of the London borough of Harrow, which my neighbour and I share, is that we have education for Hindus, Jews, Catholics and Protestants, and we will soon have a Muslim state school as a result of parental demand.
St Dominic’s Sixth Form College, which is in my neighbour’s constituency, has as its main feeders two Catholic schools in my constituency: Salvatorian College and Sacred Heart Language College. They are 11-to-16 schools, both Catholic in nature, and the natural progression for their pupils is to go on to St Dominic’s college. However, St Dominic’s does not just take young people from Salvatorian College and Sacred Heart; as my neighbour alluded to, it takes young people from across north-west London. It has quite a long reach into a number of London boroughs.
The nature of St Dominic’s, and of other Catholic colleges, is that they provide excellent education. That is why they are in demand, after all. It is worth remembering that in many ways we have such advanced education across this country because of the investment made by the Church of England and the Catholic Church going back way before we had state education. It is important to understand that the colleges are excellent. They provide a very good standard of education, are well led and have excellent teachers. That is the feature of a good education system, so it is grossly unfair that they are disadvantaged.
I rise to seek fairness in the system for Catholic sixth-form colleges. It is fair to say that when we have changed the funding formula, sixth forms generally have suffered. Clearly, the priority has been on young people between the ages of 11 and 16, who have a higher rate of funding than sixth forms. A head or member of a governing body of a school, college or whatever that teaches people from the ages of 11 to 18 can adjust the funding to ensure a spread throughout the institution, but a sixth-form college is totally dependent on the funding that comes in for those young people between the ages of 16 and 18. The slight problem is that the average funding is £4,545 for a sixth-form student, which is 15% lower than that for 11 to 16-year-olds. Straightaway, sixth-form colleges are at a disadvantage from a revenue perspective.
One of the challenges in Harrow is that Sacred Heart Language College has always been full. It is an excellent school, so there has been a steady flow of young women going on to St Dominic’s or beyond. It is fair to say that Salvatorian College has had real challenges. However, it is being completely rebuilt and we are looking forward to the new premises opening completely. The school is now full with young boys coming through, so the impact on St Dominic’s will be even greater. The college is full, and as the hon. Member for Harrow West alluded to, there is little if any space to expand. Even if we could get hold of the money required, expansion is a real challenge, given where it is located and that it has such a tight site.
The impact on the funding level is important. Colleges—sixth-form colleges and Catholic sixth-form colleges in particular—are dropping courses in modern languages as a result of funding pressures. When we are trying to encourage the development of modern languages, it is not helpful if colleges are dropping them due to funding. Equally, we are trying to get young people better educated in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. When we are encouraging them to do STEM subjects, it is a disaster for colleges to drop those courses.
There are other issues. St Dominic’s is having to put young people in much larger class sizes to try to use the facilities available. I visited the college only last week. It has a plan to expand into lecture halls, as opposed to classrooms, to try to use facilities to their maximum capability. There is good sense to that. Teachers can lecture, but then there still needs to be the capacity for one-to-one teaching subsequently. As has been mentioned by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Harrow West, and in various interventions, we have a crisis.
John Howell
What effect is the situation that my hon. Friend describes having on university applications and the success that Catholic sixth-form colleges have had in getting people into good universities to do good courses?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is that concern. All the Catholic sixth-form colleges are producing an excellent education, with a good flow of young people going on to university and being given the opportunity to excel. Virtually every young person who goes through St Dominic’s goes on to good universities with good courses, particularly in maths and science. We should be encouraging that and ensuring that it happens.
At the same time, we have the challenge of what we could call the learning tax. Catholic sixth-form colleges are not able to academise and therefore cannot claim the VAT back. That gives any college a real challenge. Catholic sixth-form colleges should be able to academise. We should also remove any restrictions on the faith of the leadership of the college. Such colleges should be able to ensure that Catholics are the senior management and senior staff. We should have a position where the intake is in line with legislation, namely that a proportion of the students coming into the college can be selected. They do not have to be exclusively Catholic, but there should be a Catholic flavour to the colleges.
Equally, there is a challenge in what we do to expand such colleges, which are extremely popular and very successful. It is fair to say that the teachers in those colleges are experienced, highly professional and doing a good job, yet they do not get the pay rises they would get if they were working in a college down the road. That is clearly unfair. We have to remove the restriction whereby these colleges are not getting the pay grant that other colleges get. That is unfair discrimination.
Gareth Thomas
Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, but will he join me in urging the Minister to commit today to the next teachers’ pay award for post-16 institutions being fully funded, regardless of status? That would certainly give substantial reassurance to the principal of St Dominic’s Sixth Form College, as well as other Catholic sixth-form colleges.
Bob Blackman
I thank my neighbour for congratulating me on my speech. I look forward to him congratulating me on many occasions on my speeches in this place and in the main Chamber. He makes an important point. We are going into the comprehensive spending review, where there is an opportunity for the Government to make some changes. I am not sure whether we need a change in the law to ensure that Catholic sixth-form colleges receive the pay award that other colleges receive. If that change is needed, we should get on and do it. Given that the Government seem to find time to adjust the law when they wish, it may be that that would be relatively easy to do. I do not think there would be any disagreement across the House on the need for the measure.
If we could reach a point where Catholic sixth-form colleges could academise, get the benefits of academy status and reclaim VAT costs, that would be an enormous boost to their revenue funding. Equally, if we could remove any measures that prevent senior staff from holding a particular faith, that would remove the challenge that many such colleges face.
The hon. Member for Harrow West raised the issue of capital funding. Why would a bank lend to a college if its revenue funding was already challenged and it might not be able to repay the loan? That is one of the key challenges in raising capital. There needs to be a fund available to Catholic sixth-form colleges from which they can draw in order to provide capital provision within the system. All Catholic sixth-form colleges suffer the same challenge of how to expand and get more revenue funding. If they do not have the capital, they are clearly not able to expand. Their revenue base is a particular challenge.
In terms of the money for 2019-20, if the teachers’ pay award was extended to Catholic sixth-form colleges, it would cost only £2.5 million—a relatively small amount compared with the overall budget—but it would make a huge difference to the colleges that need to pay it. As my neighbour, the hon. Member for Harrow West, has mentioned, if we could get to a position whereby Catholic sixth-form colleges were allowed to academise or possibly join multi-academy trusts, it would assist them to some degree. At a time when the majority of young people in this country are taught in academies, it seems unfair that Catholic sixth-form colleges are discriminated against and do not have the capacity to opt in. If they were an 11-to-18 school, they could academise, but because they have chosen to be a sixth-form Catholic college, they cannot. That does not make sense in this day and age.
We have T-levels coming on stream. It seems ridiculous that sixth-form colleges are dropping STEM courses when we are trying to develop T-levels. They will be properly on stream by 2023, but we need action now.
Will the Minister look at the case that has been put forward? If we need a change in the law, so be it. We could change the law relatively easily with all-party support, and I believe it would pass the Commons and Lords very quickly. We could equalise the situation for the benefit of the young people we all serve.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) delivered an excellent and comprehensive speech, so I do not think that I need to add much. As he mentioned, I have a Catholic sixth-form college, St Brendan’s, in my constituency, although it serves a wide catchment area that stretches as far as Weston-super-Mare. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) have all visited the college. They are great supporters of it and would have been here today to speak in its defence if they had been able to.
I do not hold a particular torch for faith-based education. I have some reservations about it, although I think that a greater problem is where demographics in a particular area lead to a school being de facto one culture. I say this as someone who grew up in Luton and went to Luton Sixth Form College, which was very diverse, but some of the schools there, just because of where people live, tend not to be as diverse as they could be. We are fortunate in Bristol that all the schools, including St Brendan’s, have a healthy mix of pupils from different backgrounds. Although St Brendan’s is a Catholic sixth-form college and priority is given to students from Catholic schools, it is very diverse.
St Brendan’s clearly has an ethical focus to its teaching, but the Catholicism is not too evident. Catholic parents get the faith-based education that they want for their children, but children from all faiths feel comfortable there and the college is doing well. It has significant plans to expand, which presents some challenges, particularly in relation to traffic, because it is at the top of the most congested road in my constituency, but we can address that. There is also the challenge that school sixth forms are smaller and struggle to provide a broader curriculum. If St Brendan’s expands, will the school sixth forms be no longer viable? However, I still support its expansion because, as I have said, it provides an excellent service.
When I have been to St Brendan’s I have always been impressed by how open-minded the college is and how receptive it is to discussing issues across all faiths and no faiths. I attended a session there once after some young pupils from elsewhere in the Bristol school system had led a nationwide campaign against female genital mutilation. The sixth form brought the young women to talk to a group of pupils about issues within the community and about FGM. It was a real eye-opener for the pupils and was a really good thing to do. I have also met the feminist society there.
I had a meeting recently with the principal and a couple of student reps, one of whom said, “I identify as gender-neutral”, and not an eyelid was batted. Some people have real fears about what a faith-based organisation looks like, particularly a Catholic college, but St Brendan’s is as far from bigoted as we would want an educational establishment to be. There is also a real focus on international development, which links with the work of lots of churches in my constituency that do really good work with overseas communities, as does St Brendan’s as well.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West said, St Brendan’s and the other Catholic sixth-form colleges face double discrimination. Sixth-form academies do not have to pay VAT, but sixth-form colleges do. We have debated that before in Westminster Hall on numerous occasions in the broader context of how sixth-form colleges are treated, and we are all keen for the Minister to move forward on that. Other sixth-form colleges have the get-out clause that they can convert to academies and receive funding as a result. Only the Catholic sixth-form colleges cannot, which is particularly unfair when schools that convert to academies can retain their current status. It seems completely anomalous, as has been said, that Catholic sixth-form colleges are treated differently from other sixth-form colleges, and differently from other Catholic schools.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned another issue. I was not expecting to speak in today’s debate, so I do not have the figures to hand, but there is an issue with pupils in sixth-form colleges receiving less funding than pupils in schools. There is also still an issue with third-year funding, whereby they get even less if the pupil stays on at the sixth form for three years. Perhaps the school system failed the young people; perhaps they simply were not ready to grapple with education; or perhaps there were issues with their home circumstances. We have a lot of children in Bristol who have come from fairly chaotic family backgrounds. They might come from refugee families, for example. For one reason or another, they might not have left school with the GCSEs that we would want them to, so they might need to do three years at St Brendan’s. As I understand it, if they stay on for three years, the college gets less funding once they have passed 18. That might have been rectified because we have raised it with the Minister before, but perhaps he will address that point. As has been said, rectifying that would require only a short clause in the next education Bill. The discussions have been going on for a very long time.
I will finish by referring to a note that Michael Jaffrain, the principal of St Brendan’s, sent me recently, in which he asked me to speak in the debate. He said that the fact that Catholic sixth-form colleges are not allowed to become academies
“seriously limits choices in terms of future strategy.”
I have already said that the college has huge ambitions to expand, which I support. The principal also said:
“The ability not to be able to convert into the schools sector is now starting to have a real bite. Unlike the sixth form colleges who have converted, St Brendan’s will not receive any additional funding to cover the 2% increase in teacher pay and there is still no commitment that we will be fully funded for the 7% increase in teacher pension contributions. This, alongside the injustice that, unlike schools sixth forms, we still also have to pay VAT on all goods and services we purchase, is now putting a considerable strain on our finances and the ability to continue to deliver an outstanding education to our community.”
St Brendan’s serves not only my constituency, but constituencies in a significant range around the Bristol area. It is so important that we do all that we can to support it.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
This is a so-called EVEL debate—English votes for English laws—so we do not have a representative of the Scottish National party. I therefore call Mike Kane to speak for the Labour party.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Referring to a faith-based debate as an “EVEL debate” might not be the best phraseology.
In addition to being the Front-Bench spokesperson, I should declare that I am the convenor of the Catholic legislators’ network in Parliament. It is important that I put that on the record. It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who is an assiduous campaigner for his constituents. Both of us would like to see a day where we are talking not about academisation, but about the co-operatisation of more of our schools up and down the country. He is the country’s leading campaigner for the co-operative movement, in my opinion.
My second interest to declare is that I am a product of Loreto College in Manchester. Having grown up in a council flat and a council house, going to Loreto at the age of 16 widened my horizons unbelievably. It turned me on to politics. I had a lecturer called Colleen Harris, who is still alive. I want to get it in Hansard that I would not be in this place had it not been for her. Coming down here for the first time and seeing Parliament was one of the most amazing experiences that I got from going to that sixth form.
I was glad to visit the college the other week, to campaign to raise the rate, and to speak to the principal, Peter McGhee, who is also the principal of St John Rigby College in Wigan. It is great to know that my principal, Sister Patricia, is still on Loreto’s governing body. The only bit of the college that is left is the 19th-century grade II listed chapel. Otherwise, the college has been rebuilt completely, and serves the whole community of Manchester and Greater Manchester. In terms of social mobility, there was nowhere like it. It helped people from poor backgrounds such as my own to move forward, along with Xaverian College in Rusholme.
The Catholic Church is the biggest provider of education on the planet, and tomorrow 1.2 billion Catholics around the world will be celebrating one of their most solemn feasts: Ash Wednesday. It is a period of reflection, fast and abstinence, but for sixth-form colleges in this country the last 10 years have been a period of fast and abstinence. I want to put some of the figures that have already been stated on to the record. Since 2010, funding for 16 to 18-year-olds has been cut sharply. That is why we are talking about this matter today. Costs have risen, the needs of students have become more complex and the Government have demanded much more of colleges.
Recent research from London Economics found that, in real terms, sixth-form colleges received £1,380 less per student in 2016-17 than in 2010-11—a 22% decline in funding. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that funding per student aged 16 to 18 has seen the biggest squeeze of all stages of education for young people in recent years. We have had debate after debate in this Chamber about schools, but school funding started to be cut only in about 2015. Since then, about £1.7 billion has been taken out of the system. However, we have seen a continual attack on sixth-form colleges since 2010.
Sixth-form colleges are in a strange place. It is interesting that the Minister and I speak for stand-alone sixth-form colleges, but the responsibility for further education colleges sits with our counterparts in our teams. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West highlighted in his very good speech, funding per sixth-former is £4,545. That is 15% lower than for 11 to 16-year-olds, which is £5,341, and half the average university tuition fee, which is £8,901.
The impact on students could not be clearer. A recent funding impact survey found that 50% of schools and colleges have dropped courses in modern foreign languages as a result of funding pressures. As has been pointed out, 34% have dropped STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering, maths—and 67% have reduced student support services and extracurricular activities. Some 77% of schools are teaching students in larger class sizes. The national funding rate for 16 and 17-year-olds has remained frozen at £4,000 per student since 2013-14. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East pointed out, the rate for 18-year-olds is even lower, at £3,300 per student.
There is only one way to ensure that schools and colleges can continue to deliver competitively good sixth-form education, and that is to raise the rate. I congratulate the Sixth Form Colleges Association on its fine campaign on the issue. According to London Economics, raising the rate would protect student support services, mental health support and minority subject support, and would increase non-qualification time, extracurricular activities and work experience for those in sixth-form colleges. The Government like to target funding at individual subjects or qualifications, but that has had little impact; there are just higgledy-piggledy pots of money here and there for sixth-form colleges to bid for. As the hon. Member for Harrow East stated, the £500 million for T-levels—the Government’s proposed suite of technical qualifications—will not materialise until 2023.
The key point that has been made today is that the option to convert is not currently available to Catholic sixth-form colleges. Colleges that do not change status lose out in multiple ways, as has been mentioned. First, although school sixth forms and 16-to-19 academies have their VAT costs refunded, sixth-form colleges do not. That leaves the average sixth-form college with £386,000 less to spend on the frontline education of students each year.
Secondly, as has also been pointed out, sixth-form colleges face a further financial disadvantage due to the Government’s implementation of the teachers’ pay grant. In September 2018 the Government extended the teachers’ pay grant to cover 16-to-19 academies, but not sixth-form colleges. The Minister has to tell us why that is the case. Extending the teachers’ pay grant would make a huge difference. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West said in an intervention, we really need an answer from the Minister on that.
VAT and the teachers’ pay grant are the two examples of how sixth-form colleges are treated differently from 16-to-19 academies and schools. One solution would be to address both anomalies without requiring sixth-form colleges to change their legal status, but the other—and perhaps more realistic—solution would be for the Government to explore some legislative change. At the moment, Catholic sixth-form colleges will not convert for fear of losing their religious character, particularly if there were some sort of judicial review or legal challenge.
Non-Catholic sixth-form colleges have benefited from £10 million for conversion. That is another anomaly—Catholic sixth-form colleges have not been allowed to bid for that money, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) pointed out. He also spoke admirably about Carmel College in his constituency. The Government should commit to allowing Catholic sixth-form colleges to change their status after the March deadline in the area reviews, and ensure that they can access Government funding.
Catholic sixth-form colleges are prevented from converting to academies as their religious character, protected under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, would not be maintained under current Government rules. They suggest that they would lose protections in areas of the curriculum, acts of worship and governance. Most Catholic sixth-form colleges in this country provide a religious education basis, which is not funded through their Government funding, and extracurricular activities such as mass and prayer, which are unfunded, and chaplaincy work. The key nature of a Catholic sixth-form college and the essence of its governance, and the reason that they are education institutions that are highly prized, is their very strong ethical character in Catholic social teaching. The social teaching in the colleges is driven by human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity and preferential option for the poor, and that is what is highly prized by parents, both those of the Catholic faith and those not of the faith.
The director of the Catholic Education Service, Paul Barber, said in an article that
“because academisation legislation for SFCs was developed separately from schools, the same safeguards given to schools were omitted for Catholic SFCs”.
Under current Government rules, the colleges would lose protections for the religious character of areas of the curriculum, acts of worship and governance if they converted. Primary legislation would be required, but we have been discussing this for 28 months, and no action has been taken.
It would be an enormous act of good faith for the Government to begin to act. We have seen the problems that have arisen with the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment on the cap on new free schools for Catholic schools, which has led to the Catholic Church refusing to build any more schools in this country, when perhaps 50 are needed in London and 12 in East Anglia. The Government refused to raise the cap. Faith schools are feeling quite battered at the moment, particularly in a muscular liberal secularised world, and are concerned about their status with the Government. It would be an enormous act of good faith for the Minister to act on some of the issues facing Catholic sixth-form colleges today.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is not for the first time in my case, but I am not going to say that it is too often—it is never enough.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this debate. Catholic sixth-form colleges make an important contribution to education in this country and the Government recognise the distinctive role that they play. To address the important issue raised by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), we value faith schools generally. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that it is the right of parents to be able to bring up their children in their faith and that the state should provide faith schools to enable them to do that. The Government have provided capital through the voluntary-aided route to enable the Catholic Education Society to establish more Catholic faith schools in this country.
I am aware that the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills has met the hon. Member for Harrow West to discuss the issues facing this group of colleges. The Minister has also recently seen at first hand the quality of the educational and wider opportunities provided to young people at St. Dominic’s Sixth Form College in Harrow. I welcome the opportunity to explore the issues further today.
I want to begin by paying tribute to all the hard-working staff, principals, heads and governors in those colleges. Sixth-form colleges at their best not only provide excellent academic education, but help provide direction to young people and help them to grow in maturity through those crucial years. They allow young people to develop outside a school environment, giving them the aspiration to achieve in whatever field, job or career they want to pursue. Catholic sixth-form colleges provide that within an atmosphere of moral guidance and pastoral support.
Catholic sixth-form colleges represent a significant proportion of sixth-form colleges in England—14 out of 60, not including those that have become academies—and 17% of sixth-form college students attend a Catholic college. Such colleges are focused on meeting the needs of local communities and are key to our drive to improve social mobility. A high proportion of students in sixth-form colleges and 16-to-19 academies are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Colleges provide excellent support to help those students achieve high results and progress to sustained education, apprenticeships or employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) was right to point to the priority that Catholic sixth-form colleges give to social justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) pointed out that 12 of the 14 Catholic sixth-form colleges are rated “good” or “outstanding”. Academic excellence has always been, and remains, at the core. More than a third of sixth-form colleges are rated by Ofsted as “outstanding”. Looking at the 14 Catholic sixth-from colleges in England, the picture is even better, with seven out of the 14 rated “outstanding”, and five other colleges rated “good”. I recognise that that has been achieved in increasingly challenging financial circumstances.
Of course, an Ofsted rating is only a snapshot and I know that colleges are constantly reviewing their practices and procedures to see whether further improvements can be made. Two Catholic sixth-form colleges, for example, have benefited from support from the Government’s strategic college improvement fund. St Dominic’s Sixth Form College is partnering with St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College in south London. The fund supports colleges to improve the quality of provision and helps to mobilise and strengthen improvement capacity within the further education sector.
I congratulate sixth-form colleges on the successful implementation of the reforms to A-levels over the last few years, with the first wave of exams in 13 new subjects in 2017 and a further 12 last year. The reforms will continue to be rolled out over the next two years, with the first exams in a further 20 new A-levels in summer this year and another 13 next year. Exam reform is never easy. In the last 30 years, we have had four significant reforms to A-levels—the introduction of the advanced supplementaries, Curriculum 2000, which introduced the AS/A2 structure, the introduction of the A* grade a decade ago and now demodularisation.
In the run-up to the spending review that is expected later this year, we have been looking closely at the sustainability and funding of the FE sector, including sixth-form colleges. The Government understand that the sector faces significant challenges, and the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills has made it a personal priority to address the constraints and their impact over the last year. Campaigns such as “Love our Colleges” and “Raise the Rate” have helped raise the profile of FE and sixth-form colleges and their important work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East raised the issue of 16-to-19 funding for colleges compared with sixth forms in schools. We have ended that unfair discrimination between colleges and schools. All institutions now receive funding according to the same base rate. The funding system aims to ensure a common entitlement. The same formula is applied to all students and different institutions now receive the same funding rate.
However, we recognise that funding per student in the 16-to-19 phase has not kept up with costs. We protected the base rate for funding for 16 to 19-year-olds at £4,000 until the end of this spending review period, but that is, of course, against the backdrop of previous reductions and the impact of inflation—reductions that happened because we had to tackle the historic and unsustainable deficit that we inherited in 2010, representing 10% of GDP. As my hon. Friend the Member of Harrow East pointed out, we prioritised protecting core school funding for five to 16-year-olds, because that is where the biggest influence on life outcomes happens.
The position has been made more difficult by reducing numbers of students. The number of 16 to 18-year-olds in the population has been falling for 10 years and it is now 10% lower than in 2008-09.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) raised the issue of the lower base funding rate for the third year of 16-to-19 education. She is right to do so, but that lower level does not apply to students with special educational needs.
As the hon. Members for Harrow West and for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) pointed out, capital funding is a key concern for sixth-form colleges. Unlike general further education colleges, sixth-form colleges can bid for the condition improvement fund along with schools. Unlike academies, SFCs can borrow, and many have productive relationships with banks, although some of them have found it harder to borrow in recent years—a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East.
We recognise that an important challenge facing sixth-form colleges in many areas over the coming years is to prepare for the anticipated increase in student numbers. That increase is, of course, an opportunity to recruit additional students and receive the associated increased funding, but in some cases it needs extra up-front investment—for example, to build new classrooms—so we will look carefully in the spending review at how we can help colleges to prepare for the increase in student numbers that many of them now anticipate.
It is true that we have made a teacher pay grant available to schools and academies to ensure that they can afford to implement the school teacher pay award this year, and that it did not extend to FE or sixth-form colleges. Compared with maintained schools and academies, colleges have a different legal status and relationship with Government, and they are not covered by the recommendations of the School Teachers Review Body. We concluded that we could therefore not extend the teacher pay grant to colleges. We are considering colleges’ needs separately ahead of the coming spending review, to help make the case for the best FE funding. The Government are concerned about ensuring that FE colleges can attract and retain the staff they need to deliver high quality education. Again, we welcome the input of Catholic sixth-form colleges.
Gareth Thomas
I am not sure I accept the argument the Minister is making for the last pay award, but let us put that to one side for now. Can he tell us whether he has sorted the issues, so that the next teachers’ pay award will be fully funded not only for colleges that are academies, but for those that are not, such as the Catholic sixth-form colleges that have been mentioned and all post-16 institutions?
Nick Gibb
That will be very much an issue for the next spending review, but perhaps a neater solution would be to address the issue of the conversion of Catholic sixth-form colleges to academy status. I am aware that the issue of academy conversion is very significant for this group of colleges. Indeed, each Catholic sixth-form college was asked to consider joining an academy in the reports of the further education area reviews covering their areas, but I understand that only three of the 14 made an immediate decision not to pursue that option.
I should explain—as other hon. Members have explained—that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 includes specific freedoms, which permit Catholic sixth-form colleges to maintain and develop their religious character. Fully equivalent protections are not included in the legal framework for 16-to-19 academies, which are a distinctive type of institution compared with other academies established through the Education Act 2011. The provisions that allow sixth-form colleges to consider faith when appointing governors and staff, and that allow them to teach religious education and provide collective worship in line with tenets of the Catholic faith, do not currently exist for 16-to-19 academies.
When the legislative framework for 16-to-19 academies was first established, we did not envisage establishing them as faith-based 16-to-19 institutions. At the time, our view was that EU directive 2000/78/EC prevented the creation of new post-16 vocational institutions with a religious character. We had adopted a blanket approach, so that no post-16 provision could be established with a religious character. We are now exploring how to put in place the right conditions to enable Catholic sixth-form colleges to convert to academy status with their existing freedoms.
I know that my ministerial colleagues have met representatives of Catholic sixth-form colleges and the Catholic Education Service to discuss this issue. As the hon. Member for Harrow West pointed out, it would require primary legislation to make the necessary changes, but the Government’s legislative programme does not yet provide the scope for such legislation. We will of course keep this under review in future parliamentary Sessions, and we will continue to work with this group of colleges and with the hon. Gentleman to try to find a solution to this problem.
Bob Blackman
Clearly there is the issue of any potential legal impediment. Will the Minister confirm that, provided the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on 29 March, that legal impediment will fall way and it would be up to the Government to bring forward a change in the law—a private Member’s Bill could achieve the same—that would enable Catholic sixth-form colleges to academise if they chose to do so?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I think later legal advice shows that the issue is more nuanced than that, and it might be possible to legislate even while we remain subject to the EU directive. I very much hope that we can take that forward when an opportunity arises.
Last year, sixth-form colleges raised concerns about the creation of new 16-to-19 free schools and the approvals process for academies to create new sixth-form provision. We have listened to those concerns and strengthened the criteria we use to assess new sixth-form proposals. For all schools that apply to open a sixth form, we have set a clear requirement that all local sixth-form and FE colleges must be consulted prior to a business case being submitted. Furthermore, during the last free school application wave, we were explicit that all applications for new 16-to-19 provision must provide evidence of need for additional places in the area, and that any request is likely to be approved by exception only. In the guidance for wave 14, which we published recently, this requirement was strengthened further.
I conclude as I began: by paying tribute to the excellent academic achievements of Catholic sixth-form colleges and their support for improving social mobility among students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I recognise that such colleges have particularly felt the tightening financial circumstances, despite our protection of the base rate of funding. The issue of academisation is significant for the sector.
I echo the sentiments of the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills when she spoke at the winter conference of the Sixth Form Colleges Association in January. As we prepare for the spending review, explaining the issues through opportunities such as this debate will help provide strong arguments for the sector. More importantly, the continued delivery of excellent education and strong pastoral support and guidance will be the best advert for further investment in Catholic sixth-form colleges and all colleges in this important and high-performing sector.
Gareth Thomas
This has been an extremely good debate. I reinforce my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to secure it, and to Back-Bench colleagues and the shadow Minister for their contributions. I also thank the Minister for his thorough response. However, I have to say that from listening to him speak—notwithstanding the thorough contribution he made—it is clear that the double discrimination that Catholic sixth-form colleges face is unlikely to end any time soon.
I urge the Minister and Secretary of State for Education to give this issue further priority in the months to come. If the issue of the next teachers’ pay award being fully funded—not just funded in full for those colleges that have converted to become academies—could be resolved quickly, it would certainly provide some reassurance to Catholic sixth-form colleges and other post-16 institutions that are not academies. This issue needs to be sorted out. Although it is good that the Minister has been able to focus on it today, clearly more urgency is needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of Catholic sixth form colleges.
UK Relations with Kosovo
(5 years, 9 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
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK relations with Kosovo.
There have been three major debates about Kosovo in the history of this House. It is fitting to have this debate this month, because the first of those three debates took place in the shadow of war, on 25 March 1999, when the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, flew back from the European Council at Berlin—NATO air forces had commanded strikes against military targets in Yugoslavia the night before. Justifying that action, and mentioning the unity that eight NATO countries had demonstrated in taking that action, he said:
“The solid basis for that unity is our common revulsion at the violent repression that we witness in Kosovo. Since March last year, well over 400,000 people in Kosovo have at some point been driven from their homes. That is about a fifth of the total population.”—[Official Report, 25 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 536.]
I had many conversations with Robin Cook about Kosovo. My first interest in the country came from meeting members of the diaspora of 80,000 refugees from the war at one point. After Robin Cook resigned over the Iraq war, his office was next to mine. We had two conversation topics: Kosovo, which I learned a great deal about from talking to him, and horseracing. He misjudged me as an expert on horseracing, so I had to do a lot of swatting up—more than on Kosovo. He is remembered with great affection in Kosovo.
We had to wait eight years for the next debate, on 27 June 2007, led by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). He made one or two gentle criticisms of American policy—I will follow that tradition in a moment. This debate, 20 years after that action, was inspired by my recent visit with my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kosovo, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). We went for the eleventh celebration of Kosovan independence. I thank the chargé of Kosovo in London, Heroina Telaku, Her Majesty’s ambassador in Pristina, Ruairí O’Connell, and all the staff for making the arrangements.
We took with us three rising stars from the British Kosovan community: Freskim Rushiti, a banker; Artan Llabjani, from the British Albanian Business Association; and Fadil Maqedonci, who runs the Koha bar in Leicester Square, where Robin Cook went to meet some Kosovans during the war. We had a fascinating time and learned a great deal. Kosovo is now recognised by 116 countries, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and, importantly, by FIFA, the International Olympic Committee and UEFA. I will finish my remarks in a few minutes on sport. We had the honour to see Prekaz, which was the centre of much of the fighting, and the Jashari graves—a whole family bar one young girl were massacred, and the anniversary of that massacre is today. It made a great impression on the hon. Member for Cleethorpes and me. There are still 3,000 people missing from that war—not just Albanians but Serbs too.
I have some general points about contemporary issues in Kosovo and remarks about the contribution that the Kosovan diaspora can make. I was pleased that last week the President of Kosovo said that land swaps would never occur. Last year he talked about border corrections with Serbia, but that was the wrong approach. Quite a lot of money was spent on lobbying in London and elsewhere on the issue, but I am glad the President has changed approach. The Prime Minister and the Parliament were right to be wary of land swaps, border corrections or whatever they are called. They could be very destabilising in the Balkans.
A delegation from North Macedonia is in Parliament at the moment, whom I was talking to yesterday. When borders start getting swapped in the Balkans, it can be destabilising. One member of the diaspora told me that land swaps should never be an issue for just one man to decide, and Kosovo as a nation will never allow it to happen. The Parliament’s approach to have a negotiating team, involving opposition parties, is a good one. Given that the President has clarified his position, I hope the United States will back away from statements that some officials have made to suggest land swaps, deals with President Putin and so on. A sober approach is needed, and I hope progress can be made.
It was good to see the Kosovo army on parade for the first time. Before this year, they were a defence force. It is an appropriate move for Kosovo to make.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Good work has been done by our own UK Government to support the reform and restructuring of the police force, among other initiatives. That is essential for this war-ravaged area. Nothing must be allowed to detract from the advance to more modern and acceptable policing. Some of my constituents who are ex-Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland are involved in some of that training. They are doing excellent work and should be commended for it.
John Grogan
The hon. Gentleman is completely right about the efforts that the British and others have made to train the police and the army. I understand that, on average, four cadets each year train in the United Kingdom.
There are still heavy tariffs between Kosovo and Serbia. That decision was made in response to perceived Serbian interference in Kosovo’s attempt to be recognised by Interpol. I hope that in time the tariffs can be lifted, because economic relations and contacts between Serbia and Kosovo are very important to encourage normalisation and a final agreement. Countries that trade with each other are far more likely to reach a final agreement.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am a member of the Council of Europe, which is very interested in helping to provide stability in Kosovo. One of the great things we could do, with the help of the hon. Gentleman and others, is to push the case for human rights. That has gone very slowly, despite the actions of the Council of Europe to try to increase them. Could he see his way to help with that?
John Grogan
The hon. Gentleman is right; human rights are very important, as is the Council of Europe’s work in Kosovo. The treatment of the Serb minority is important to Kosovo’s reputation and future.
The diaspora of 30,000 in the United Kingdom are important to encourage economic links. There are Kosovan students in the UK; there are five Chevening scholarships and many others besides. We also visited the Kosovo Innovation Centre, run by Uranik Begu. It was a window on the world for many young Kosovars working in new technology in the digital economy. It was a highly skilled workforce. Fox Marble is the biggest British investor in Kosovo. It has four quarries in the centre of Kosovo and is listed on the stock exchange. Hopefully there will be more investors in future.
I suggest to Her Majesty’s Government that it may be time for a trade envoy to the Balkans—the hon. Member for Cleethorpes would be an ideal candidate. It is notable that although the Department for International Trade is involved in Belgrade and has a couple of local members of staff who cover Serbia and Montenegro, there is nothing similar in Albania and Kosovo. I hope that in time that might change. I invite you, Mr Davies, to a future event I will organise with my APPG co-chair to showcase Kosovan wine. There are 3,000 hectares of vineyards in the country. Stone Castle is the most famous name but there are others. The BBC now has a news service in Serbian, which I understand is listened to quite a lot by the minority. That has provided another news source in the past year.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentions the BBC. The British Council, another British institution, has an important role in the region. I did a number of projects with Kosovan young people in 2002 and 2003. Does he agree that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that the British Council is able to access both EU funding and, in the light of Brexit, other non-British funding so it can continue those important democracy-building projects with young people?
John Grogan
Yes. During our visit we heard many people praise the work of the British Council in Pristina and elsewhere in Kosovo. We also met the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is very active and engages with all the political parties.
It would be wrong when talking about the diaspora not to mention sport and culture. Rita Ora and Dua Lipa are both of Kosovan extraction. Mr Davies, you will be familiar with Rita Ora’s first hit, “Hot Right Now”. She has gone on to have many No. 1 hits. There is a big debate in Kosovo about which artist is the greatest. I could not possibly say, but Rita Ora’s dad has a pub in north London—the Queen’s Arms—so that probably does it for me. Nevertheless, there are many following in their footsteps.
In sport, Majlinda Kelmendi won Kosovo’s first Olympic gold medal. There is a healthy competition with Albania, which has never won a medal at the Olympics. Majlinda said she had proved to the youngsters of Kosovo that
“even after the war, even after we survived a war, if they want something they can have it. If they want to be Olympic champions, they can be.”
She has inspired a whole new generation of judokas, some of whom I and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes met at the independence celebrations. There is a Yorkshire connection to everything, and one of the leading Kosovar footballers, Atdhe Nuhiu, plays for Sheffield Wednesday. He came on late in the steel city derby last night. He did not manage to score, but he is one of a generation of Kosovar footballers who are inspiring the nation, too.
I will finish on football in a moment, but let me just say that corruption has to be confronted. Our ambassador, Ruairí O’Connell, made a very good speech about that recently. He pointed out that, although a high number of leading figures—more than 50, I think—had been indicted over the past three years, they had all been acquitted. He said Kosovo is “100% responsible” for dealing with corruption. That issue has to be dealt with if Kosovo wants more investment.
I mentioned football. Kosovo will play its biggest ever games against England, home and away, in the qualifiers for the European football championships at Wembley in September and in Pristina in November. I and my APPG co-chair believe that the day of the game in Pristina, which is on a Sunday afternoon, could be a day to celebrate the United Kingdom’s culture and to forge more economic links between our two countries.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Thank you. Kosovan wine, “Hot Right Now”, football—and now we have Martin Vickers.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my APPG co-chair, the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan), on obtaining this important debate. I concur with everything he said.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was delighted to be in Pristina a couple of weeks ago to mark independence day on 17 February. That was the third occasion I have had the privilege of being there, and it is always a joyful occasion, on which the local people can show how proud they are of their nation. I too wish to thank our ambassador, Ruairí O’Connell, and the staff of Parliament and the Kosovan embassy here in London, who helped put together our visit and have always been extremely helpful.
We had a number of important meetings, including with the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers, but we also met important young people who are developing the economy, particularly in the IT sector. The innovation centre in Pristina was very impressive, and there are certainly opportunities, perhaps including those created by the football tournament, to develop our business connections further. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, Fox Marble is a major British investor in Kosovo. It has testified to the fact that it is possible to do business between Kosovo and the UK, although, as has been said, there is an acknowledgement that more must be done to tackle corruption.
Having taken two or three minutes of the hon. Gentleman’s time, I will hand over to the Minister. I hope that he is able to develop the themes we have touched on.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) for securing the debate and for all the work he and his colleagues do to promote relations between the United Kingdom and Kosovo. I am grateful, too, for the other contributions we have heard.
As we know, the United Kingdom was the first country to recognise the independence of Kosovo 11 years ago, and we are as committed to friendship and partnership with Kosovo now as we were then. Today, Kosovo’s diaspora is a powerful bridge between the UK and Kosovo. As we heard, British pop star Rita Ora, who was born in Pristina, has supported Kosovo’s survivors of sexual violence by sending the clear message that their dignified fight for justice is a source of great pride. Dua Lipa, who is the daughter of Kosovan parents and winner of multiple Grammy and Brit awards, is patron of Kosovo’s Sunny Hill Foundation, which supports some of the most vulnerable people in Kosovo. Leonora Brajshori, the young British Army weightlifter, now competes for Kosovo.
Today, our two nations share a thriving and candid bilateral relationship—a relationship reinforced by our growing programme of technical assistance, which is designed to help the Government of Kosovo to deliver the reforms necessary for the country to make progress towards robust institutions and western standards of governance, and founded on our unequivocal support for Kosovo’s independence and territorial integrity, and for its integration into the international community. We are very conscious that Kosovo will struggle to reach its potential if it does not enjoy peaceful and productive relations with its neighbours, so a significant strand of our policy to help Kosovo thrive is to support greater harmony and co-operation in the region.
As the hon. Member for Keighley will have witnessed during his visits to the country, Kosovo has great potential and offers many opportunities for economic development. Kosovo has Europe’s youngest population, widespread foreign language skills and increasing digital literacy. Those assets can help Kosovo to succeed in an era when technology makes it easier than ever for ambitious individuals and companies to access consumers around the globe. That is why, through the British Council, which has been mentioned, the UK is contributing to building vital digital skills in Kosovo and right across the western Balkans with our 21st Century Schools programme. That programme, which will be launched later this month, will provide 1 million schoolchildren with coding and problem-solving skills.
On the point about the Department for International Trade, the DIT staff in Belgrade and Sarajevo cover the whole region. Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff are in close touch with the DIT to help UK companies to exploit the economic opportunities that clearly exist in the region.
However, although we are right to focus on the opportunities in Kosovo, we must also acknowledge important constraining factors. First, although Kosovo has many assets that provide trade and investment potential, there are also risks. That is why, through the embassy in Pristina, we work with the Government of Kosovo to ensure that international businesses have a level playing field and that Kosovo is tackling challenges such as corruption, uneven contract enforcement, arbitration and access to justice or remediation.
Secondly, the opportunities that exist are not equally accessible to all, which is why we and others in the international community are promoting greater inclusion of women and girls and of members of marginalised communities.
Thirdly, organised crime and corruption remain serious challenges, even after almost two decades of international support. We urge Kosovo’s leadership to do more to show that it is a reliable partner, ready to root out crime and corruption, and promote the rule of law. We put those security-related challenges at the heart of the Western Balkans summit, which we hosted last July, for good reason: we have a vested interest in helping Kosovo and the wider region to tackle the problems.
A part of Kosovo’s standing as an independent country is the development of its own armed forces, which is the sovereign right of an independent state. We continue to encourage Kosovo to do that in close consultation with NATO, and expect it to continue to co-operate closely with the Kosovo force—KFOR—as it has done to date.
Unfortunately, regional tensions continue to undermine stability and economic development in the Balkans, and recent months have brought unwelcome friction between the Governments of Serbia and Kosovo. We have seen Serbia urge countries to withdraw their recognition of Kosovo’s independence and we have seen Kosovo impose 100% tariffs on goods from Serbia and from Bosnia and Herzegovina. All that distracts from the EU facilitated dialogue on the normalisation of relations. We look to Kosovo and Serbia to seize the opportunity for an agreement, taking their inspiration from the leadership shown by Greece and what is now North Macedonia in reaching an agreement to resolve a long-standing name issue.
We believe progress between Serbia and Kosovo is possible and urgently needed, but that negotiations should not just be about speed, but should focus on reaching the optimum and most sustainable agreement. We continue to press both sides to de-escalate tensions and to return to negotiations. With our international partners, we have asked Kosovo’s Government to set out the steps they intend to take to suspend the tariffs and enable a return to the dialogue. It is in Kosovo’s interests to maintain momentum towards an agreement.
The United Kingdom believes that a dialogue agreement based on border changes risks endangering stability in Kosovo, Serbia and beyond, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in North Macedonia, as the hon. Member for Keighley said in his opening remarks. Border changes would also risk setting a precedent that could be unhelpfully exploited by third parties in the region and elsewhere. We are at an important juncture in negotiations, with the prospect of making progress this year. A conclusive and sustainable agreement would usher in an era of stability and economic development.
We urge all parties to remain focused on an agreement that strengthens regional security and stability, abides by the European principle of multi-ethnicity, commands the support of democratically elected representatives in both countries, strengthens the rule of law and comprehensively addresses all issues outstanding from previous agreements. Achieving those aims requires all sides to respect Kosovo’s democratic right to determine how and by whom the country is represented in the negotiations. Therefore, we see Kosovo’s formation of a state delegation, which it is working to put on a legal footing, as a positive step forward. A broad-based negotiating team, representing a plurality of voices, will be better equipped to deliver a comprehensive agreement acceptable to Kosovo’s people and Parliament.
The United Kingdom will continue to devote sustained political and diplomatic effort to bring about such an agreement. The United Kingdom’s support for the countries of the western Balkans is in our mutual interest. Instability and insecurity in the region have implications for the United Kingdom and Europe, as we saw at immense human cost during the conflicts of the 1990s. As the Prime Minister made clear at our Western Balkans summit last year, the United Kingdom remains resolute in support of the region’s path towards Euro-Atlantic integration. That includes our efforts to help to resolve legacy issues, such as missing persons and war crimes, and to combat serious and organised crime.
The UK’s commitment to European security will remain steadfast after we leave the EU. To reinforce this, we are doubling our programme funding for the western Balkans to £80 million a year by 2021 and also doubling the number of staff we have in the region working to combat security threats. The UK is Kosovo’s friend. We want the country and its people to thrive, and we will help them to do so. In turn, Kosovo has to be open to dealing with its challenges, as well as celebrating its successes. For that to be effective, Kosovo will need its friends and I am proud to say that we in the United Kingdom can count ourselves among them.
Question put and agreed to.
Regional Transport Infrastructure
(5 years, 9 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
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered investment in regional transport infrastructure.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I declare an interest as Mayor of the Sheffield city region and as a board member of Transport for the North.
This debate comes at a critical moment in our country’s history and for Britain’s regions. While the debate is about investment in our regional transport infrastructure, it is also about fairness and equality of opportunity for all parts of our country, because getting the right transport infrastructure in place will determine the ability of different parts of the country to contribute to national prosperity, as we face the future. If we believe in social mobility, we must ensure practical mobility, so that people can move around to access opportunities. Connecting people with the places that they need to go to is critical if we are to connect our nation’s most talented people with the opportunities that will enable them to reach their potential.
Our country finds itself at a crossroads. We must not lose sight of the fact that in 2016 a huge number of citizens participated in one of the most important democratic exercises in our recent history: they voted for Britain to leave the European Union. I do not claim to hold all the answers as to why they did that—none of us should—because there is no overarching or unifying theory that can explain the Brexit vote. The referendum campaign became about immigration, national sovereignty, our international relationships and trade, but it was also about how well our democracy and our politics had responded to the challenges and concerns that people face in their daily and working lives.
The answer that we got was that the status quo was simply not delivering for many parts of our country, and that people wanted change. That is entirely understandable, because in places like Barnsley, which I represent, and south Yorkshire, there is an overwhelming sense of frustration that for too long the decisions made by successive Governments have not gone nearly far enough to match the aspirations and expectations of residents, and neither have they addressed the long-term structural barriers that have held communities back from reaching their potential. Alongside that is an increasing concern that for too long Britain’s regions and nations, outside London and the south-east, have not seen their fair share of investment.
I emphasise the phrase “Britain’s regions”, which I am always careful to use, because it is not about the north versus the south. Communities in the south-west, the midlands, the east of England, the north-east and the north-west, and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are as relevant to this debate as the communities in Yorkshire that I am proud to represent. This is not about north versus south—in fact, when it comes to transport infrastructure, the divide is often more east-west than north-south—but about the fact that city-led development has meant that growth has not been inclusive for those living outside the reach of cities.
The ink-spot approach to regional development has failed to serve many of our people and our economy. Our economic strategy has been too city-centric and dependent on the hope that wealth will trickle down and ripple out.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I appreciate that it is about the way that we invest, as much as where we invest. Does he agree that some of the expensive national infrastructure investment that has taken place risks alienating areas that are not regionally connected to that investment, no matter where they are in the country? For example, with HS2 there is no confirmation from the Government that the line north of York will be upgraded, which will make parts of the north even further away from that national infrastructure investment, rather than benefiting from HS2.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If this Government—or any Government—want to be taken seriously about investing in infrastructure that will benefit all parts of the country, it is absolutely right that they take into account the important and reasonable point that she makes.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the Government need to commit to and invest in schemes that will benefit regions? For example, the western rail link to Heathrow—which the Government committed to in 2012, but about which they have since been dragging their feet—would benefit not only my constituency in Slough, but Wales, the south-west, the west and the south-east. It would mean that 20% of the UK population would be within one interchange of the Heathrow hub airport. Should the Government be dragging their feet or should they finally be taking some action?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point, for which I am grateful. The Minister will have heard him, and perhaps he will respond later.
In rural, semi-rural or coastal areas, and in areas such as former coalfield communities like the one that I am proud to represent, there is undoubtedly a strong sense that residents feel cut off from the major centres of growth. That is partly because across our regions we have a transport system that is disjointed and serves neither communities nor businesses as well as it should.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I, too, represent a coalfield community and can relate to what my hon. Friend is saying. One or two trains per hour serve the stations in my constituency, but two of the three stations that constituents might use have no disabled access, which means that parents with prams also struggle to use them. It is not north versus south, but it often feels like town versus city.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point and I will say something about the criteria that determine national infrastructure spend later. I am conscious that there will be people who will not necessarily be riveted by a debate about the criteria that determine national infrastructure spend, but as my hon. Friend clearly articulated, these are incredibly important matters that impact hugely on the lives that our constituents lead.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for his incredibly powerful opening speech. In Batley and Spen, we have one railway station, so would he agree that buses are needed more than ever before? With the recent shake-up of the timetable, we are getting fast buses into the cities but we are not getting connectivity between communities, which, as he has said, leaves some communities increasingly isolated.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and Yorkshire neighbour for that important intervention. I was hoping someone would refer to buses. Debates of this nature traditionally tend to focus on rail, but the reality for many of our constituents is that buses are a lifeline that enable them to go and do the things they need to do, whether that is travel to work, access vital public services or travel in their leisure time.
I was delighted that a week ago my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is not here, agreed to conduct an independent review of bus services in south Yorkshire. That provides an exciting opportunity to look carefully at the issue of bus services. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) will know that the number of people using bus services has fallen significantly in recent years. In south Yorkshire, we will look carefully at the reasons for that and look at how we can improve the bus services, which are a lifeline to many constituents.
The last two interventions highlight an important point: many people around our country feel disempowered and alienated, and that raises a big question about how we give people a stake in their communities and in our country as a whole. I believe the answer to that lies partly in how we respond to people’s concerns about Britain’s regional divide. We must respond to those concerns by strengthening our regional policy so that we have a joined-up approach to addressing the systemic structural imbalances in our economy.
We have before us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put that right, and I believe that collectively we must rise to that challenge. As we face the future, we need to have all parts of our country contributing to Britain’s national prosperity. We in the north are prepared to do our bit, but the Government must in turn recognise the crucial role that transport infrastructure will play in helping us to do so.
Roads and railways are the lifeblood of our economy. They are vital in connecting people with the places they want to go for work, access to public services and leisure. If we are to address the long-term structural imbalances in our country’s economy so that we have stronger networks between towns, cities and rural locations, we must have a serious programme of investment in our transport infrastructure. That must include investment in innovative technologies such as tram-train, the first of which we have in south Yorkshire, running between Sheffield and Rotherham.
Integrated with all that is the need to do all we can to promote active travel as a means of getting out and about within our towns and cities. I know the Minister will be supportive of that. Chris Boardman has been doing a sterling job as Mayor Andy Burnham’s walking and cycling commissioner in Greater Manchester. I will soon be announcing the appointment of an active travel commissioner for the Sheffield city region, and I have received confirmation that the next Transport for the North board meeting in April will, for the first time, include discussion of active travel, which I very much welcome.
Active travel is not about telling residents that they should ditch their cars or public transport, but about giving them the option to lead healthier, more active lives by investing in infrastructure to encourage more sustainable transport, walking and cycling—maybe even running, but we will see how that one goes.
We know the benefits of having strong transport networks in place around good economic infrastructure. Commuters find it easier to access sites of employment. Businesses can shift their goods to both domestic and international markets. Strong transport infrastructure is a key driver of both productivity and growth, but, unfortunately, too many communities across the north know all too well the consequences of poor connectivity. It has an impact on residents living in rural and semi-rural areas, who struggle to access the major sites of employment. It constrains the reach of our businesses, wastes the talent and skills of our workforce, and stifles our competitiveness. It is a drag on our productivity.
When we get this right, we can make a real difference. I will give an example of where we have done that. The Great Yorkshire Way is a stretch of road built to link up Doncaster Sheffield airport with the M18. The last mile of the Great Yorkshire Way is the most significant mile of road built in south Yorkshire for decades. From an initial investment of £56 million, with both the public and the private sectors working together, our region unlocked £1.8 billion-worth of investment, creating 1,200 jobs, supporting national airport capacity by delivering airport growth, and aiding the development of iPort, which is one of the UK’s largest logistics developments. All of that was achieved while regenerating a former colliery community.
In order to achieve our potential, the north’s existing and future economic clusters must be better connected.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important debate to the Chamber. He makes a powerful argument, particularly in favour of infrastructure support for all regions. In the north, one of the most important infrastructure support projects is Northern Powerhouse Rail, but unfortunately it is reliant on the successful completion of HS2, which itself is in doubt. Does he agree that we need these projects to go ahead regardless and not be reliant on London-based projects?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with him, and in just a moment I will say more about Northern Powerhouse Rail, because it is an important case.
Before I do, I will give another example of how we can achieve growth as a result of investment in regional transport infrastructure: the plan for an east coast main line link-up with Doncaster Sheffield airport. The creation of a station serving the airport has so much potential. It will support the expansion of the airport, create a major economic hub around it and make a further contribution to the UK’s national aviation capacity.
Better connecting our communities and neighbourhoods is how we give people the means to get from where they live to the economic opportunities that are being created around us. It is how we give businesses the means to shift their goods from one place to another in the most cost-effective and efficient way. The truth of the matter is, though, that there are not enough instances where we have managed to achieve those things, because despite having the ambition, we have not had the investment.
Transport for the North has a key role to play in looking at how we can make significant improvements right across the north of England. Last month, the Transport for the North board signed off its strategic transport plan, which calls for an ambitious and bold £70 billion programme of investment in the north’s transport networks. We also agreed the strategic outline business case for Northern Powerhouse Rail, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) just referred to, and which will better connect Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Hull and Newcastle.
TfN’s plans are hugely significant, because they remind us of what we are working towards: a transport network that fully integrates all parts of the north, connects our people and businesses with opportunities both within and beyond our great towns and cities, and transforms our economy so that it works better for the 15 million residents of the north. I take the opportunity today to ask the Minister, when he responds to this debate, to say something about how the Government intend to resource those important plans. As he will know, leaders across the north have agreed to a plan that will make a meaningful and lasting difference, but we now need the Government to get behind it and support it.
The situation we find ourselves in is underpinned by a systemic unfairness in the way that the Treasury allocates funding for major projects. The current Green Book criteria used by Government are automatically skewed toward better-performing areas, because they naturally favour areas with lots of latent demand, but do not properly recognise that transport infrastructure is a stimulus for economic growth and supports the growth of new demand as well as being a response to existing demand.
Looking at the Government’s own figures, for every £1 of public infrastructure investment spent on transport across Yorkshire and the Humber, £3.20 is spent on London’s transport networks. I am not suggesting that London should have less spent on its transport infrastructure; not only would I be in big trouble with Mayor Sadiq Khan, but investment is critical in maintaining our capital city’s vital transport networks. What I am saying is that, across Britain’s regions, we simply have not had anywhere near enough of what is required to begin to address our economic challenges.
The Government have been talking a lot about issues surrounding regional inequality, industrial strategy, growth and productivity, but if we are not prepared to make investments on the scale that is needed, we will fail to meet the productivity challenge the Government have set. The second question I would like the Minister to address today is whether he will look at the Green Book criteria with his colleagues at the Treasury, so that he can satisfy himself that the funding allocation is fair.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I represent a small but beautiful island, and we are in exactly the same iniquitous position with Green Book funding. Because we are an island, we cannot use Portsmouth or Southampton in our argument; they are the wrong side of the Solent. It is not only the hon. Gentleman’s area that suffers but mine as well.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to discuss it with his Treasury colleagues. I met the Chancellor recently, and I know that he is keen to hear representations from people who share my view that the current system is not fair.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is making some important points. As a midlander, I class my constituency as being northern. I will give the hon. Gentleman some hope: we were able to secure more than £50 million of funding in my constituency to improve the A50. The Government put that money up and it is making a real difference. He is absolutely right about engaging with the Government and the Treasury. I am the proof of the pudding that the Government want to improve infrastructure in the north.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I hope other hon. Members take it as their cue to make similar representations on projects for which they seek funding, and I hope that the Government will give them the same support that they have given the hon. Gentleman.
I will make one final point on the importance of devolution. There is little point in giving regions the funding if we do not have the robust frameworks through which to decide where best to spend those resources. I know that my Yorkshire neighbour, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), gives a huge amount of consideration to that. He knows, as I do, that there is great potential in Yorkshire. The Great Yorkshire Way shows the power that investment can have in unlocking possibilities for businesses and communities across our region.
We also know that political leaders in the north are ready, as they have shown in recent weeks and months, to work constructively together and with stakeholders to make a real difference. We have seen great enthusiasm for devolution in Yorkshire; not everyone in this room is entirely convinced, but I am working on them.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He tempts me on devolution. I am absolutely committed to devolution in Yorkshire, but we have to get the right type of devolution. He is a trailblazer with the city region devolution deal that he has struck with the Government. Does he agree that the best form of devolution to Yorkshire would be on a city region basis, including to Sheffield, Leeds, Hull and York?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which he has made with consistency and clarity over a number of years. I always enjoy having that debate, as we will be having in Leeds on Friday, although I am not sure whether he will be there.
Dan Jarvis
I extend an invitation to him. There is an important debate to be had about Yorkshire devolution, and I was pleased to meet not only the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government but the Government Chief Whip at Fountains Abbey on Friday to discuss it. I think we agree that there is an absolute requirement to move as quickly as possible to put in place a system of devolution that will best serve our great county. We may not be able to agree on precisely what that is today, but it is important that we reach agreement in the near future.
When thinking about regional transport infrastructure, we should be guided by the simple principle that we should connect our people to the places that they want to go for work, to access public services and for leisure, creating opportunities where we can and connecting people to them. That is how we give people a stake in their communities and in our country.
As we prepare for the future and life beyond the Brexit debate, all our regions and nations must be given the very best opportunity to contribute to our national prosperity. If we do not invest in regional transport infrastructure, we will not give the people we serve the tools they need to thrive, nor will we answer the concerns that motivated people to vote leave in the referendum. However, we can only do that if the Government support us. There are real opportunities before the Minister to help us to do that. I hope he takes them up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
I am sure that Members can see how many people wish to speak. I suggest that, out of consideration for each other, Members limit their speeches to about three minutes. I will not impose a time limit; I will leave it to Members.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I thank him for securing the debate. I will touch briefly on devolution, which has proven to be the most intractable political situation in Yorkshire—much more so than Brexit—over the past five or 10 years. However, I am sure that there is a way forward, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that we find it, so that we can properly exert our influence over central Government on hugely important matters, such as transport investment in our counties.
As the Chancellor admitted in his Budget speech in November 2016, no other major developed country has as large a productivity gap between its capital and its second and third cities as the UK. We are the most regionally imbalanced nation, which is a huge issue that we must deal with. London is 50% more productive than the regions of England—not only the north—and has 50% higher wages, on average, than the north. There is a direct correlation there. This is not about spending for spending’s sake; it is about the prosperity of the people we represent. There is no doubt that infrastructure spending has been disproportionately higher in the capital than in the regions, and redressing that imbalance will transform the economy right across the UK.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in seeking to redress that imbalance, it is critical to present an ask, as it were, to the Department for Transport? When the Cheltenham cyber-park needed transport infrastructure, the Department provided £22 million, showing that, where there is a clear goal to improve infrastructure, it is keen to help where it can.
Kevin Hollinrake
I totally agree. I will come shortly to the clear ask, which has been set out for us by Transport for the North.
The Government are doing much. By 2021, infrastructure investment spending as a percentage of GDP will be at its highest for the last 30 years, while the national productivity investment fund will increase to £37 billion by 2023-24. The Government recognise that this is an issue. We must always make sure that we spend wisely and, in many cases, the minimum amount, because this is taxpayers’ money.
However, in my view there is a difference between recurrent spending—much of which is important but which we clearly have to keep under control, making sure that we run a surplus, rather than a deficit—and investment spending. A business would treat the two things differently in its accounts. Businesses have balance sheets and they also look at profit and loss. Investment spending goes on the balance sheet. We should look at investment spending in our regions in a completely different light from other types of spending, particularly in the north.
I support Transport for the North’s recent strategic plan. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central rightly referred to £3 being spent per capita in London for every £1 spent per capita in the north. However, it is not all to do with central Government spending or central allocations. Much of it is about local authority spending and private sector investment. It is important that we recognise that difference. Nevertheless, Transport for the North’s strategic transport plan sets out very clearly the £70 billion of spending needed between now and 2050, which would contribute an extra £100 billion gross value added to our economy and 850,000 jobs. That is a compelling case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) referred to earlier.
Yes, part of it is about Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is so important to connect Liverpool to Manchester, to Bradford, to Leeds, to Hull and to Scarborough, and to go up into the north-east as well, but when that is delivered is also key. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider, if possible, in his closing remarks when Northern Powerhouse Rail will be delivered, because the key ask in the Transport for the North strategic plan is that it be delivered to coincide with High Speed 2 delivery in 2033, and that would involve bringing forward the very important Northern Powerhouse Rail plan.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central on initiating the debate. I look forward to listening to further contributions.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this important debate.
Since becoming Lincoln’s MP, I have consistently been told that Lincoln’s transport infrastructure does not work effectively for those who use it. I am working hard with local stakeholders to create a vision of a better connected Lincoln. I wanted to know how residents thought that transport in Lincoln could be improved, so I did two things: I held a community engagement event, and I sent out a survey locally. The survey showed that people in Lincoln are currently not engaging with the public transport options available to them and therefore car travel is by far the most common way of travelling in the city. Residents expressed concerns about the value for money and punctuality of local transport. When I asked what would incentivise public transport use, “lower fares” was by far the most popular response. That is not surprising, because in the last year local bus fares in England have risen by 2.8%, increasing faster than wages and inflation.
The Government’s austerity agenda has meant that, since 2010, bus budgets have been cut by 45%, leading to thousands of routes being cut or withdrawn, and last year saw the lowest level of bus journeys per head on record. The concerns raised by my constituents reflect the fact that, under this Government, Lincolnshire’s transport infrastructure has consistently been neglected. Analysis last year by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that London was allocated more than three and a half times more transport funding per capita than the east midlands. My constituents deserve just as much investment as people living in London, but this Government have facilitated an unacceptable rise in regional inequalities.
Before the railways were privatised, our city had direct services to Birmingham, Coventry, Crewe and Chester. Those have all disappeared over the past 30 years. That is the logic of our fragmented and privatised public services: regional transport links become more unprofitable and are therefore discontinued. Shareholders are protected while people and our communities lose out.
Lincoln lacks the strategic service that might be expected for a city of its size. It has a very limited service to London and no east-west services running beyond Nottingham. Along with Lord Patrick Cormack, I have campaigned for the promise of extra trains from London to Lincoln later this year to be honoured, and we are keeping our fingers crossed on that one, but there are currently no clear plans for the improvement of east-west services beyond Nottingham.
Local stakeholders unanimously agree that electrification of the joint line between Peterborough, Spalding, Lincoln and Doncaster would be hugely beneficial in improving our regional interconnectivity, but a Network Rail report last year predicted that any upgrades were not to be expected until after the 2030s, once HS2 has been completed. I can see the benefit of improving transport to and from London, but I think that this Government often forget that not every journey in the UK goes through our capital.
Over the past 20 years there have been relatively few changes to Lincolnshire’s rail network, and almost no service enhancements or changes to the rolling stock. Economic modelling by the Greater Lincolnshire local enterprise partnership indicated that improvements in rail services would lead to substantial benefits to our regional and national economy. Merely bringing existing services up to Network Rail’s “good” standard could bring about a £34 million increase in GDP per year, and improvements in line with the best equivalent services in the UK could be worth as much as £167 million. That shows that investing in our regional transport infrastructure can set in motion a virtuous cycle of prosperity that benefits commuters, businesses and residents, but the Government refuse to recognise that.
It is clear that this Government have consistently neglected Lincolnshire’s transport infrastructure, along with every other region outside London. Like many of my colleagues, I will continue to work hard to deliver improvements that are in line with the wants and needs of my local community, but it is difficult to do that when we have one hand tied behind our back by a fragmented, shareholder-driven, privatised system and the other hand tied by a Government who refuse to distribute transport investment fairly across all regions of the UK.
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
The two Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople have kindly agreed to reduce their time to seven minutes each, which gives us an extra six minutes, but that still puts pressure on, so I just remind right hon. and hon. Members to be considerate.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, won by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), on investment in regional transport infrastructure. I believe that there is a powerful good news story on this. It is not unalloyed, not perfect, not quite as good as we would like it to be, but it is still very positive overall. When I was growing up in Liverpool, we used to be able to look over at Runcorn bridge. Runcorn bridge had not been upgraded—it had been over capacity for decades. That was the result of under-investment by Governments of both colours. It was fantastic to see the Mersey Gateway being delivered, a £1.2 billion investment—
Chris Green
I will not take an intervention because of the time constraints, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the tolls that have been put on the bridge. I would rather that had not been done, because it is a major local concern. However, that upgrade should have been delivered decades ago.
We also have Liverpool2—a £400 million investment in the docks. That is an immense commitment from a private company, but there is an understanding that, economically, the country is going in the right direction. A company has to have confidence in the future of the country, the economic prosperity of the country and the manufacturing in the country in order to invest £400 million in a new docks system, and I understand that it wants to upgrade that further.
It is very positive that electrification has gone ahead between Liverpool and Manchester. The project is ongoing between Manchester and Preston. It has suffered too many delays, which are very disappointing for my commuters. However, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central was right to highlight that this is not just about connecting cities; it is about connecting communities, such as Blackrod, Horwich and Lostock in my constituency. The electrification project will join them together or provide an enhanced service once it is completed.
People are looking into extending the tram-train system out to Hag Fold, Atherton and Daisy Hill, which would be a further advantage for my constituents, making them better connected and making work more accessible. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will maintain his focus on—and ensure that the Government’s focus is on—the central importance of the northern powerhouse. Fundamentally, it is about connectivity. It is about having that wealth of talent in the north-west, and indeed across the north of England, and ensuring that those in that pool of talent can work together, so that we can attract the best businesses and give our young people the best opportunities.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I will try desperately hard to confine my comments to just three minutes. I would like to start by being kind to the Minister and thanking him for his personal support in getting the A63 project working in Hull. That has been 20 years coming—for 20 years it has been a battle to get the bridge built and the A63 work done. I am thanking the Minister partly because I want that support and help to continue until the project is completely finished—I hope to buy myself some favours there.
Hull does have a bright future. In 2017 it was the UK city of culture, described as
“a city coming out of the shadows”.
Some people describe that as the end of the line, but I say it was just the beginning, because what better place could there be to start than in the city of Hull? To keep that going and stop talent leaving our city—to enable people to stay there, live there, work there, be successful and reach their potential—we desperately need more money for our infrastructure; for our roads and railway. The Minister is already supporting us with the roads, so I will comment briefly on the need to support us with the railway. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), is coming up to Hull to look at the railway.
I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said about Transport for the North’s proposal and the desperate need for Northern Powerhouse Rail to link up with Hull. We desperately need a direct service from Hull all the way through to Manchester City airport. We would also like more frequent trains to go through to Leeds. Some constituents living in my city work in Leeds, and they now feel compelled to move to Leeds because of the problems with the transport links and infrastructure. I want to press the Minister on that.
I also want to press the Minister for a little more cash, please, but for a different road this time: Calvert Lane in Hull, which is in desperate need of complete remodelling. The ongoing work on the A63, which I am eternally grateful for, as he knows, has created additional pressure and traffic chaos at times in the city, and also huge problems with air pollution. Hull bid for the transforming cities fund but was unsuccessful, so if the Minister could look kindly upon Hull again and perhaps reach down the back of the sofa and find us some more cash for Calvert Lane, I would be very grateful for that as well.
Hull has a great future, but the money needed for our transport infrastructure is desperately overdue, and what better time to start giving us more cash than today?
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this genuinely important debate. I shall be brief. I apologise for being a bit late, Ms Ryan.
First, I would love Ministers to look at the ferry duopoly on the Solent. It is the most expensive ferry route in the world, and many issues that relate to the ownership of the two ferry companies are not necessarily in the public interest and help to sustain the very high fares that Islanders are forced to pay. There is also the issue of the debt that is loaded on to at least one of those companies.
Secondly, Island Line is not the longest railway line in the world, but it is nevertheless the line from Ryde Pier Head down to Shanklin, which is very important for Islanders. I am grateful to the Minster for his Ministry’s kind support in pledging to rebuild Ryde railway pier. However, there is foot-dragging on the priced option for Island Line. The amounts of money are tiny compared with the very large sums going to other regions. At the moment, travelling on Island Line is almost the rail equivalent of travelling in a Land Rover over a reasonably rough bridleway. It needs significant infrastructure work on the track, signalling and rolling stock.
There was something approaching uproar when we learnt that Newcastle’s rolling stock was 40 years old. Without sounding like something out of a Monty Python sketch, what I would give for rolling stock that is 40 years old! We have 10 Northern line carriages from 1938. As part of the modernisation for the priced option, if the Minister is generous enough, we will get refurbished 40-year-old rolling stock, which we will be more than happy with—it will be 41 years younger than the 81-year-old rolling stock we currently have. I hope I can press my hon. Friend the Minister to be generous.
Finally, I want to mention Southern railway. I really hope that HS2 is not diverting funds to every other rail project in the country. We should have proceeded with HS3, the northern high-speed railway, which is, as the Americans say, a no-brainer, rather than build a £100 billion route from London to Birmingham, which I am not sure we need—perhaps some of my colleagues disagree. Because of that, I am concerned that the main line routes to Portsmouth and Southampton will not get the attention they deserve. What I find most staggering is the speed of the London to Portsmouth express train service: currently 47 miles an hour, which is slower than it was in the 1920s. Will the Minister look at some of the examples of where a little bit of impetus from him and the Department for Transport would reap real benefits for our economy in the Southampton-Portsmouth conurbation, and especially in my constituency?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate.
I chair the all-party group on the east of England. Although I fully understand the arguments made by colleagues about disparities in regional funding, and I know that some will argue that the south in general does well, I ask people to look a little deeper, particularly at the east. The east of England region has enjoyed significant growth over the years and is a net contributor to the Treasury, with great innovation hubs, but there are substantial challenges, almost all based around transport and housing. Despite considerable effort in different parts of the region, that continues to be a struggle. I pay tribute to those who developed the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough independent economic review, but still the answers often depend on unlocking the investment levers that sit in the Treasury.
I want to flag up a couple of positive suggestions that might help. Since coming to the House, I have strongly supported the London Stansted Cambridge Consortium and the West Anglia Taskforce, which has made a powerful case for rail improvements in the corridor, including sections of four-tracking. The case remains strong, but there are still considerable challenges to achieving it, so it is worth looking at other options.
I have been told that digital signalling across the eastern region could make a huge difference. The cost is £1 billion—a lot of money—and this does not necessarily make old, unreliable infrastructure any more reliable, but it can make better use of what we have. I am told that it could increase reliability and frequency, such that it could take up to 10 to 12 minutes off the Stansted to Liverpool Street journey: completely transformative in terms of our transport connections within the region.
For understandable reasons, I take Cambridge to be the centre of our transport hubs within the region, and I want to see better connectivity to the east. I also want to look west, having already looked south. There is much debate about the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor, or CaMKOx, as it is likely to be called. To make the best use of it we will need much better regional co-ordination, but observers as esteemed as Sir John Armitt have pointed out that the plethora of organisations along the arc makes that extremely difficult.
I am grateful to England’s Economic Heartland, which has suggested that a geographically-specific national policy statement might be considered. Such statements were established by the Planning Act 2008 and are introduced for major projects. It might be innovative to use a geographically-specific NPS to bring together infrastructure requirements, but that is not without precedent and there is a sound legal basis. As a member of the Transport Committee that looked in detail at the Heathrow NPS, I really can see the value of such a process. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that suggestion.
As we see the northern powerhouse, the midlands engine and other regions of the country come together to campaign on these issues, it is clear that this is a question not just of investment, but of how the investment is made. I do not want to see the south and the east get left behind in this new world.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, Ms Ryan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this important debate.
The figures are plain to see, and I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). I am sure the level of investment in the year ’50 was wonderful; it certainly is not in the year ’19. My issue for the Minister is fairness. We have seen tables produced by the Library detailing the inequalities in investment between London and the south-east and the northern regions, particularly the north-east. It is clear that there is a question of fairness.
I know figures are manipulated. Yesterday, I attended a debate on school funding and there were arguments about whether funding for schools has increased and, depending on which baseline is used, whether local government funding has increased, but I want to talk about the actual experience of my constituents. We have very old Pacer trains, overcrowding and a lack of resilience on the A19, which is the main arterial route that serves my constituency. It is a potential engine of growth that is so important to the future prosperity of the region. There are accidents on a weekly basis—on a daily basis, when the weather is inclement—and that causes massive disruption. We really need the Government to look carefully at where money is spent. They have a moral and political obligation to tackle the inequalities in investment with regard to the older industrial areas—mine is a former coalmining area—that are being left behind, and they have an opportunity to address that inequality.
Kevin Hollinrake
The A19 runs through my constituency as well, as the hon. Gentleman may know. He makes a good point about fairness, but does he concede that the point is not a party political one? The situation has been going on for decades under Governments of different political persuasions.
Grahame Morris
I do not want to delay things by making a lengthy reply, but everything is political in this place and, whatever has gone on before, there is an opportunity to put things right now. I appeal to the Minister in the interest of fairness to address some of the fundamental issues. This is not a pipe dream. It is important, and it is about a vital part of the national infrastructure. Please do not leave the north-east behind.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on bringing the matter forward.
We all know that a rising tide floats all ships, and certainly investing in infrastructure means that all the businesses in the vicinity are winners. Declining to invest in infrastructure means retaining a situation where rural communities are socially isolated, contributing to over-reliance on towns. The main town in my constituency, Newtownards, lies just short of 10 miles from Belfast City airport—the journey takes less than 20 minutes—yet I fear that my town does not benefit as it should from proximity to the airport, and the business and tourism that that should attract. I believe that is due to a lack of correct infrastructure in relation to the airport.
Whenever I have put questions to the Minister—I am always talking about connectivity with Belfast City airport or Belfast International airport—he has responded positively about the need for connectivity, but I want to emphasise this again. If we were to invest in the strengthening of routes directly from airports, that would allow businessmen to reach cheaper rental accommodation in Newtownards and other towns, and the local economy would benefit.
Another issue in my constituency is the coastal erosion programme. There are many roads around the Ards peninsula where I live, and in the centre of the constituency, where high tides and the weather conditions cause a lot of erosion, yet the methodology for responding seems to be reactive rather than proactive. I do not fault the Department, but I ask that we look for future aspirational projects that could address the issues. Northern Ireland is at the bottom of the table in relation to spend per head throughout the United Kingdom. There is an historic lack of infrastructure. I do not want to insult anyone’s intelligence in this place, but of course the fact is that over 30-odd years there was a campaign in which the IRA destroyed everything it could, including as many places as it could.
We have moved on, thank the Lord, but when I look at my local towns’ potential and the state-of-the-art office space, UK-wide connectivity and low business rates, it is clear that while short-term issues must be addressed, so must the long-term goal of showing the world that Northern Ireland is the place to invest in business. It is the place to produce television shows and locate a high-class graduate labour force, as well as an abundance of admin staff. It is the cyber-security region for the whole United Kingdom, and we have more people employed in that work. That is an example of what we are doing right.
One of the keys to unlock global attraction is the ability to connect easily, both globally and UK-wide, and we simply have not yet come close to unlocking that potential. I would like an extension of the city deals, which the Minister will be aware of, although he is not directly responsible for them. Last night, the stronger towns plan was put forward, and those projects will link towns and cities to the markets that are available. This place is where action must be spearheaded, and I look to the Minister to understand how and when that can be done.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I shall be brief. The good news for the Minister is that, on the basis of what I am about to say, he can remind me that all I have said is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. However, I think I am duty-bound to raise the issues, partly on behalf of my constituents, but, secondarily and in a wider context, as a cautionary tale.
Some weeks ago, my wife and I had occasion to catch the ScotRail service from Inverness to Edinburgh. ScotRail has become something of a national sad and bad joke in Scotland. I think I speak for all Scottish Members when I say we are deeply critical of the appalling standard of service—to call it the standard of service that we enjoy would be to use the wrong verb. On that particular train, I happened to notice as we took our seats—by the way, seat reservation does not work on ScotRail for some reason—I noticed that the toilet was marked as out of order. I thought quickly, and I shall explain why in a moment, and went down the train to see whether the other one was working. I discovered that it was also out of order. There were only two toilets on the train, although it was embarking on a long journey.
I kind of threw my weight about, for which I apologise to hon. Members: I got hold of the guard and said, “Really, you cannot leave and go all the way from Inverness to Edinburgh with no toilets working.” The staff were helpful and it is not them I blame, not one little bit. They got the toilet working. We hear about trolleys being cancelled, toilets not working and trains being cancelled. It is a shambles, and that is the cautionary tale for the UK Government. I hope to goodness that our letters to Nicola Sturgeon and Michael Matheson will have some effect. The best thing would be for the contract to be changed—got rid of.
My second point is about the Stagecoach X99 bus service and a letter that appeared in last week’s John O’Groat Journal:
“I am temporarily disabled following a fall. Last week I took the…bus from Edinburgh with comfortable seats, hot drinks and snacks. There was a ‘new bus’ from Inverness to Wick. It is the worst-designed vehicle ever. The entrance step did not lower. There were no grab-bars at the door to pull myself up, then a steep and narrow stair, impossible for me. Access to the driver was impeded and awkward. Other folk told me the upstairs seats are most uncomfortable.
For disabled people there were three cramped, narrow seats behind the driver. Access to the toilet was up the impossible stairs, then down again to the loo—and back again. It was too much for the third disabled passenger who soaked the velvet seat.
Stagecoach has a full fleet of these for the X99 service. All of our representatives… I dare you to take a trip on one. Then have them taken off the road.
Nancy Nicolson, Loch Street, Wick”.
There is a letter in this week’s issue, which I shall not read out in full, but it begins:
“I am in total agreement with Nancy Nicolson who wrote…that these so-called double-decker coaches are not designed for use on public service”.
For Stagecoach, a company owned by Sir Brian Souter, to get a fundamental design so badly wrong, particularly for disabled people, appals me. I mentioned the train because my wife is disabled, and when I am not with her in the north of Scotland she has to take the bus, unless she can get a friend to drive her, to go to hospital appointments in Inverness, for example. When I think of her having to scale the stairs to get to the toilet—it is all very well, travelling on a long-distance coach in Europe, but in the highlands, when the bus goes around the twists and bends and up and down hills, it is not funny trying to negotiate that. I thank you for being patient with me, Ms Ryan, but I speak with some passion on the matter.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate.
Given that the debate is about investment in regional transport infrastructure, I note that large aspects of transport policy are now within the remit of the Scottish Government. However, the funding issues that are causing serious under-investment in transport infrastructure in other areas of the UK are just as present in Scotland. The Treasury’s country and regional analysis document highlights the fact that London had the largest amount of capital expenditure spent on transport in the UK— £6.5 billion in 2017-18. In contrast, Scotland spent £2 billion in 2017-18, placing it behind London, the north-west and the south-east. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the difference in spending between Scotland and London was a staggering £4.5 billion.
I accept that Scotland is not alone in lagging behind in investment in transport infrastructure, which is a problem that other regions and nations of the UK face. Just look at the level of integration and improvement in London’s transport system compared with the often disjointed and under-invested transport systems in other areas of the country. That is what a lack of investment means in reality: transport systems in some parts of the country that cannot modernise their infrastructure, integrate their services or meet the needs of communities.
I look at the state of infrastructure in my constituency. We have ongoing problems with the Shawhead flyover, and a lack of proper road markings and filter lights is causing real safety concerns. There is a continued lack of reliable services for passengers on the Stepps to Gartcosh railway line. Other areas in my constituency, such as Chryston and Moodiesburn, are suffering from a reduction in bus services as a result of under-investment, and some areas such as Cardowan have virtually no bus services at all.
In Thorniewood, the ward where I am a councillor, the local bus service linking Viewpark, Tannochside and Birkenshaw with Uddingston town had been running since the days of tram cars, but now it has no service. That has cut off many schools, local factories such as Tunnock’s and the local doctors, leaving many people having to walk miles or take taxis, which are unaffordable. I am holding a public meeting on this issue. It does not just affect Scotland; it is present across the country, and we need further investment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
Order. I will call the Front-Bench spokesperson for the SNP at 3.35 pm.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be brief, Ms Ryan. For transport, we in the far south-west need four things, plus one wraparound thing, which is to find our voice. I am disappointed that more of the south-west blue team are not here to add their voices to my four asks, because these are cross-party issues and I implore the Minister to take them seriously.
The first ask is to ensure that our railway is fast and resilient. The £80 million for Dawlish is a good start, but it requires £300 million and we need the remaining money. Secondly, we must ensure that we capitalise on growth in cruise travel by having a new cruise terminal at Mill Bay that will bring tourists into Plymouth and create more jobs and investment, especially in the lead-up to Mayflower 2020 and the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower from Plymouth.
The third point is the extension of the M5 from Exeter to Plymouth, which will provide a safer road with more capacity. The final point is the reopening of Plymouth airport. It closed in 2010, and we are one of a few cities in the country where aviation capacity has been lost. Huge potential can be realised by reopening Plymouth airport, and I hope that after the planning inspectors have made their decision, the Minister will meet me and representatives from Plymouth City Council to see what we can do together, collectively and on a cross-party basis to restore aviation links to Plymouth so that we get our airport back and address the structural underfunding that we in the far south-west have had for far too long.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The west of England is an area of huge success, with more than 1 million people, 42,000 businesses and a £31 billion economy. We are building 100,000 new homes and expecting 80,000 new jobs, along with new retail and an arena in my constituency. That will involve increased travel demand—we are expecting a 25% increase by 2036, yet two in three journeys are still made by car. We have air quality issues, with 300 premature deaths a year, and congestion costs our economy £300 million a year, yet we have a £6 billion shortfall in investment, as estimated by the west of England joint transport study.
Given the short time that we have to speak today, I invite the Minister to meet me to listen to output from my constituents regarding our north Bristol transport plan, and to deal with the intracity and intercity travel that we are expecting. The success of Bristol means that we are becoming more like London, and we therefore need investment to ensure that our city is not gridlocked. We must target deaths from air pollution, and ensure that people are happy and able to get around and enjoy the city that they love and in which they live.
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
Paul Sweeney, may I offer you one and a half minutes?
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Ms Ryan. To compress the municipal transport system of the entire city of Glasgow into that time will be quite a challenge.
As a cautionary tale for some of those embarking on new devolution projects and city region planning, let me say that it is important to get the balance right because it involves devolving not just financial decision making, but the proper integrated planning of transport policy. Consider the history of municipal transport development in Glasgow. We started 40 years ago with the best urban integrated transport system in the UK, but we now have one of the worst and most fragmented. Why did that happen? Municipal transport structures and planning in Glasgow have been fragmented, partly because of privatisation—including of the municipal bus system and the railways—but also because strategic and regional planning powers were inadvertently taken away by devolution, and such issues became merged with the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. Indicative regional planning of the transport system has failed miserably over the past 30 years or so, and we need a much more robust and integrated way of doing things.
When considering how to create a devolved regional structure, we need the opportunity to rebalance productivity and investment in our city regions. Those are the things that will change our economic promise across the country, driven by our major city regions. Those are the issues we must address, and perhaps Glasgow can stand as an example. We must redouble our efforts to improve the city’s regional planning and transport infrastructure. There has been no major railway expansion in the urban metro railway system over the past 20 years, and there are still no efforts to address that major issue. Bus regulation has not been achieved, and there is a major issue of car dependency, particularly in some of the poorest communities in the UK and Glasgow, where people do not have the average access to car ownership. That is creating a severe problem of social dislocation.
If we invest properly in our city regions, with the proper integrated planning powers associated with that, we will be in a much better position than we are currently. We must reverse the clock and relearn some of the old lessons.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is an immense pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate. As we can tell by the time limit on speeches, there is clearly an appetite for further debate on this issue, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Members will pursue it via the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. We have heard a number of excellent speeches, but because of the time, and since I have already relinquished some of my speech, I will not sum them up.
Given that at least three Scottish Members have contributed today, it would be remiss of me not to refer to the investment that the Scottish Government have been making, as they have steadfastly invested in transport infrastructure in Scotland. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) will know, since 2007 the SNP has invested £20 billion in transport infrastructure and services, including the largest road investment programme Scotland has ever seen. I am more than happy to have a conversation about where that additional money for transport will come from, and it is regrettable that the Scottish Labour party did not engage in the budget process that we in Scotland have just been through. Perhaps it will next year.
Let me focus on some of the projects that we have invested in. There is the Queensferry crossing over the Forth estuary and the dualling of the A9 all the way from Perth to Inverness—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is not in his place to hear that. We are about to dual the A96 from Inverness to Aberdeen, completing the Aberdeen western peripheral route. There is the Borders Railway—Scottish Conservative Members are normally desperate to talk about the SNP Government, but I note that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) is not here to talk about that wonderful investment by the SNP Government. There is the electrification of the rail link along the central belt, and an extension to the national concessionary travel scheme. I was speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). He turns 60 tomorrow and is very excited to receive his new bus pass, which he will be using. We wish him well with that.
I wish also to reflect on investment in my constituency over the years. The M74 motorway extension was spoken about for many years in Scotland, and it was delivered eight months ahead of schedule and millions of pounds under budget. The extension of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway will benefit my constituents who use Carntyne, Shettleston, Garrowhill or Easterhouse stations, because they can now go directly to Edinburgh, which is great news. There was the upgrading of the A8 to a motorway. For those of us who travel to Airdrie—great Airdrie fans that we are—our journey time to go and see the Diamonds is even faster.
In Glasgow, I would like the east end regeneration route to be completed, including from Parkhead Forge to the M8 motorway. I am disappointed that the previous council took that off the city deal plans, but perhaps it will return. On the subject of stalled spaces, alongside my colleague, John Mason, I would like a train station in Parkhead. It has a vibrant retail environment, whether that is the Forge shopping centre, the Forge retail park, the Forge market, or Scotland’s largest football stadium, Celtic Park, with its capacity of 64,000 people. Parkhead needs a train station, and my message to Network Rail is that it should consider the successes of Bridgeton and Dalmarnock. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has arrived, and she will have seen the benefits of the high footfall there.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The investment in Dalmarnock railway station has been marked. It went from being the lowest used station on the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport network, to a brand new, state-of-the-art station built for the Commonwealth games. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are still challenges for stations such as Bridgeton, which need lift access so that people can get in and out more easily?
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
Order. This has been a very busy debate with huge pressure on time. I do not think it is acceptable to come in so close to the end of the debate and be given an intervention. It is not fair on other Members.
David Linden
Thank you, Ms Ryan. It is always a pleasure to have an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who is an assiduous campaigner for her constituents. She is absolutely right to place on the record the need to ensure that our train stations are accessible for those constituents who have a disability. I hope that the funding that has been made available from the UK Government can be extended. There are far too many train stations, not only in Glasgow but across the country, where it is frankly abysmal for people.
On the issue of passenger figures, I am grateful to Clyde Gateway for furnishing me with information. Because of investment in Dalmarnock and Bridgeton in my hon. Friend’s constituency, passenger numbers have risen by 157%, which is obviously a good thing for the local economy. We have seen a lot of investment in the Clyde Gateway area, which I want to see continue, but I would also like to see a bit of investment around the Parkhead area, which would bring huge benefits to my constituents. I unashamedly make that case to Network Rail.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Ryan.
We have had fantastic contributions from the north, south, east and west of the country, with hon. Members making representations and airing grievances. I am sure that the Minister will respond to all of those. I want to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has brought forward a really exciting, multi-modal approach to transport in south Yorkshire. He proposes a transport system connecting people and places, taking the Sheffield city region through to 2040 with his ambition for transport there, and ensuring that transport is the servant and not the master of the local economy.
We know that we need to develop housing and industry around our transport system, so that transport can be sown into a modern, sustainable and accessible process, in order to move people around. This is about productivity and social inclusion. We have heard what a stimulus that can be for our modern economy.
We have seen the power of devolution in places such as Manchester and London. We want to see that across the whole of Yorkshire. However, devolution has to mean a real emphasis on moving resources, power and decision making, and not just lip service, so that regions can determine their own destiny.
The transport brief is about clear, strategic objectives. However, there are some really important things missing and areas where greater focus is needed from the Government. I want to highlight the decarbonisation of our transport system. We have a carbon crisis at the moment. Transport comprises between 29% and 32% of all carbon emissions in the UK, and we have to reduce our carbon emissions by 15% year on year.
The catastrophic road building project and the cancellation of rail electrification show that the Government are moving in the wrong direction. They are adding to the carbon footprint, rather than reducing it. In my city, 50,000 people each year lose their lives due to poor air quality. That is a national crisis and it must be addressed as such.
Rachael Maskell
I am sorry, I do not have time.
I want to see a focus on decarbonisation and decongestion as a priority for my city of York. Over the next 12 months, Labour’s citizens and transport commission will achieve that.
We have heard about inequality of spending across the country. The north-east has the worst levels of investment. That must change. It was also interesting to hear about the need for greater investment on the Isle of Wight, which shows that our infrastructure needs to be brought up to the modern era.
When we are making these investments, we have to plan for our railway system over a 30 to 40 year period—the length of time our infrastructure is sustained. Therefore, we need to ensure not only that the infrastructure is right, but that we have the skills to serve the infrastructure. While the Government have issued great plans around energy, construction and the transport system for future engineering projects, I say to the Minister—I am sure he has had similar conversations himself—that we are facing a skills cliff edge at the moment, given our ageing demographic and Brexit. The industry is doubtful that the infrastructure projects mentioned will be delivered. At the same time, there is a draw-down into the south-east, which means that we may not see the development across the country that we want.
We are seriously concerned about the emphasis on road building as opposed to moving forward into modern transport systems, bringing about modal shift, and ensuring that people are moving from their cars to public transport and to active travel for local journeys, which constitute 80% of journeys. We need to focus on a modern system, such as exists in Strasbourg, Copenhagen and much of the Netherlands. That is the kind of ambition that Labour has, and why we believe that we will deliver strongly in the transport brief.
We also recognise that there have been some good initiatives. The tram-train project in Sheffield has taken forward a mechanism of good, clean energy for the future. Importantly, it serves not only the city, but the more rural areas. As has been mentioned, this is about drawing in people from the towns and wider conurbations, so that people can get to work and travel for leisure. That is so important.
Opposition Members spoke about bus services. The Government’s profit-driven bus plan—I use the word “plan” lightly—does not deliver for the public. We believe that buses should be brought under public control. When we look at places such as Reading, where we see an increase in patronage and a service that meets the needs of residents, day and night, we can see what is possible when bus services are integrated into economic development. There are powerful testimonies to that from elsewhere. Coaches never get a mention, but I want to mention them, because they can also form part of a modal shift and bring rapid change. I believe that we must explore all options.
The trans-Pennine route was mentioned yet again. I say to the Minister that it is really important at this stage to scope out the work for the full electrification project, and to ensure that the scope includes opportunity for future freight. Labour will electrify that line and ensure that freight is deliverable on it. Speaking of freight—which, again, has not been mentioned yet—it is important that we build a freight system for the future, putting as much freight as we can on to rail and ensuring that all long-distance journeys are accessible, reliable and timely for freight. Therefore, we need to see a real move in that direction, as well as investment in urban consolidation centres, which will enable us to stop heavy goods vehicles travelling into town centres.
Finally, I want to touch on inter-modal connectivity. Joining everything up is really important. We have been quite startled by the fact that HS2 is being placed at Curzon Street, as opposed to New Street, meaning that people will have to trundle through the middle of Birmingham. I am sure that might be an advantage to Birmingham, but it does not really address the connectivity that is needed. We need to ensure that there is good connectivity across all transport modes. We expect the Government to look again at the way that they have put transport into siloes. Labour believes that inter-modal connectivity and moving people more on to public transport is the way forward, and that is what we will deliver in government.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I am not a huge reader of Tom Clancy, but I think that Jack Ryan could take your correspondence course when it comes to bravery in public office, so thank you very much indeed. I congratulate my friend the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate, and all hon. Members who participated in the wide-ranging conversation.
I know that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, with his mayoral hat on, will hope, as do the Department and I, that he will be able to complete the devolution deal that he has in mind for the Sheffield city region, releasing powers and funding. Although I know that is not always the position held on the Government Benches, we have been working closely with him on that. As he said, transport is essential for prosperity, growth and wellbeing across the whole country. We recognise that good transport infrastructure is absolutely essential to productivity. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who highlighted the productivity gap in this country. That means delivering new infrastructure, from strategic and regional priorities all the way down to the local level. I will touch on all of those levels, while addressing as many of the points that have been raised by hon. Members as I can.
As hon. Members will know, in 2017 the Government published a very ambitious transport investment strategy, setting out our ambition to build a stronger and more balanced economy within the industrial strategy more widely, and responding to local growth priorities. That has conditioned the investments we have made ever since.
On the road side—hon. Members know that I am the roads Minister—we have invested heavily in existing transport infrastructure and new schemes, with some £15 billion being spent through road investment strategy 1 between 2015 and 2020. In the 2018 Budget the Government published objectives for road investment strategy 2, which will run from 2020 to 2025 and include £25.3 billion to be made available to further develop and improve the strategic road network. We are developing an affordable and deliverable investment plan for RIS2, which will be published later this year.
I could not help noticing that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was extremely rude about road building and called it catastrophic. Does that constitute a change of policy on the part of the whole Labour party? I encourage her not to think of it in that way, because road investment strategy 2 not only includes hundreds of millions of pounds for cycling and walking schemes and an enormous investment in skills, which she cares very much about, but paves the ways for autonomous and electric vehicles, which will be the vehicle—if I may use the pun—for the decarbonisation and greening of our economy in the longer term.
Jesse Norman
I do not have time; I apologise.
In the 2018 Budget we also provided a top-up of £420 million for local roads, particularly to repair potholes. A share of £3.5 billion of the national roads fund over five years from 2020-21 will fund improvements in the middle tier of the country’s busiest and most economically important local authority A roads, such as the A66, which connects Cumbria to the north-east. I have made no secret of the fact that, in the spending review, I am pressing for a local roads settlement that follows a similar five-year pattern so that local authorities have more visibility and more capacity to make strategic decisions at a level that is, hopefully, at least as good as the present one.
Of course, we are not just investing in the strategic road network; we are continually investing in upgrades and improvements to rail, including £1 billion that has been invested so far in the great north rail project and £3 billion that will be spent over the next few years to improve rail journeys between Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York. Every train on the Northern and TransPennine networks will be new or modernised by 2020.
On Northern Powerhouse Rail, the strategic outline business case has been received and is under review. We expect to develop a response to it in close co-operation with partners across the north. It has been suggested that scrapping HS2 is the best way to secure Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is naive, if I may say so. The Government’s commitment remains unchanged. HS2 is one of the keys to developing Northern Powerhouse Rail, not least because Northern Powerhouse Rail trains will use HS2 infrastructure, including on the approach to Manchester and between Sheffield and Leeds. That may mean that HS2 infrastructure will have to be built first, as a priority, before NPR can be implemented on those stretches.
Rightly, active travel has been mentioned and has been a focus of the debate. The hon. Member for York Central spoke about mode shift, and I could not agree more—I spoke at the Modeshift awards earlier today. It involves investment in air quality, cycling and walking schemes, our new road to zero strategy and the future of mobility. We are heavily involved in all those things.
We have published a cycling and walking investment strategy, which sets out ambitions for 2040. So far we have made £1 billion available to local bodies over the next five years to invest in local cycling and walking schemes. We have supported 46 local authorities on specific schemes that they have in mind. I share the view of the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and am delighted that he is appointing an active travel commissioner. I take my hat off to Chris Boardman and to the other highly engaged local teams at mayoral authorities that are making transformative differences.
There is a question about the city versus town balance. Recent Government initiatives, such as the future high streets fund and the stronger towns fund, which was just announced, have tried to recognise that. That city focus has been well picked up by mayoral authorities, however, and in Manchester we have invested £250 million through the transforming cities fund, of which £160 million is going on cycling and walking schemes through the transformative Beelines project.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have expressed concerns about regional investment. There cannot be much doubt that successive Governments have under-invested in the north, which we recognise. However, we are investing in the north not just because of that, but because it is the right thing to do and it is essential to our future productivity as a nation.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) rightly mentioned perceptions of unfairness. He is probably more sophisticated than I am in looking at the specific regional differences, but he ought to know that new figures from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority show that central Government’s planned transport capital investment spend will be higher in the north-west, north-east, and Yorkshire and Humber than for London, the south-east and the south-west as a whole. That conceals regional variations, as he will be aware, but it is a highly encouraging sign overall.
I will crack on in the few minutes I have left, because I want to leave some time for the hon. Member for Barnsley Central to reply. At a regional level, we have supported sub-national transport bodies, which are important from our point of view, particularly in the production of a regional evidence base for our major road network. Hon. Members will know about the transformative move that took place on 1 April 2018, when Transport for the North became a statutory body. It is not just about the north; the Government have been clear that investment in the south-west is also important to that region’s economy, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) touched on. That is why we have just published “Investing in the South West”, building on ambitious plans to grow the region’s economy.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central rightly said that there has been a lot of focus on cities. I have mentioned three obvious ways in which we have tried to address that head-on: first, through devolution deals and wider city regions; secondly, through the £2.5 billion transforming cities fund; and thirdly, through the new stronger towns fund and the future high streets fund, which comprise nearly £1.3 billion.
The future of mobility is of great importance. We are thinking hard about how to improve mobility, which does not just mean the autonomous and electric vehicles that will require higher quality road surfaces and that underpin the need for continued road investment. It also involves the £150 million that we have invested in Transport for the North for smart and integrated ticketing and the investment we have made in future mobility zones across the west midlands.
In the minute remaining, I will quickly pick up on some of the points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer here, which is a pity, asked whether we were dragging our feet on western rail links to Heathrow. The answer is absolutely not. The consultation concluded in June 2018 and Network Rail intends to submit proposals for planning powers later this year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) asked a whole host of questions—I wish I could respond to all of them. I have looked closely at the Green Book and think there is still work to be done on it. Frankly, in many ways the Treasury takes a Department for Transport lead on it, precisely to get away from an overly financialised or economic view. We have a five-case model, which includes environmental impacts and others. If hon. Members would like to come and discuss with officials how that works in specific cases, I would be happy to curate a roundtable or something of that kind.
A question was asked about the fragmentation of transport, which is always a concern and something that the Williams reviews is looking at. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer here, made a point about connectivity. I could not agree with him more. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) expressed her gratitude. I remind her of the definition of gratitude in “Yes Minister”, which is, “a lively expectation of favours to come”.
Dan Jarvis
It has been a wide-ranging debate and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. There has been general agreement on the importance of active travel. Perhaps the Minister might consider appointing a country-wide active travel commissioner.
Dan Jarvis
I am delighted to hear that, because it will provide an important opportunity to join up the good work that is taking place across the country.
The point about the Green Book criteria might sound niche, but it is vital. I am pleased that the Minister has made a commitment to meet hon. Members to discuss the detail of those criteria. I look forward to that opportunity.
The point I want to end on is that the architecture and governance around the decisions that underpin transport infrastructure is a crowded field; lots of different organisations and stakeholders are involved, from national Government and the Department to Network Rail, combined mayoral authorities and local authorities. In the north, however, the landscape has changed recently with Transport for the North, which is doing an important job well and is well led. It has successfully established a consensus among leaders. Northern Powerhouse Rail’s strategic outline business case and the strategic transport plan show us that we can do it. We just need the Government to allocate the resources to underpin the plans that have been agreed in the north.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Solar Industry
(5 years, 9 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
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect on the solar industry of the replacement of the feed-in tariff.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to have secured this important debate. The Minister knows that I have been focused on this issue for a number of months now. The solar industry is reeling from the announcement that the feed-in tariff scheme is to close. The scheme was a huge success, with solar panels installed on nearly 1 million homes since it was launched in 2010. However, the loss of such a successful programme has led to a substantial loss of confidence in the sector. Between 30% and 40% of firms are contemplating closure, and international figures are considering pulling out of the UK market.
The news about the scheme came on top of a business rates rise and caused a huge degree of apprehension in the sector. If that apprehension turns into something more substantial, the loss of firms on the scale suggested would be hugely damaging to the sector, the wider economy and our efforts to tackle climate change.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Does she recognise that this sector is not just about profit-making firms; it is also about charitable and community organisations? In my constituency, for example, they make money from solar farms to help fund youth centre services and other community outreach activities. This is also an issue for their funding sustainability.
Antoinette Sandbach
I absolutely agree, and I hope the Minister will say something about community schemes in her response, because there are many different ways of installing and making the best of solar power, as the hon. Gentleman has just indicated, and its flexibility has been one of the reasons why it has been taken up so quickly.
I was talking about the damage to the solar industry. One firm in my constituency, near the village of Malpas, closed once the restrictions on the existing feed-in tariff schemes were imposed. I hope that was a one-off and not a sign of things to come.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about the benefits of the feed-in tariff scheme and why it ought to be maintained. However, does she recognise that there are flaws in the way it has been applied, particularly in relation to the green deal scheme, such that many people were mis-sold feed-in tariffs and have been severely financially affected by the issue, including many of my constituents and others across the UK? The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy still has to address that through the Green Deal Finance Company.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am aware of the issue. I think those people were misled at the point of signing, and then were trapped in contracts that they found very difficult to execute. I know there have been some very detailed radio programmes that have covered the position of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others.
In my area, however, solar has been a success and people are keen to get involved in solar projects. In fact, that is true not only of solar. In Church Minshull in my constituency we have a wonderful Archimedes screw. That is not a cocktail or anything salacious, but a hydropower project that produces enough electricity to power the equivalent of 77 homes. Nevertheless, despite the success of such projects locally, the prospects for solar power nationally are rather bleak. The UK was recently rated 20th out of 20 for global solar photovoltaics prospects between 2018 and 2022 by SolarPower Europe’s global market outlook.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
When the scheme was closed down, there was a lot of talk about alternative technology. My hon. Friend just mentioned the Archimedes screw, and there are other alternative technologies such as batteries. Have they come to fruition at all?
Antoinette Sandbach
There are huge changes coming forward in battery technology. Of course, battery technology will be the key not only to solar energy, but to small-scale wind projects, particularly in relation to how we harness and store such power. There are a number of new and exciting technologies in renewable power. As someone who is keen to see as much of our power as possible coming from renewable sources, I know that the Government are committed to looking at how we can encourage those kinds of projects to go forward, and in the battery sector there is the Government’s Faraday battery challenge.
Given the prospects outlined by SolarPower Europe’s global market outlook, it is clear that the sector needs some positive news, and I hope that the Minister can deliver that today. However, businesses need reassurance more than anything. The Government have been consulting on the replacement to the feed-in tariff regime: the smart export guarantee. The consultation on that measure closed just over four hours ago. However, the export tariff, which is a key part of the FIT, ends on 31 March, which leaves just 18 days to resolve the questions surrounding a replacement before we risk falling into the void that will be created between the old policy closing and the new one beginning.
I welcomed the Minister’s reassurance last November that
“solar power should not be provided to the grid for free”.—[Official Report, 20 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 701.]
However, there is a risk that that is exactly what will happen if there is a gap between the two schemes, so I would like her to give some reassurance that the replacement scheme will be fully operational in time. This should be a baseline to build upon, not a standard to live up to. What the sector really needs is a minimum floor price.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent speech. Does she agree that some schools and voluntary sector organisations are really getting involved in this kind of green initiative, and that small businesses in particular could be affected adversely if the scheme should fail and the recommendations are not taken up fully by the Government?
Antoinette Sandbach
The Minister will have heard the hon. Lady’s comments, and I hope that she takes account of them, because a minimum floor price would put the sector on the same footing as the offshore wind industry, which benefits from the certainty that contracts for difference provide, and fossil fuel investors, who benefit from the capacity market.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I note that the Renewable Energy Association has lobbied for a market-based solution, which this clearly is. However, I share some of her concerns that, without certainty on pricing, some people will be deterred from investing here in the first place, unless we can get the matter right.
Antoinette Sandbach
I agree with that assessment, which is why I argue that a minimum floor is needed. I am afraid that failure to extend that kind of certainty to small-scale prosumers will give the impression that the Government are more comfortable with big business than with small producer-consumers.
A fair minimum export price will ensure that consumers are not ripped off while the industry and the new regulation sort themselves out. It will also encourage suppliers to get their systems in place in readiness for market-wide, half-hourly settlement, which will help accelerate the smart energy transition. If a minimum floor price was to be informed by the system imbalance price, it would ensure that all other generators and prosumers could be treated equally, as required by article 21 of the renewable energy directive, without inhibiting innovative smart offerings.
Additionally, the commitment to a zero floor price, while welcome, is insufficient. No country in Europe asks prosumers to pay to put electricity into the grid. Likewise, in 2018 just 0.4% of daylight hours were a negative pricing period. Therefore, given the rarity of such an occasion, this is not what prosumers need. What is needed is the minimum floor price, which would have a transformative impact on the prospects for the sector, not simply a zero floor price.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate and for her eloquence in introducing it. I completely agree about the need for a minimum floor price. Before I entered this place, I was the lead on this issue at Leeds City Council, and we put 2,003 solar roofs on council properties. Without being a prosumer, we could not have a FIT reduction, which would allow us to fit more roofs. This is therefore not only about individual consumers; it is about social housing and housing associations, which cannot afford not to have a repayment scheme. The minimum floor price would enable such schemes to be brought forward.
Antoinette Sandbach
I completely agree. I know that councils and housing associations have certainly taken advantage of the ability to install solar power, which is a great development.
The decision needs to be made quickly, to meet the tight deadlines, but it would be a shot in the arm for a sector that has faced a series of difficulties. It would also help to deliver our climate change targets. Yesterday’s Carbon Brief analysis shows that the UK’s CO2 emissions fell in 2018 for the sixth consecutive year—something we should celebrate—and if we are to continue that record-breaking trend, we must double down on investment in renewables.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I would like to show my support for the hon. Lady’s initiative on this important matter, and to reinforce her point. Surely the issue is not that our carbon emissions are dropping, but how quickly they are dropping, and the need to accelerate that rapidly. I wholeheartedly support her very worthwhile potential initiative to help accelerate the speed of reduction. I have some experience in our local authority of the benefits, which she mentioned, of local authorities and charities working together to help install solar panels.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
Beyond the need to make the decision, there is a concern that the roll-out of the smart meter programme could have an impact on the deliverability of necessary infrastructure to facilitate the smart export guarantee. SMETS 1 meters, which are in 17 million homes, cannot yet relay export data to the Data Communications Company. What happens to those homes if they install solar? Not a single supplier has trialled export metering through the DCC. Does the Minister know how long the trials take? Will individual homeowners be the testing ground? What reassurance can she give?
The value of the renewables sector, and of solar specifically, is huge to the future of both our economy and our planet. All the sector asks for is to be treated fairly and to be given the reassurance that exists in other parts of the energy market.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a compelling argument on a subject that is important to many constituencies, including mine, where we have an extremely successful company, AES Solar. Does she agree that certainty is absolutely needed, because the deployment of solar photovoltaics fell by 94% in 2018 compared with 2015, which is a worrying statistic?
Antoinette Sandbach
I agree that is worrying. I would argue that small-scale renewables encourage our constituents to get involved in a whole green agenda and to look at their homes and their energy use in a completely different way. If we combined that with energy efficiency measures, we would start to get some dramatic change in the sector. There is a big opportunity for the Minister regarding energy efficiency, as well as in combination with renewables.
Matt Western
The hon. Lady is being very generous, and I commend her for bringing the matter before us. From 2012 to 2018 we saw an 80% reduction in installations. We were democratising energy; a powerful thing was going on in this country. It is so important that the sector has some certainty—such as a 10-year plan— to ensure that we deliver.
Antoinette Sandbach
The hon. Gentleman will have heard in my speech that I have been arguing for that certainty. The consultation closed four hours ago, so the Minister will not yet have had time to consider the responses, but I think that, from the debate, she will appreciate the urgency of doing so. I hope that she can offer answers to my questions and reassurance to those who have backed renewables. We are rightly proud of our position as a world leader in renewables technology and climate change, and I hope that the Government will take concrete steps to keep us in that positive position.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I know that you take a strong interest in these matters on behalf of your constituents in Kettering. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on securing the debate and putting forward, as always, an excellent, well-informed set of points, which have been responded to and added to by the knowledgeable group we have here today.
I will not do the usual context setting, which is that we are doing well on the whole agenda. Renewable energy is now up to more than 32%, and emissions continue to fall rapidly. In fact, the last time our CO2 emissions were this low was in 1888, when Queen Victoria was on the throne. That is absolutely worth celebrating.
Claire Perry
I want to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, but of course I will accept the intervention.
Catherine West
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. Will she also congratulate the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London on the London community energy fund, which helps to promote this sort of initiative?
Claire Perry
I will touch on that good point about community. Many good schemes operate across various local authorities.
The feed-in tariff scheme has been an effective part of our great decarbonisation journey. Since 2010, the scheme has supported more than 830,000 installations, 99% of which are solar and are currently generating about 3% of total electricity consumption. Also, a few things have changed since that time, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) will know. We have seen a dramatic fall in the cost of solar installation—up to 80% in some cases—which is to be welcomed, as it makes that more accessible to many people. We have also seen a dramatic fall in the cost of other renewable energies.
I like the phrase the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) used: the democratisation of energy. We are all participating, and one of the great benefits is that the hugely important technology that is offshore wind now costs the same, effectively, as building a new gas-fired power plant. That is a benefit to us all and to all our bills.
The feed-in tariff scheme has cost us almost £6 billion to date, and over its lifetime it will continue to cost us all about £30 billion, on many of our bills. It was absolutely right, therefore, that the decision was taken—before my time—to close the scheme. As we move to a lower-cost solar environment, and to a world in which we are rapidly seeing price parity between renewables and non-renewables technology, it is important to think about the impact on bills.
Matt Western
With all the new build housing that is going up, does the Minister think the Government could be a lot more ambitious? There are hundreds of thousands of houses, which is terrific, but we are so unambitious in enabling people to have that democratisation of energy from within their own properties.
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have some of the tightest energy efficiency standards for new homes, but I totally agree that we need to go further, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are looking at that right now. Under this Government, we will build millions of homes; that is absolutely part of our ambition, and it is right that we make them as energy efficient as possible and that they contribute as much as possible to this revolution.
I want to focus on a couple of the challenges that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury emphasised, one of which is the concern about jobs. We have seen a healthy supply chain build up and it is exciting that we are already seeing subsidy-free solar projects at scale being brought forward. One consultant’s estimates tell us that 2.3 GW of solar projects already in the system in the UK with, or awaiting, planning permission could be delivered without subsidy. Lightsource, which has just been bought by BP, says that it is developing 300 MW of subsidy-free projects backed by power purchase agreements, some of which will be delivered during 2019. So we are starting to see solar being delivered at scale without subsidy—indeed, I opened the country’s first subsidy-free solar farm in my first few weeks in the job. That is incredibly exciting, and I am very ambitious for the jobs that will be created over the next few years.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Minister is making a very fair point: as the technology has moved forward, the cost of solar has dropped. That is certainly true for the businesses that are taking this agenda forward at scale, but for many individual householders, the cost of investing in panels is still prohibitive. Will she address the question of how the Government could support householders to invest in that technology?
Claire Perry
I am coming to that point. We have not said that the feed-in tariff is no more, and that there is essentially no value out there; there is huge value in having decentralised energy generation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and others made some powerful points about the role of community energy, which I am passionate about. As she mentioned, it is often a way in which people drink the green Kool-Aid and realise that they can be part of this transformation; zero-carbon faith groups, for instance, are amazing movements. That is why we have continued to support communities.
I was pleased to extract from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a commitment to the rural community energy fund, which will be reopening for bids later this year; it is an important part of delivering community schemes in many of our constituencies. We have invested £8 million in local energy hubs, which are helping some of the local authority-led schemes that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green mentioned, both in London and across the country. We have a local energy contact group, and we are working closely with communities through investments in energy efficiency, local energy schemes, and combined heat and power plants through the £350 million heat network scheme. There is a lot of support for communities that want to move forward.
The smart export guarantee is not just to provide a route to market for those who have installed, or will be installing, decentralised installations; it is intended to do a couple of things. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury is quite right to say that this energy should not be provided for free, or indeed at negative prices, as is sometimes the case in other countries. She will be pleased to know that the consultation has not yet closed, although it closes at a quarter to midnight tonight, so hon. Members can make their representations.
The plan is essentially for this scheme—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) pointed out, is a market-based approach—to help move us towards the smart energy system of the future that we all talk about, in which we have decentralised energy and people are able to do the energy balancing for their home or their community, plugging in their electric vehicles and doing peer-to-peer energy trading. The scheme is designed to support all those exciting things that are out there. I had a very effective meeting with suppliers of products and services who really support this, and who want to get to that decentralised energy future. They accept the points about tariffs needing to be fair and reasonable, and needing to provide an incentive, but they support creating those prosumers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has said. They support creating that aggregated demand side, meaning that all of us who install solar panels will have some power and some value in the system.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Is the Minister minded to ensure a fair minimum market rate for small-scale generators of exported electricity, to give them some incentive and some degree of confidence?
Claire Perry
That is an important question that will come out in the consultation. Frankly, I would ensure that the market rate was always greater than zero, but that it varied at different times of day, because many of us may have excess energy that we wanted to sell into the grid at a particular time. I want to see what proposals come forward for setting that market rate. There are ideas out there, including that the rate should be wholesale price minus, or that it should be entirely market led.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury about speed being of the essence when coming forward with a response, but I really want to get this right. I do not want this to be a scheme that we are debating in three years’ time because it has suddenly become unaffordable and has not delivered. My hon. Friend will be aware that installers are already scrutinising with care what we are saying and doing. We do not want to create a hiatus, but we want to produce a set of incentives that works for the future.
Claire Perry
I will come to the hon. Lady’s point in a second.
I talked about jobs and the opportunity for skilled workers to pursue careers in this sector. Not only is there ongoing growth in solar, but so many other opportunities are emerging: electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, smart appliances and battery technology are all working to decarbonise our buildings and our transport systems. The opportunity for green-collar jobs is enormous; we already have almost 400,000 people in the UK working directly in the low-carbon economy or in its supply chain, making it a bigger sector than aerospace. Those jobs exist in the here and now.
Claire Perry
I am going to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), who has not spoken yet.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Does the Minister also recognise the potential for the energy company obligation scheme to support innovation, particularly in renewable energy? Often, the challenges to securing a return on investment that developers face can be overcome through the certainty that some sort of support mechanism can offer.
Claire Perry
Indeed I do, and I am proud to have secured one of the largest increases in innovation research and development spending in the clean energy space. Of course, the ECO scheme, which we have recently pivoted to focus on fuel poverty in its entirety, includes an increase in the amount spent on innovation.
Catherine West
Will the Minister reassure us that when her officers are looking at the responses to the consultation, they will take into account the fact that for small schemes, such as the one that is putting solar panels on schools in my constituency, the overheads tend to be greater?
Claire Perry
That is a valuable point, and the hon. Lady is right to make it.
The consultation is closing in a few hours’ time. I know that it has been welcomed, including by the industry, which sees it as a bridge to a renewable, subsidy-free future. The comments that have been made today will be valuable in ensuring the details of the scheme are acceptable.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The Minister may be under the misapprehension that she has to allow the mover of the motion time to sum up, but that does not apply in half-hour debates, so she has another four minutes if she wants to use them.
Claire Perry
Well, Mr Hollobone, you learn something every day in Parliament. It would perhaps be only courteous to allow my hon. Friend to sum up; is that permissible?
Claire Perry
I will just keep going, then! If anyone else would like to intervene, the Floor is theirs.
Antoinette Sandbach
One of my concerns is the gap that has been spoken about. I understand the Minister’s desire to get things right, but will she consider extending the FIT scheme to cover that gap, bearing in mind that, given her efficient work in her Department, it is likely to be a short delay?
Claire Perry
Sadly, in all honesty, probably not. We have been clearly signalling the closing of the FIT scheme for several years now, and the response from the industry has been, “We understand that. We understand that some schemes may be on hold, but we welcome the smart export guarantee, because our main ask was to ensure that the energy that was being generated had some value.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury asked me another question about an issue that I was not fully aware of—namely, the concerns about testing the smart metering equipment technical specification 2 programme to ensure it interacts effectively with solar generation. I have instructed my officials to ensure that that testing is actioned, because that is an important point.
Catherine West
Will the Minister give a brief account of what is happening with Government buildings? They are clearly low-hanging fruit, as it were; there should be more and more solar installations on Government buildings.
Claire Perry
I am sure that the hon. Lady will have read the clean growth strategy from cover to cover, and will have seen in there that we have set out ambitious targets for the central Government estate and the wider estate. As we have so many former representatives of local authorities here, I encourage all Members to look at the Salix scheme, which allows local authorities to green up their own activities and rely on an interest-free revolving loan. It has been a great success story, and one that we must do a lot more on.
I will mention another issue—briefly, as I only have two minutes. A question was asked about encouraging housing associations and others to be involved, and I have been encouraging housing associations and local authorities to think about issuing green financial instruments. There is a huge appetite for green bonds, either individually or collectively, and using that funding for some of the excellent energy efficiency work that is available.
Matt Rodda
On a related matter, will the Minister also consider the issue of the private rented sector, which in some parts of our towns and cities makes up a substantial amount of the homes in those local authority areas? In my experience as a former councillor, there is a serious issue with both fuel poverty—people living in poverty in private rented homes—and poor insulation linked to a lack of take-up of solar.
Claire Perry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am pleased to tell him that one of the pieces of legislation we have introduced ensures that the least efficient homes in the private rented sector will no longer be allowed to be re-rented until those improvements have been made.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury for an excellent and timely debate. I will just say something that is a tiny bit political: would it not be lovely if we could get through Brexit and vote for the deal so that we could bring all this collective knowledge together to solve these problems, which are about not the next three years but the next 30? If we do that, will my hon. Friend promise us that she will mix us an Archimedes’ screw cocktail, so that we can celebrate and focus on saving the planet, rather than saving our sanity in the Brexit negotiations?
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Will those Members not staying for the next debate please be kind enough to leave quickly and, importantly, quietly?
No-deal EU Exit: Public Sector Catering
(5 years, 9 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
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of leaving the EU without a deal on public sector catering.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I start by thanking all the public sector catering providers, users and campaigners who have been in touch with me over the past week to raise their concerns about this issue. I can see a number of them in the Public Gallery today. I am extremely grateful and pleased that they have made the journey here today.
Although a no-deal Brexit in general is deeply concerning to me and many others up and down the country, I tabled this debate because the quality, quantity and safety of the food provided to some of the most vulnerable in our society is often overlooked in the debates around a no-deal Brexit. I therefore wanted to speak up today for the estimated 10.5 million people in the UK who rely on public sector institutions for at least some of their food. Some are completely reliant on such institutions for all their meals. I want to say clearly to the Government that no deal should not mean no meal.
The Soil Association brief sent to me yesterday reads clearly:
“It is very likely that a No deal Brexit would be disastrous for public sector catering.”
Institutions including schools, universities, hospitals, care homes, meals on wheels and prisons will be adversely affected by a no-deal Brexit. They feed some of the most vulnerable in our society. Without those services, many would simply not eat. High quality public sector catering is so important to the health and wellbeing of millions of people across the country. A drop in standards or the availability of nutritious food because of a no-deal Brexit would be extremely detrimental to service users.
I want to focus on three main concerns today, which I will address in turn: the cost and availability of meals; the quality, quantity and safety of food available to public sector providers; and, finally, workforce retention.
At the end of last year, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, told the Treasury Committee that in the most “extreme” no-deal Brexit, food prices would rise by 10%, but that in a less severe scenario, the increase would be about 6%. Either scenario is concerning to suppliers of public sector catering, which are already struggling to cover the cost of nutritious meals.
For example, the allowance for universal infant free school meals is £2.30. That goes directly to schools and is not ring-fenced. It has not been increased since the start of universal infant free school meals in September 2014. In many cases, the caterers do not receive the full amount. Bidfood has calculated that with 13% inflationary costs and the potential increase in costs following no deal, the meal allowance would need to be increased by 69p to bring the allowance back to where we are now. There are serious concerns about the impact Brexit could have on the provision of school meals in some schools, particularly small rural schools, that no longer receive the small school allowance of £2,000, which ceased about two years ago.
Due to Brexit uncertainty, caterers have reported an overall increase in costs of up to 20% for some ingredients over the past 12 months, with the cost of eggs reported to be up by 14%.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and making the case about food price rises. Is she not also concerned that a no-deal Brexit might lead to trade deals that lower standards, particularly with the US? The National Farmers Union has said that it is concerned about US practices and that trade deals should
“not allow imports of food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers”,
such as chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-fed beef. We might be pushed to lower standards for cheaper food. That is a huge health and safety issue for our children.
Mrs Hodgson
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on the issue he raises later in my contribution. This morning, I sat on a no-deal Delegated Legislation Committee with my shadow Public Health Minister hat on. In that Committee Room, we were talking about the very issues my hon. Friend raises in respect of a no-deal Brexit. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), assured me that our chicken will still be washed in drinking water and not in any form of chlorine. However, my hon. Friend’s worry is very much taken on board, given that the money will not be there and costs will be cut to the bone—no pun intended.
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, the prices of raw materials and commodities will go up, but who will absorb the price increases? Social care providers, particularly those with a majority of local authority-funded residents, will not have the capability to accept increased catering costs. Will the Government therefore increase the budgets for public sector catering to cover the shortfall?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I apologise for being slightly late for the beginning of the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it. In my city of Hull, there has been an attempt to keep school meal prices as low as possible—50p, rather than the normal £2-odd. What concerns me is that there is already pressure on that budget. It has already gone up to £1 because of school budget pressures. What does she think about the fact that there is a public health initiative to try to ensure that children are eating healthily and well, yet the cost may go up even more due to what she has described in her contribution?
Mrs Hodgson
That is the worry. As Bidfood worked out, the cost will have to go up by 69p a child just to stand still. In areas that are trying to keep the price as low as possible, that initiative disappears, but in other areas that are already paying £2.30 or £2.40, what will happen? Parents cannot afford to pay much more than that, so the quality of the food, children’s health and the health of the 10.5 million people who rely on this food every day will suffer as a consequence.
If the Government do not cover the shortfall, menus may have to be reduced so that providers do not overspend. As my hon. Friend has just said, that will compromise the nutritional value of the meals given to service users. An increase in the costs of public sector meals could therefore see an increase in poverty, childhood obesity and malnutrition in hospitals and care homes, which could have serious implications for the health and wellbeing of service users.
The affordability of food post Brexit, especially in the event of no deal, is an incredibly alarming issue. That is the case for all our constituents, but even more so for those who rely on public sector catering for their food. General food shortages due to panic buying or an impact on deliveries due to fuel shortages are of particular concern, especially for public sector catering in hospitals and care homes. The Government should communicate openly and factually about the food challenges ahead and encourage the food industry, caterers, institutions and organisations to do so too.
One person wrote to me to say that the Government had given them
“no real guidance, other than to stockpile food”.
One local authority caterer told Food for Life that it had invested more than £1 million in stockpiling ingredients, including 250 tonnes of meat. However, the caterer is concerned, as that food will only last for a short period. Not every caterer has the capacity to stockpile food. What advice have the Government given to suppliers and caterers? Is advice being updated clearly and regularly?
The Federation of Wholesale Distributors has expressed concern about the continuity of food supplies to schools and hospitals in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It has suggested that food supplies should be triaged and prioritised for those most in need, but that could happen only with Government intervention. Is that something the Minister has considered? Concerns have also been raised with me about products being diverted to more lucrative customers, rather than being prioritised for vulnerable people. Will the Minister address that point too?
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 does not deal directly with food—probably nobody ever thought that we would be in this position—and nor does it identify responsible agencies with a food remit. Has the Minister had any conversations with his Government colleagues about including food in the 2004 Act, particularly for vulnerable people?
The meals distributed in schools, universities, hospitals, care homes and prisons each day are crucial to those who eat them. Caterers are already beginning to remove higher quality produce from menus, with some school caterers considering a move from hot food to cold meals. That could result in a reduction in the nutritional value of meals, which would be detrimental to children or to service users in the case of the other provisions.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend does amazing work on schools through the all-party parliamentary group, and through the children’s future food inquiry, which I am pleased to be involved in. She will know that there is real concern about children living in food poverty. Indeed, the Food Foundation assessed towards the end of last year that around 3.7 million children are living in households that would have to spend 42% of their annual income to meet the guidance of the “eatwell plate”. That is simply unaffordable and if food prices rocket because of Brexit, it will become even more so. Does she share my concern that we are reaching crisis point?
Mrs Hodgson
I am really grateful that my hon. Friend has made that point. The average person spends 17% to 18% of their income on food, but people living on benefits and in poverty spend around 42% of their money on food, and that is at today’s prices. We do not need a mathematician to work out what a vulnerable position people will be in if food prices go up. Even the 6% increase would have a detrimental effect.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there must also be a concern about food banks, and especially about schemes such as FareShare and organisations such as the Pickle Palace in my constituency that provide low-cost meals and “pay-what-you-can” food for people on low incomes.
Mrs Hodgson
That is another very good point. Often, those who supply local authority caterers are some of the best for supplying food banks and FareShare. When they have to trim and trim again, that will be one of the charitable aspects of their operations that will sadly have to go. Again, that will have a knock-on effect on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is being very generous. I am involved in something called Feeding Bristol, which is an offshoot of Feeding Britain—an organisation that aims to eradicate food poverty. We were discussing this matter at a meeting last week. Food prices going up will create an affordability issue, and if people stockpile and panic-buy food and the supermarkets run dry, donated food to hostels and food banks will dry up completely. Not only will people be more likely to have to go to food banks because they will be unable to afford food—and they might not be getting such good quality food through public sector catering—but food banks will run out as well.
Mrs Hodgson
I hope that the Minister acknowledges the picture being painted of the potential knock-on effects. I appreciate that this is the worst-case scenario—a no-deal, catastrophe scenario—but, given that there is no deal on the table that the majority of the House can vote for, a responsible Parliament has to prepare for it. These doomsday scenarios could become the reality for many people’s lives, despite none of us in this room wanting that to happen.
Does the Minister share my concern about a reduction in the safety and nutritional quality of food served to those using public sector catering, especially given that those meals are, as we have heard, the main source of nutrition for millions of people—10.5 million people, day in and day out, up and down the country? Equally, public sector caterers must provide food that meets specific health or cultural needs, such as kosher, gluten-free, vegetarian or allergy-specific food. There are many other examples. For some, it could be a matter of life or death. For others, a failure to provide nutritionally complete meals would slow down their recovery and increase the risk of malnutrition, or result in a deficiency in other nutritional values.
I received a message from the National Association of Care Catering that reads:
“We have 60 plus residents in our home, so have to provide 60 meals three times a day, with the average age of 86, how do we ensure regular supply?”
That is of great concern across the industry. Even where contingencies can be made, it may involve people eating very bland or repetitive menus, which I know goes against the entire ethos of public sector catering.
Finally, the workforce are crucial to public sector catering. Have the Government engaged with the catering sector to understand the challenges that a disorderly Brexit might pose to its workforce and services? The public sector employs a considerable number of EU nationals, and I am told that some are already returning home. The threat of a no-deal Brexit will only make the situation worse, thereby posing a threat to the services that the sector provides, and having an impact on safety.
Although new members of staff can, of course, be recruited, it takes time and money to train them. A workforce gap in the event of a no-deal Brexit would limit the effectiveness of public sector catering, which is already facing all the challenges that I have highlighted. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the public sector catering workforce are trained, equipped and funded to provide vital services in the event of no deal?
Public sector catering is fundamental to the care provided in schools, universities, hospitals, care homes and prisons. A delay in food deliveries, an increase in the cost of food and a decrease in nutritional standards or safety could be detrimental to service users and, in some cases, a matter of life or death. When we talk about the impact of no deal on our health and wellbeing, we must also consider the availability of food to the most vulnerable in our society, which a number of my hon. Friends have spoken about.
What about those who cannot afford to stockpile or lack the capacity to do so? What about those who are in hospitals, care homes or prisons? They cannot stockpile food in their little bedside cabinet. I do not have time to discuss this issue fully now—thankfully others have mentioned it—but we must remember that a surge in food prices could mean a reduction in donations to food banks from public sector caterers, some of whom are very generous to not only food banks but to holiday provision. I know that Bidfood supports holiday clubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke in glowing terms about Bidfood’s support for her holiday clubs at the last APPG meeting. All of that will have implications for families already living in poverty.
Brexit should not be the reason that millions of people go hungry, and I hope that after the debate the Minister will have considered another aspect of a no-deal Brexit that perhaps the Government had not already considered. I hope that he will urgently relay what I have said back to his Government colleagues. In closing, I reiterate that no deal should not mean no meal. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). She is a hard act to follow, and I have had to do so twice today—I was on the Delegated Legislation Committee with her this morning.
To be perfectly honest, I had not really thought about this subject in any great depth until I was asked to sum up for the SNP in this debate. I have learned so much listening to the hon. Lady, and I congratulate her on her speech. Having now considered the issue, I realise that a worrying, appalling impact may result for the most vulnerable people in our society.
The hon. Lady talked about three main areas—cost and availability, quantity and quality of food, and workforce retention. They are all points that the Minister must take on board. I hope he will be able to reassure all of us, and the wider public, about these issues in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
I have some wonderful organisations in my constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw. My office and I run a poverty action group, which meets quarterly. The next meeting, due in the next month or so, is sure to have this issue very high on the agenda. We deal with carers and people who work in the public sector, and mainly with organisations that help the most vulnerable. It is really important to consider the point that was made about how, at present, 40% of some household budgets is spent on food. If there are food shortages, which are a possibility with a no-deal Brexit, that percentage is going to rise, and could rise significantly. That will also affect the nutritional value of what can be done in the home and in public sector catering.
North Lanarkshire is a Labour-controlled council, and I frequently comment on whether it does well or badly, according to my lights. In this case, it does a wonderful job through its running of an organisation called Club 365 that provides nutritious meals for those children in primaries 1 to 7, aged 5 to 12, who receive free school meals during the school week, at weekends and in school holidays, with the aim of ending holiday hunger. I know many Members across the Chamber have been working hard to prevent that for quite a long time.
Although there are fewer public sector care homes than there used to be—that has been forced on many local authorities—it is appalling to think that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, many older people could finish up with poorer quality meals, at a time when for many of them a hot meal is the main part of their day, especially if it is provided through meals on wheels or other similar organisations. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made a good point about food banks and other organisations that rely on donations also being affected in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The knock-on effect of a no-deal Brexit on food is quite appalling to consider. I am sure the Minister is going to reassure us that it will all be all right on the night and that there are contingency plans already prepared and that no one will go hungry, but I do not think the United Kingdom is ready to dig for victory, as it had to do in the second world war. We need to know that people will still be able to access nutritious, fresh food. Perishable food being held up at channel ports does not bear thinking about.
Kerry McCarthy
The point about perishable food being held up at ports is really important. I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fruit and vegetable farmers. We have heard such scare stories, but they are not scare stories, because they are rooted in reality. This is a combination of two things. About 90% of our mushrooms now come from Poland because it is cheaper to grow them there, and those products will be held up at ports, and, obviously, they go off very quickly. There is also a real shortage of workers to pick the fresh fruit and veg in this country now. A crisis is looming—the fruit and veg farmers have been warning of it for a long time. We may find that even though food might be growing in plentiful quantities, it will still be rotting in the fields.
Marion Fellows
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Only last summer in Angus in Scotland, many fruit farms could not recruit the workers who traditionally came from EU countries and a lot of the fruit lay rotting in the fields. This is a really serious issue.
This is perhaps slightly off key—I apologise, Mr Hollobone. I was thinking of EU nationals and public service catering, and I like to think that I provide a public service in being a Member of Parliament! I started to look around at the number of people who were serving me. So many of them are EU nationals, but because of the almost hostile environment—there is a current story in Scotland of a woman who has been here for 47 years and does not understand why she has to register because this is her home; what else is she going to do?—there are real difficulties for the many EU nationals who are here and who might stay and register. In Scotland, they are very welcome. There will also be many who are completely put off even thinking about coming to work here.
For example, so many EU nationals work in care homes. It is all very well for the Government to say that those jobs could be done by UK citizens, but they are not being done by UK citizens. I do not think that anyone is going to suddenly change their mind and make a career in catering or in care homes, just because there is a job available.
I hope the Minister is able to answer some of the fears that have been expressed here today. Leaving with no deal is a serious and worrying prospect. The SNP is against the United Kingdom exiting the EU, but nevertheless we put forward suggestions on how compromises could be made so that there would not be such a brutal disruption to life in this country after we leave the European Union.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to make the winding-up speech for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate. As other hon. Friends have said, she does a huge amount of work in this area, not least through her chairpersonship of the all-party parliamentary group on school food. She has done the House a real service by focusing our attention on the likely impact of a no-deal exit from the EU on public sector catering, and on all those who are looked after by public sector institutions. Her warnings were all the more powerful for being delivered with her customary frankness and thoughtfulness.
This is not the first debate in which hon. and right hon. Members have raised concerns about the implications of a no-deal exit from the EU and it is obvious why that is so. An exit from the EU on 29 March or any date thereafter without agreement would be nothing short of a national disaster, affecting every facet of our national life and every region and nation of the UK. It would end, at a stroke, the whole body of legal arrangements we have with the EU, built up over many decades. Its effects would extend far beyond the absence of a trade deal, leaving the UK without rules to govern trade in a range of crucial areas, from financial contract clearing to medicines regulation. It would threaten the complex law enforcement and judicial co-operation arrangements that keep Britain safe. It would almost inevitably result in infrastructure being placed on the Irish border, place untold strain on the Good Friday agreement and Anglo-Irish relations more generally, and exacerbate the political instability in Northern Ireland.
In short, such an exit is the hardest and most chaotic of departures possible. To be honest, no one knows for sure how extensive the negative impact would be, yet among Brexiters, brimming with the misplaced confidence that has defined their approach to this process, the fantasy of a cost-free, no-deal exit lives on.
The most cavalier among the Brexiters dismiss any concerns out of hand as the latest round of “Project Fear” alarmism; others concede that there will be disruption, but insist it would be only temporary and would be outweighed by the new legal freedoms and opportunities arising from being completely outside the EU’s orbit. In debates in the House, they exhort us to have faith that the British people would make the best of it. I have no doubt that they would make the best of it, but why would any Government force the British people to cope with an entirely avoidable act of self-harm, which opinion polling suggests only a minority of the public support?
No Government in their right mind should countenance a no-deal exit from the EU, especially when the other party to the negotiations knows full well that that is an empty threat. The tragedy is that instead of simply announcing that under no circumstances will the UK leave the EU without a deal, this Government have adopted such an outcome as their official plan B, endlessly repeating over many months the mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal. They have spent significant sums of public money trying—I emphasise that word—to ensure they are prepared for it.
The Government have kept alive the possibility of a no-deal exit in spite of the stark conclusions of their internal assessments of the implications. From the no-deal impact assessment summary, which was forced out of the Government two weeks ago, we now have a clearer idea of what a no-deal Brexit would entail in specific sectors and for different regions and nations of the UK. The impact summary makes it absolutely clear that the UK is simply not prepared for a no-deal exit on 29 March, with Departments on track for just over two thirds of the most critical projects. The summary is honest about the fact that in the event of a no-deal exit the UK would be at the mercy of the actions of the European Commission, EU member states and EU businesses. In other words, the Government would not be in control of the situation. The summary admits that there is little evidence that businesses are preparing in earnest for a no-deal scenario, and the readiness of small and medium-size enterprises is particularly low.
The impact summary plainly restates the UK Government’s estimate that, compared with today’s arrangements, the economy would be 6.3% to 9% smaller over a 15-year period, which brings me to the subject of this debate. The summary makes it clear that the anticipated effects of a no-deal scenario across a range of areas would include the UK’s food supply being affected by delays in goods crossing the channel and a likely rise in food prices, and many businesses in the food supply industry are simply unprepared.
Disruption to food supplies and an increase in food prices would affect every single one of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West is absolutely right to draw attention, by way of this debate, to the significant implications of a no-deal exit for people who rely on public sector catering for their meals, especially if the UK exits without a deal on 29 March—a time of year when we import a large proportion of our fresh food from Europe, and in the run-up to the Easter weekend.
My hon. Friend is right to make it clear that we are talking about 10.5 million people potentially affected—hospital patients, care home residents, prisoners and school pupils—of whom I think she said 1.5 million are children who are eligible for free school meals. I want to emphasise concerns about the impact of a no-deal exit from the EU with regard to the cost and availability of meals; the quality, quantity and safety of food available to public sector providers; and the issue of how we ensure that we recruit and retain a workforce to deliver the service. In saying that, I very much echo the comments made by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows).
I was particularly struck by the revelation that many caterers have been advised by Government to stockpile food, and that one local authority has already spent £1 million on doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West is right to point out that most schools and hospitals lack the money and the necessary storage space to stockpile food. She set out in painstaking detail how tight the margins are on the meals these institutions supply, and how sensitive they are to price increases. She rightly drew our attention to the fact that the implications of any food disruption, particularly with fresh fruit and vegetables, and an increase in food prices would be especially stark for the 1.5 million children in this country who are eligible for free school meals, and, in a wider sense, for people who rely on the social security system and find themselves in deprivation.
My hon. Friend also raised a series of important points, not least the deficiencies of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 with regard to food. I will not go over all of them. However, in the light of the concerns she raised, may I press the Minister to set out in detail what specific contingency planning the Government have undertaken, or are currently undertaking, to ensure that public sector caterers can cope with food disruption and/or food price increases? Will he explain precisely what his Department is doing to ensure that public sector institutions of the kind we have discussed do not find themselves in competition with the private sector or private consumers for food essentials in the event of a no-deal exit?
I expect the Minister to ignore the following question, as his colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union have done repeatedly in the past week, but it would be fantastic if gave me an answer. Will he tell us whether the Government intend on 13 March to whip against a no-deal exit, should the House once again vote down the deal on the preceding day? It is simply not good enough to dismiss the question on the basis that it is a hypothetical decision on a hypothetical vote. There is a high likelihood that next week we will confront this issue and that of extending article 50, and the country really deserves to know the Government’s intentions on whipping their Members of Parliament on that vote.
There are now only 25 days until 29 March. By my calculation, there are 16 sitting days. Although an extension to the article 50 process is now almost certain, it is not guaranteed. Even if the House votes for an extension on 14 March, we could simply end up facing a much sharper cliff edge if the Government insist only on a short, one-off extension and recklessly continue to run down the clock in the hope that the failed strategy to which they have adhered for the 49 days since 15 January will pay off.
The possibility of a no-deal exit—whether by accident or design—is still very real. On 29 January, a clear majority in the House voted against a no-deal exit by backing the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). I have no doubt that the House will do so again on 13 March if the Government’s deal goes down to a second defeat.
It is time that the Government responded to the will of Parliament and announced that under no circumstances will the UK leave the EU without a deal. To do otherwise risks the Government finding themselves responsible for a disastrous outcome that, as we have heard today, would endanger the health and wellbeing of people who can least afford it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate, for her contribution and for all the hard work she does in Parliament on these and related matters.
Let me reassure hon. Members that the continued provision of nutritious, high-quality and safe food in the public sector is a top priority for Departments across Government and for the devolved Administrations. I shall go on to explain the steps that are being taken to ensure that is the case. The best way to avoid a no-deal exit is to secure a deal, and hon. Members will have an opportunity to have our say on that next week. Securing a deal with the EU remains the Government’s top priority. However, as a responsible Government we have a responsibility to actively prepare for the possibility of a no-deal exit and to look at other scenarios as well, as has been recognised by Members of different parties in this debate.
We have a highly resilient food supply chain in the UK, with access to a range of sources of food. That will continue whether we leave the EU with or without a deal. There would continue to be an adequate supply of food to ensure people continue to have a balanced diet. The food industry in the UK is highly diverse, competitive and well versed in dealing with scenarios that can affect food supply, from adverse weather damaging crops in other countries to transport issues abroad. It is a resilient sector.
Prior to this life, I used to run Asda’s home shopping business. As a Minister, I work with the industry and attend high-level meetings with representatives every week—I will do so after this debate—to ensure that we are prepared for any eventuality. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been contributing to cross-Government contingency planning, which has involved working with the food industry to understand the potential impacts of a no-deal scenario and to support such planning by the industry.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) asked about contingency planning, and I can assure him that there is a lot of it going on. We are working very closely with industry, which has led most of the contingency planning—we are providing support and direction. The industry has the expertise and capacity to help ensure that we minimise any potential disruption to supply.
We have been working through various forums, including DEFRA’s long-standing food chain emergency liaison group, which has been through many experiences in the past. As a result of extensive engagement with the food industry and cross-Government discussions, as previously stated, in a worst-case no-deal scenario consumers and businesses will continue to have access to a wide range of food products. We are working to mitigate possible disruption in availability and choice of certain seasonal products in that case, which I think it is fair to say would indeed be a worst-case scenario.
DEFRA is working with the Department for Transport and with industry to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal scenario, goods can continue to be transported on existing trade routes, including across the Dover straits, as quickly as possible. That includes securing extra freight capacity across the English channel, and ensuring a functioning customs, VAT and excise system from day one, to facilitate the flow of goods. To have that consistent supply is vital.
We are working closely with the industry and across Government through the border delivery group—a co-ordinated effort across Government to tackle that vital issue. We have also been working with the Cabinet Office and lead Departments in their work to ensure the resilience of food supply in public sector settings, including schools, hospitals and social care settings, as well as prisons and the military. Some of those have been mentioned in the debate. The lead Departments include the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence. We have been working flat out to ensure that we have robust contingency plans in place for public sector food provision. We are reviewing catering services and contracts and have engaged with providers of food, such as hospital trusts and schools, to identify the risks and contingency measures for their sectors.
That has included working closely with catering suppliers to ensure that contingency plans are in place. Suppliers have been looking at a variety of contingency measures to ensure the continued provision of food that meets standards—for example, looking at alternative suppliers and adjusting menus in line with product availability while continuing to meet school and hospital food standards. It is vital to continue to meet the requirements of those standards. Lead Departments are confident that the public will continue to receive nutritious meals in public sector settings. If time permits, I will go into some more detail about the various sectors.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked about prioritising between public and private sectors. In the contingency plan, we want to ensure that food is available to all sectors but, as he rightly stated, for many public sector services and vulnerable groups we need to ensure food provision. We believe that, even in a worst case scenario, customers will continue to have access to a broad range of food, and that will extend to those services as well. Different choices of food types might be necessary, but there will be enough food to ensure the balanced diet that people need.
Another question was about food prices. Clearly the best way to ensure against any impact on food prices is to get the deal, but in a no-deal scenario it is again to minimise the disruption to food supply. We therefore need to work across Government to find ways of ensuring that the food supply is available. DEFRA officials are working with the DFT to find ways over potential hurdles and challenges to ensure that continuity of supply. As we do that, we will ensure that any potential price rises are kept to a minimum, and of course we have mechanisms in place to help those who are most needy if prices were to rise significantly. Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions are aware of the potential impacts, and we are working with them on that. I hope that addresses some of the concerns expressed today.
Moving on to the Department for Education and schools in particular, a number of points were made about schools. The DFE is confident that schools will continue to be able to provide pupils with nutritious school meals no matter what the outcome of EU exit is. It expects schools still to meet the school food standards in a no-deal scenario. Schools have a great deal of flexibility in the foods that they can deliver under those standards. If a particular product is not readily available for any reason, the standards allow schools a wide range of freedoms to substitute similar foods that are available.
In January, the Department for Education published a technical notice on no-deal preparations for schools in England, including information on food supplies. The DFE is also engaging with leading school food suppliers, local authorities and schools as part of its preparations. We will continue to monitor that and work with the Department.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked about school meals. Schools and their suppliers have considerable freedom to source food that offers the best value for money. When considering the potential for any price rises, it is important to note that the UK has a high level of food security built into a diverse range of sources, including strong domestic production and imports from other countries, as I said before. We do not envisage a scenario in which the Government would need to provide additional funding to support schools with rising food costs, for the reason I set out earlier: the UK has a high level of food security. We are confident that schools, colleges and other settings will continue to be able to provide pupils with nutritious school meals whatever the outcome of Brexit.
Another hon. Member asked about the Civil Contingencies Act. It does cover food supply, but it is designed for a national emergency. In a worst case Brexit scenario, we do not believe that overall food shortages would be such that it is necessary to invoke the Act. In the scenarios that we are working to, that would not be required. None the less, as I have said several times, we are working with and speaking to colleagues across Government to minimise disruption and to consider the possible impacts on vulnerable groups.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned the potential impact on food banks. Again, we do not expect overall shortages of food, but we speak regularly to retailers—in fact, I will be speaking with a group of them after the debate, so I can re-emphasise concerns expressed in this Chamber—and our aim is to ensure that we can continue the food supply so that consumers do not need to alter their shopping patterns.
The hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) mentioned watering down standards. The hon. Member for Bristol East holds my feet to the fire on this issue regularly, and she has a consistent record on it across Government. We respect her views—no question—and she knows that, but it is important to recognise that, no matter the future challenges, there are also opportunities. However, we do not want to see the watering down of food standards in any way. I think she is aware that protections are in place as far as chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef are concerned—I cannot resist mentioning that.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister is appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee tomorrow afternoon, so he can expect a little more of that treatment then.
David Rutley
I look forward to it with glee. I am sure that I will get more of that treatment. We can talk in more detail then, but I hope the hon. Lady understands the reassurances given consistently in various settings in the House.
I will move on to health and social care. The DHSC is confident that its contingency plans for ensuring the seamless supply of products and services after we leave the EU are comprehensive and robust, and that food supply for patients will be protected in a no-deal scenario. The Department is working with food providers and suppliers to understand their contingency planning and mitigation activities. That work covers both social care and NHS providers.
The DHSC is working closely with Public Health England and nutritional specialists to ensure that nutritional standards are maintained in hospitals and care homes. Standard guidelines are being finalised for health and adult social care providers to support the continued provision of a balanced diet, in line with the Government’s “eatwell” guide. The DHSC is also working to ensure that it has the necessary resources and contingencies in place to continue to protect patients and to have uninterrupted supplies of any specialist nutritional products, including infant formula. It is important to note that, because a lot of the focus has been on ensuring the continued supply of vital medicines—or vet meds, for that matter—but we will also protect key nutritional products such as infant formula.
We are working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that local authorities are able to support vulnerable people such as the elderly and vulnerable families. Hon. Members are probably aware that we are working very actively with local resilience forums. Local authorities need to work with their local resilience forums to plan and prepare for localised incidents, identify potential risks and produce emergency plans to prevent or mitigate the impact of any incident on their local communities. We are doing that at a local level. We meet regularly with key contacts in LRFs to share intelligence on the impacts that a no-deal EU exit would have on local areas. DEFRA and MHCLG have provided advice to LRFs on food supply impacts, to support their preparedness for a no-deal exit, and particularly to consider any impacts on vulnerable groups if they should arise. We are working closely to mitigate issues with vulnerable groups at a local level.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West was assiduous in mentioning workforce retention, which is vital across Government. We rely very heavily on those citizens in many public services, and in services that are provided in the public sector for the public. I share her concern; we want to continue to make them feel welcome, whatever the scenario might be.
The Government have been clear that we will protect EU citizens’ rights, including in a no-deal scenario. All EU citizens resident in the UK by 29 March will be able to stay. They will have until 31 December 2020 to apply for settled status. We want them to feel welcome and we recognise the contribution they make. DEFRA will continue to work with the Home Office as the future immigration system is fully developed, to ensure that we have a clear strategy for those who work so hard in the food supply chain, often in critical sectors—slaughterhouses, meat processing and vets. It is uppermost in our mind.
As we leave the EU, the Government are committed to securing the best possible deal for Britain that works for farmers, food producers and consumers, and ensures strong public services. Although we do not want or expect a no deal, the Government are taking sensible measures to prepare for all scenarios.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister will know from the no-deal impact assessment summary that one particular concern is that, despite communications from the Government, there is little evidence that businesses are preparing in earnest for a no-deal scenario. Does the Minister have a sense of whether the public catering industry suppliers and providers are responding to the Government’s call to prepare themselves, or whether the industry is lagging behind, as others clearly are?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. I meet the National Farmers Union, the Food and Drink Federation, UKHospitality and the British Retail Consortium every week to review their concerns and considerations. We have established a good dialogue at a senior level with those trade bodies and their members, but it is fair to say there is still more work required with small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly our smaller and microbusinesses. Some are prepared and some need further information. I hope that he recognises that across Government a far greater weight of activity is being put out to encourage people to find out more about what is going on and to engage in the processes. We are working very hard on that but there is more work to do.
The UK has a high degree of overall food security, and that will remain the case, deal or no deal. As well as DEFRA’s work to support contingency planning by the food industry, and the industry’s proven capability to respond to supply chain disruptions, steps are being taken by my colleagues across other Government Departments. We are all working to ensure the resilience of food supplies in the public sector. Across Government, Departments are putting into place the necessary steps to ensure that patients, school children and others who are reliant on the public sector will be supplied with nutritious, high-quality and safe food in all exit scenarios.
Mrs Hodgson
I thank everyone who has attended the debate. I am sure that if there was not so much other business, not least the no-deal statutory instruments in almost every room in the House, many more Members would have taken part. It was definitely a case of quality over quantity.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), as well as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I hope it does not come to a situation where we have to dig for victory. I was not around then and I do not think the hon. Lady or any of us have dug for victory—I would definitely have to give up false nails if it came to that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his excellent contribution. I used the figure of 24 or 25 days, but he has worked out that there are 16 sitting days before we could crash out without a deal. We all hope that it will not come to that, and that next week we can get a deal through the House that everyone can vote for, but the subject of this debate was no-deal preparation for public sector catering. We sincerely hope that if it comes to that, public sector catering providers will be prioritised if there are any food shortages, as they cater to some of the most vulnerable people in our society who are least able to prepare, stockpile or go in search of food.
The Minister said that he believed there will be no need for the Government to help to fund any shortfall or costs for schools or other public sector catering, as the Government feel that the food supply is secure enough to withstand a no-deal Brexit. I do not have access to all the research he has access to in the Government but, following my research, I do not share his optimism. I hope that the Government will commit to revisiting the decision if that situation arose. I thank everyone once again. Let us hope that we will not be in the position that we have all been talking about.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of leaving the EU without a deal on public sector catering.
Written Statements
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Administration of Justice: Impact of Social Media
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the call for evidence on the impact of social media on the administration of justice. The response is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/response-to-call-for-evidence-on-the-impact-of-social-media-on-the-administration-of-justice, and a copy has also been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The focus of the call for evidence was to look at the impact of social media on the criminal justice system, with particular attention paid to the issues of active proceedings and breaches of reporting restrictions and anonymity orders.
The evidence was varied and I am grateful to everyone who contributed. We can conclude that, for the moment, social media is not having a widespread impact on the trial process. This, however, may not remain the case if the issues identified are not addressed. The response sets out a number of ways that the Government will respond to the variety of issues raised. This includes improving links with social media companies, which will enable easier removal of harmful posts, and working with cross-Government partners, including the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office, on the White Paper on online harms to tackle related issues. Further, I will work with my Public Legal Education Committee to raise awareness of the risks and implications of using social media to comment on criminal trials. As a part of this work, the Government have created a dedicated webpage to support public understanding of contempt of court and anonymity orders, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court. In addition to working on guidance for the public, work is also underway to develop comprehensive guidance on contempt led by the Judicial Office. I am grateful to the judiciary for their support in understanding and dealing with this issue.
I am confident that these measures will contribute to ensuring safer use of social media in accordance with the law and will support the Government’s efforts to make the internet a safer place.
[HCWS1377]
Right to Rent Scheme
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The right to rent scheme was launched to prevent illegal migrants from accessing the private rental sector, and to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes in very poor conditions.
In 2016, a requirement was introduced for landlords and lettings agents in England to take reasonable steps to check that they are renting only to someone who has a right to do so.
These checks apply equally to everyone seeking to rent property and there are penalties for landlords who fail to complete them and who are later found to have rented to someone without a right to be in the UK.
The law was and remains absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out these checks is unlawful. And the right to rent legislation provides for a code of practice which sets out what landlords are expected to do.
The scheme was trialled in the west midlands. This trial was evaluated in full, with the results published in October 2015. They included 539 responses to online surveys, 12 focus groups, 36 one-to-one interviews, and a mystery shopping exercise involving 332 encounters.
The Home Office evaluation found there was no systemic discrimination on the basis of race.
It is therefore disappointing that, on Friday last week, the right to rent scheme was declared incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The High Court ruled that Parliament’s decision to impose right to rent checks is outweighed by the potential for race discrimination by those with the duty to perform the required checks.
We disagree with this finding and the Home Office has been granted permission to appeal all aspects of the judgment.
In the meantime, the provisions passed by this House in 2014 remain in force. There are no immediate changes to the operation of the policy. Landlords and letting agents are still obliged to conduct right to rent checks as required in legislation. They must not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their colour or where they come from.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has previously said, we are looking at options for a further evaluation of the operation of the scheme. As part of this, we will look to develop further mechanisms to monitor the operation of the scheme to provide ongoing assurance about its impact.
The Home Secretary has written to the independent adviser on lessons learned from Windrush, Wendy Williams, to draw her attention to the High Court’s findings.
The review is identifying the key legislative, policy and operational failures which resulted in members of the Windrush generation becoming entangled in measures designed for illegal immigrants.
The Right to Rent Consultative Panel will meet again next month to look at the operation of the scheme and the guidance provided to landlords and lettings agents.
The Government are committed to tackling discrimination in all its forms and to having an immigration system which provides control, but which is also fair, humane and fully compliant with the law. This includes ensuring illegal migrants, with no right to be in the UK, are not able to access work, benefits and public services.
[HCWS1379]
Trade Remedies Authority
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
This Government are committed to ensuring the UK has our own trade remedies function in place by the time we leave the EU.
The Trade Bill contains provisions establishing the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA), while the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (TCBTA) confers trade remedy functions on it. The Trade Bill has completed Committee stage in the House of Lords, and it will begin Report stage on 6 March.
I am pleased to announce that we have today commenced the relevant provisions in the TCBTA and laid secondary legislation giving more detail to the measures set out in the TCBTA, with regards to the trade remedies system. Taken together, these provisions will ensure that the UK has the ability to protect UK industry against injury from unfair trade practices, and unforeseen surges in imports.
The regulations draw from both the relevant WTO agreements (i.e. the general agreement on tariffs and trade, anti-dumping agreement, the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures and the agreement on safeguards) and are similar in many regards to the EU regulations which have applied throughout our membership of the EU. It therefore follows that the process provided for in these regulations will not be wholly unfamiliar to UK industry, and it will have the certainty of a full suite of legislation in place before we leave the EU; it has previously stressed the importance of having regulations in place sooner rather than later.
In the unlikely scenario that we leave the EU without a deal, it is in the national interest to ensure that the UK has the ability to protect UK industry against injury caused by unfair trade practices or unforeseen surges in imports. To provide this certainty, I have put in place contingency arrangements that will temporarily bring the power in-house, allowing the Department to operate trade remedy functions until the Trade Remedies Authority is legally established via the Trade Bill. The use of transitional powers in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 will modify that Act to ensure the trade remedies investigations directorate (TRID) will temporarily deliver these functions. The modifications will expire automatically when the TRA is legally established.
The new function will follow the procedures set out in the legislation. In practical terms, the main difference between the operation of TRID and the TRA relates to the decision-making process. When the TRA is established, it will investigate applications to determine whether there is dumping and/or subsidies or unforeseen surges, and whether UK industry has suffered injury as a consequence. If so, it will apply the economic interest test to determine whether measures are in the wider economic interest of the UK. Where the test is met, the TRA will recommend that measures should be applied, and the Secretary of State will then consider whether to accept or reject that recommendation. In doing so, the Secretary of State can only reject the recommendation on public interest grounds, and this includes a limited assessment of the TRA’s consideration of the economic interest test. While the system is operated in-house, these distinct roles will not exist and legally the Secretary of State will take on responsibility for all of these decisions. However, the intention is to keep this two-stage process as far as possible and for the TRID to carry out objective and evidence-based investigations, while the Secretary of State will take the final decision on whether to apply measures. Where the Secretary of State decides not to apply measures on public interest grounds, a statement will be laid before the House of Commons explaining the reasons, to ensure transparency.
The contingency provisions rely on transitional powers in section 56 of the TCBTA. These provisions to modify section 13 and schedules 4 and 5 of the TCBTA, together with the secondary legislation (the Trade Remedies (Dumping and Subsidisation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Trade Remedies (Increase in Imports Causing Serious Injury to UK Producers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019) made under those powers, bring trade remedy functions that would otherwise be carried out by the TRA in-house until the Trade Bill receives Royal Assent. This will legally establish the TRA, at which point the modifications will fall away and the TRA will assume responsibility for investigating cases and making recommendations to the Secretary of State as it considers appropriate.
To minimise disruption, the policies and procedures align to the future function of the TRA as much as possible. The main difference lies in the decision-making process.
When the TRA is established, it will carry out investigations to determine whether there is dumping, subsidy or an unforeseen surge in imports, and whether UK industry has suffered injury as a consequence. If it finds this is the case, it will then consider whether the economic interest test is met before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State to apply a trade remedy measure. The Secretary of State must then consider whether to accept or reject that recommendation. The Secretary of State may only reject the recommendation on public interest grounds, which includes a limited assessment of the TRA’s consideration of the economic interest test.
While the system is operated in-house, these distinct roles will not exist. However, in order to provide continuity for business, we have sought to keep this two-stage process as far as possible. Under the temporary modifications, those staff already recruited to the shadow TRA, including those who have been trained as investigators, will form the trade remedies investigations directorate within the Department and will carry investigations using the same guidelines, as far as possible, as those that would apply if the TRA were established. Measures will still only be imposed if they satisfy the economic interest test (where there is a starting presumption in favour of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures), and there are not wider public interest considerations as to why measures should not be imposed.
[HCWS1378]
Health and Disability
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
I would like to update hon. Members on the speech I will be delivering at Scope this afternoon.
This Government have a clear ambition to support people with health conditions and disabilities into work, where they can, and to live independently. We have already made significant progress but we need to continue to make improvements to better support people with health conditions and disabled people. I am pleased to set out today a number of measures we will implement to make improvements now and in the future to support disabled people and those with health conditions to achieve their aspirations.
We will improve and simplify the customer experience by no longer undertaking regular reviews of personal independence payment (PIP) awards for claimants at or above state pension age unless they tell us their needs have changed.
We will also be transforming the delivery of assessment services. I have established the health transformation programme to undertake the significant task of transitioning the currently separate work capability assessment (WCA) for employment and support allowance and universal credit (UC), and the PIP assessment services into one unified, integrated service from 2021. To support this, we are developing a single digital platform. An integrated approach will allow for a more joined-up claimant experience across these benefits, which takes account of the multiple interactions an individual may have with DWP. We hope that developing our own digital platform will also enable a greater range of assessment providers to compete to help us deliver this important service in the future.
To enable an integrated service, we are extending the contract for the health and disability assessment service (HDAS), which includes the delivery of the WCA, and aligning it to the duration of the extended PIP contracts. This will allow for a safe and stable service now, and as we transition to the new integrated service.
This strategic transformation will also open up new opportunities to improve our functional assessments in the future. For example, we will test whether it is beneficial to claimants requiring face-to-face assessments to offer a single assessment for UC and PIP to capture all the information required for both claims in one appointment, reducing the need for claimants of both benefits to attend multiple appointments.
My Department will be testing how we increase engagement and build a trusted and strong relationship between work coaches and claimants awaiting an assessment in universal credit, and those found to have limited capability for work. Last month, in response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee report on benefits sanctions, the Department agreed to carry out a small test where work coaches start from a point of no conditionality and scale up where appropriate, focusing on what claimants can do. This contrasts with the current approach, which starts at full conditionality and then tailors down accordingly. The Minister for Employment is taking this forward.
We will also be exploring whether we can enhance the mandatory reconsideration process to gather further evidence from claimants and make more accurate decisions sooner.
These improvements will make significant progress in better supporting those with health conditions and disabilities, but this is only the start, and we can, and should, go further.
My ambition is to continue this important conversation around the future of support and I will, alongside the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, be regularly engaging with stakeholders to enable ongoing conversations on the future of the health and disability agenda. This includes exploring how the welfare system can better meet the needs of claimants with disabilities and health conditions.
I am also committing to looking at whether the incentives we provide for and the expectations we have of employers are right. We will consult on proposals to encourage and support employers to play their part in helping disabled people and people with health conditions get into work and remain in work, and to improve access to occupational health. We will be seeking stakeholder input, and that of employers and other partners, in to how we make a real difference to the working lives of people with health conditions and disabilities.
In 2017 we made a manifesto commitment to see 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027. In the coming months I want to review this commitment to see if we can make it even more ambitious.
We constantly reflect on how we can improve and know that improvements come from listening to people and adapting. As such, we plan to commission independent research to understand the needs of disabled people to live independent lives and how health and disability benefits can better support them.
[HCWS1376]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Davies of Coity
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, on 4 March. On behalf of the House, I extend our sincere condolences to the noble Lord’s family and his friends.
Gender Pay Gap
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Nye
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the gender pay gap.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, it is fantastic that over 10,000 employers reported gender pay gap data last year. With this year’s deadline now less than a month away, I look forward to seeing what progress they have made. We know that reporting is just the first step, and that is why we are now working hard with employers to help them understand their gender pay gaps and getting them to put plans in place to tackle them.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but she will have seen the Guardian’s report showing that no sanctions have been taken against companies that have filed wildly inaccurate, bogus reports or even no reports. New research by the Young Women’s Trust shows that two-thirds of companies do not have any plans in place to close their gender pay gap. Does she agree that it is time to consider legislation to require employers to develop those positive action programmes? Will she consider making employers include all salary details in job adverts, which would aid transparency and go some way to closing the gap?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On companies that have perhaps submitted bogus returns—that is, returns that are not credible—I know that the EHRC is working with companies to help them improve their accuracy. They can be obliged to put in place action plans where they have submitted inaccurate data, and this is what we are helping them to do. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s point on salary details, because quite often they are completely opaque and might depend on who the employer sees on the day—so I agree with that. On a positive note, we have come an awfully long way. We are the first country in the world to require companies with more than 250 employees to submit gender pay gap data.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the requirement for companies to publish their gender pay gap figures has shone a bright light on a hitherto dark place. In many firms, the situation is getting worse, not better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, says, poor recruitment methods are a big part of the problem, leading to women taking jobs below their abilities and below salary levels that they should command. The recently published Women and Work All-Party Parliamentary Group report, How to Recruit Women for the 21st Century, points the way. The Minister has talked about working with employers. Will she take the lead and update the 2011 quick-start guide to positive action in recruitment?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I take the noble Baroness’s final point, and I will have a look at the 2011 report. I must apologise that, as there was a strange noise coming from behind the noble Baroness—it might have been someone’s mobile phone—I did not quite hear all of her question. As to the position getting worse not better, the figures on 4 April will be revealing, and the sort of action that we and others will need to take will certainly be guided by those results.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that plans to require all large companies to publish their parental leave and pay policies will improve transparency and ultimately help with the gender pay balance in the workplace?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
All those initiatives by companies help to shed light on the types of companies that are employing people; their ethical, gender-based policies and parental leave are only a part of that. As to flexible working, the Government are trying to go further in enabling anyone who wants to work flexibly to be able to do so.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, on 11 February last—less than a month ago—my noble friend Lady Prosser asked whether the Government would consider legislating to require employers to develop positive action plans for measures such as all-women training schemes and quality part-time jobs. The Government Minister replied from the Dispatch Box, in a somewhat non-committal way, that these measures were good practice for companies and that some companies are adopting them. Does the Minister believe that that was an adequate response?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I hope I am always eloquent—not always, maybe—but legislating for positive action by discriminating against men, if you like, is not what we want to do. Certainly the Government supports equality of opportunity, but we will not legislate for positive action.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that the great majority of policies such as those on parental leave come from the blessed European Union? They were negotiated by the social partners—which, translated into English, means the trade unions and the employers—at European level because, on that basis, people would not be undercutting each other by doing it on a national basis.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On the blessed Europe, I have to say to the noble Lord that we are streets ahead of Europe in equalities legislation.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, the theme for International Women’s Day this year is #BalanceforBetter, but so far some companies are not even asked to properly balance their books. As my noble friend Lady Nye said, the Guardian reported last week that the companies that filed inaccurate numbers for last year’s gender pay gap deadline have not been sanctioned and some incorrect data have not been corrected a year later. What will be done differently this year to ensure that the quality of reporting is an improvement on last year? Does the Minister agree that transparency is welcome but it will be ineffective if there is a failure in making progress?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the presumption of the noble Baroness’s question. She is absolutely right about better-quality data coming forward: it is what both employers and employees want. I know that the GEO has been running a series of interactive sessions with employers to try to help them develop their action plans. I also know that the Government have provided two further pieces of guidance for employers and employees as they develop action plans to address the gender pay gap.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, this week the Church Investors Group, which has assets of £21 billion, will vote against the chairs of boards of big firms that have poor policies on tax and climate change. From now on, the 67-member group will put pressure on companies that have no women directors. Does the Minister agree with that approach? Does she also agree that it is a welcome step that companies can no longer get away with such dire records of female representation in management positions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly agree with the right reverend Prelate. He will recall that we had a real push to increase women’s representation on boards under the Davies review. When we started off, that representation was something like 12% and it has now risen to over 30%—I think that that is where we are now, or maybe it is just short of 30%—so we have made huge strides. I do not think that companies any longer want all-male, white boards, because that really does not give the diversity or balance that is representative of society.
NHS: Stroke Care
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that there are sufficient specialist medicine, nursing, rehabilitation and community staff to achieve the priority ambition for stroke care set out in the NHS Long Term Plan, to meet both current and future needs.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the recently published NHS Long Term Plan outlined commitments to improve stroke services, including better stroke rehabilitation services and increased access to specialist stroke units. The Secretary of State has commissioned my noble friend Lady Harding, the chair of NHS Improvement, to work with Health Education England to oversee the delivery of a workforce implementation plan. This will include proposals to grow the workforce, consideration of additional staff and of the skills required, and building a supportive leadership culture in the NHS.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, as a carer keen to see improved stroke services, I welcome the recognition in the NHS Long Term Plan of stroke as a clinical priority. Excellent stroke care saves lives and needs a range of professionals across the whole stroke care pathway, including GPs, paramedics, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational and speech language therapists, and social care workers. Not only are there chronic staff shortages among all those key groups but high turnover is a major challenge, particularly among nursing and care staff. It is small wonder that nearly half of all stroke survivors say that they do not have enough nursing and therapy support in hospitals, and that when they get home they feel abandoned because of a lack of rehabilitation and care that would help them improve or cope with living with stroke disability. Does the Minister agree that the high-intensity care models for rehabilitation for stroke promised in the NHS plan are urgently needed, and what immediate actions will be taken by the Government to ensure that there are enough trained staff and specialist staff to deliver the promises for future care and treatment?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, that it is very important that we have the relevant NHS workforce to deliver the care needed in this very important area. Stroke is a devastating disease for patients and their families. The Stroke Association estimates that it costs the NHS around £3 billion per year, with lost productivity, disability and formal care costing the economy an additional £4 billion. To that end, we are putting in place funding of £20.5 billion each year over the next five years, with cardiovascular also being a clinical priority. This will support the national plan for stroke.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, there is a complete postcode lottery for good stroke care, with inequities in accessing treatments such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, as well as the subsequent appropriate rehabilitation and care. By when does the Minister expect anyone who has a stroke anywhere in England to receive the same level of treatment as in London or Manchester?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right: there is variation in care. We are working very hard to tackle the variations in the system. Within its financial constraints, the NHS is committed to providing access to stroke care and prevention services and, as the noble Baroness knows, the clinical commissioning groups are responsible for commissioning these services to meet the requirements of their populations. In doing so, CCGs need to ensure that the services they provide are fit for purpose, reflect the needs of the local population, are based on available evidence and take account of national guidelines.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I keep hearing the word “reconfiguration” in connection with stroke services. Could my noble friend explain what this means for stroke services going forward?
Baroness Manzoor
I thank my noble friend for that question. Reconfiguration of stroke services is very important because there is strong evidence that consultant-led specialist treatments in large, centralised hyperacute stroke services, where geographically appropriate, save lives, improve recovery and can reduce the length of hospital stays, while saving money. Three pilots have taken place in London, Manchester and Northumbria. They have seen a 9% reduction in the length of hospital stays in Greater Manchester and a cost saving of £800 per patient in London.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my membership of the GMC. Coming back to the question about hyperacute stroke services, which have been such a huge boost to patient outcomes, the Minister says this is up to CCGs, but all over the country CCGs have been obstructive to this move. They have defended their own district general hospitals, attempting to keep all their stroke services at the expense of the quality and safety of patient care. The Government have to intervene, surely?
Baroness Manzoor
The noble Lord makes a very valid point. As I said, evidence-based medicine is speaking about a hub-and-spoke way forward. There is the national plan. We have set up a primary board that will look at reconfiguration of services and the workforce planning within it. We hope that some of those challenges can be met head on.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of University College London Partners. Is the Minister content that opportunities for rapid adoption of innovation, which could help identify those at greatest risk of stroke as a preventive strategy, and interventions that might improve stroke outcomes, are available across the entire NHS in England?
Baroness Manzoor
One can never be totally confident, but that is certainly the way we are working. As I said, we have set up the national board for stroke services, which will look at different pathways. It will look at assessment for prevention and rehabilitation, so that we can roll these out across the whole of the NHS. That is the plan and the £20.5 billion will unlock some of these services.
Brexit: British Airlines
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any restrictions that could be placed on British airlines as a result of the European Commission’s proposed measures to ensure basic air connectivity between the United Kingdom and the European Union in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a pilot.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, last week the European Union provisionally agreed a regulation giving UK airlines the right to fly to the EU. The UK will reciprocate and provide, as a minimum, equivalent rights to airlines from European states. Taken together, these measures will ensure that flights will continue in a no-deal scenario. The department will continue to work with stakeholders across the aviation industry as we approach exit day. Leaving the EU with a deal remains the Government’s top priority.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
While I am reassured by my noble friend’s reply, I am sure she will understand that there remain a number of anxieties, particularly among those who are planning to travel around Easter and afterwards, and also those in the boardrooms of a number of internationally operating airlines who need some certainty in their planning and structure. Could she make sure that these proposals are well advertised? I am also concerned about the possible effects of a no-deal scenario on non-EU international connectivity. Could she address that as well?
Baroness Sugg
I reassure my noble friend that we are speaking to airlines regularly and keeping them updated on the progress of the regulations. Of course, they are following them in detail. There will be no effect on non-EU international travel; we have 111 bilateral agreements with third countries and those will continue. We are doing what we can to mitigate any disruption that we might foresee. We do not expect there to be much disruption, assuming that the regulations pass as we expect. There may be some issues at EU airports given some changes to passport checks, but we are working very closely with those airports to ensure that we minimise disruption.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that this is only a 12-month deal and it will cover only the routes that currently exist? It means that British airlines will not be able to develop new routes during that period.
Baroness Sugg
There was in the original regulation a proposal for a fixed cap at 2018 levels. I am pleased to say that that is no longer the case, so there is no restriction on growth. The noble Lord is quite right that the regulation is only temporary. Overall, we continue to believe that liberal reciprocal market access is in the best interests of the EU and the UK. Should we leave without a deal, we will move swiftly to propose negotiations on that basis.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My Lords, BA, along with Iberia, is part of the International Airlines Group—IAG. The head office of that company is in Madrid. Consequently, whatever restrictions might arise should not apply to British Airways.
Baroness Sugg
IAG has a very complex ownership structure, as do many airlines. This is truly an international industry. Its EU airlines will need to satisfy the EU requirements, but they have six months to do so. These EU regulations will not have any effect on BA, which is a UK airline with a UK operating licence. It will need to meet our requirements and it does so.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Government have devoted a lot of taxpayers’ money to try to avoid major lorry queues around Dover. East Midlands Airport is the aviation equivalent of Dover: it is our major freight airport. The infrastructure around that airport will not be able to cope with long queues in the event of a no-deal Brexit. What assessment have the Government made of the problem in that area? What measures are they planning to put in place to avoid lorry queues and congestion around East Midlands Airport?
Baroness Sugg
The noble Baroness is right to point out the importance of East Midlands Airport for our freight capacity. In the event of no deal, the Government are designing customs arrangements in a way that ensures that goods can continue to flow. As we have made clear, we will not compromise security on the border, but keeping goods flowing is of vital importance. We are working very closely with East Midlands Airport to minimise disruption.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, last night in the Statement on Eurotunnel, the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, who is in his place, said that the agreement to pay Eurotunnel £33 million,
“will help to deliver an unhindered supply of vital medicines and medical devices under any Brexit scenario”.—[Official Report, 4/3/19; col. 503.]
Would it not have been better value for money to send this medicine by air freight, rather than paying Eurotunnel £33 million for nothing?
Baroness Sugg
I was wondering how that would come back to air freight. The noble Lord is right that we are considering air freight as part of our plans to ensure that we have vital medicines. Some medicines with very short half-lives will need to be carried by air freight and the Department of Health is working to ensure that that happens. The decision on the £33 million was made to guarantee that we will be able to carry essential medicines in the event of no deal.
Lord Rotherwick (Con)
My Lords, what will be the situation for UK private pilots, of which I am one—
Lord Rotherwick
I am flying here—who hold EASA licences in a no-deal Brexit scenario?
Baroness Sugg
For general aviation pilots, the UK will remain a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation after EU exit. UK-registered aircraft will still be entitled to fly under the rights established by it. EASA licences, which many pilots hold, will continue to be recognised by the CAA.
Lord Bethell (Con)
Can the Minister update the House on deals for flights outside the EU? It is very helpful to hear her update on flights to Europe, but I understand that flights to the US and Canada are governed by deals connected with our membership of the EU, so can she update us on any progress on replacing these important agreements?
Baroness Sugg
As I said earlier, we have 111 bilateral air service agreements with third countries in our own right, and these will continue, but my noble friend is quite right: there are 17 third countries which we have an agreement with by virtue of our EU membership. The very able and hard-working air services negotiating team in the Department for Transport are making excellent progress on this. To date we have completed new bilateral agreements with the vast majority of these countries, which represent 98% of all passengers.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, further to my noble friend’s question about East Midlands Airport, can the Minister say what is happening regarding the potential clogging up of the M1, which is the only major way into East Midlands Airport? What specific plans are in place to ensure that the M1 does not clog up?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are not expecting the M1 to clog up, but, as I have said, we are working very carefully with East Midlands Airport to ensure the smooth flowing of cargo and that this very important airport continues to function regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.
Brexit: Small Businesses
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the preparedness of small business for a no-deal Brexit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have provided ample communication setting out the steps that businesses need to take to prepare for a no-deal scenario. As we set out in Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, published last week, there is little evidence that businesses are preparing in earnest for a no-deal scenario; evidence indicates that readiness of small and medium-sized enterprises is particularly low.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s own no-deal impact assessment last week revealed the bleak picture that only 17% of small businesses that trade exclusively with the EU had signed up to the necessary identification to continue trade in Europe. Small businesses are far less able to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. They lack the legal and regulatory expertise to do so, and the cash and the space to stockpile. They, and we, are staring disaster in the face. Should we not put a stop to this madness now, halt the Brexit process and give everyone whose livelihoods and futures are at risk a say on the deal?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness that no deal is the legal default position as agreed by both Houses, and that until we agree a deal, that will remain the case. What is important therefore is that another place, or Parliament as a whole, agrees a deal and gets behind the Prime Minister, so that business can have the certainty that is needed.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, of the licences to which the noble Baroness just referred, only 40,000 of the 240,000 companies that export to the EU have registered for those licences, and the capacity to issue those licences is currently only for 11,000 a day. Therefore, with 29 March getting closer, could the Minister say what precautions are being taken to increase the capacity for issuing these essential licences?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the important thing is that businesses themselves get their act together and apply for the licences. As we made clear in that document last week—and this is why we published it—there is a failing on the part of many small businesses to apply for those licences. I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting that again. There is capacity to deal with this in the time available, and we hope that small and medium-sized businesses will take note of the advice we have given them.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many British workers who run small businesses in the services sector are already losing contracts with EU companies because of their insistence on British access to the single market, in other words, free movement of people? In these instances, it makes no difference whether it is May’s deal or no deal.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not accept that. What is important is that we get a deal, and that is what we should all be behind. That is what businesses want and what we should all look for.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, we are 584 hours away from Brexit and we are discussing business preparedness, or the lack of it. Labour has repeatedly urged the Government to take no deal off the table, and believes that the threat of no deal is creating unnecessary uncertainty for businesses both large and small. In your Lordships’ House, we are dealing daily with SIs that will impact on the services, productivity and finances of SMEs. Would not the Minister’s department’s time be better spent dealing with some of the more pressing issues for SMEs, such as the scandal of late payments and other day to day issues, rather than working on a no-deal Brexit that nobody wants?
Lord Henley
My Lords, all I can do is to repeat the position we are in at the moment. No deal is the default position. What is important is that we get a deal; that is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is seeking to do. If she had support from the party opposite, that would be a great deal of help.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the overwhelming cry coming from businesses large and small is: “Tell us what our trading environment will be in 25 days’ time”. Does the Minister really think that any of the messages will get through when the credibility of the Government is completely shot if they cannot answer that question?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we have been offering advice to businesses as to what they ought to do. We also made it clear in the document we published last week that we think a lot of businesses have not done what they ought to be doing: making preparations in case there is no deal because, as I made clear, no deal is the default position. What is important is that we get behind the Prime Minister and get a deal.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, in the light of what my noble friend said about making ample information available, is he able to cast light on the report in the Financial Times that the Department for International Trade is to cease the preparedness meetings that it has been holding with business? It is of course public knowledge that the department is very much behind hand in reaching agreements with our trading partners. If it is now ceasing to provide information, that really seems to be something of a dereliction of duty.
Lord Henley
My Lords, without having seen that report in the Financial Times, I cannot comment on it but I can make it clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is having regular meetings with representatives of all businesses. He will continue to do so to offer as much advice and support as he and the department as a whole can.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, on the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, the Minister assured the House that if all 200,000 small businesses which have not yet registered do so, there is the capacity to deal with that before 29 March. Can he assure the House on the very important point that the noble Baroness raised?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am satisfied that there is capacity to deal with those businesses which want or need to do so.
House of Lords (Elections and Reform) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 5th March 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Elections and Reform) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all House of Lords (Elections and Reform) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Election Expenses) Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the draft Order laid before the House on 4 February be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument will make two minor but positive improvements to the local election rules in relation to the election expenses that can be incurred by a candidate at a local election in Northern Ireland. The provisions will bring the rules for local elections into line with those of other elections in the United Kingdom. I will now explain the details of each of these changes in turn.
The first change will exclude expenses that are reasonably incurred and reasonably attributable to a candidate’s disability from their electoral expenses spending limits, mirroring the recent changes made for UK parliamentary and Northern Ireland Assembly elections in the Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019. Currently, disability-related expenses count towards a disabled candidate’s spending limit.
The matters excluded from the definition of election expenses are listed in Part 2 of Schedule 3B to the 1962 Act. Article 4 amends Schedule 3B so that any expenditure that is both reasonably incurred and reasonably attributable to the candidate’s disability is excluded from the definition of election expenses. This proposal will help to level the playing field between disabled and non-disabled candidates and enhance equality of opportunity for disabled candidates.
Examples of disability-related expenses may include the cost of providing transport support for mobility-impaired candidates, sign language interpretation for hearing-impaired candidates and the transcription of campaign material into Braille for visually impaired candidates. This list is not exclusive. Importantly, I can assure noble Lords that candidates will not be required to disclose any disabilities and there will be no legal obligation for them to report their disability-related expenses.
The second change deals with the personal election expenses of candidates. The aim here is to bring the policy for local elections in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Unlike in other elections in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, the personal election expenses of candidates at local elections are currently included in the limit on the amount of election expenses that they can incur or that can be incurred on their behalf.
Following the restructuring of local government in Northern Ireland in 2014, which reduced the number of councils from 26 to 11, a number of electoral areas are now considerably larger in size. This proposal will remove potential barriers to campaigning for candidates standing in geographically larger electoral areas, as the costs of travel and accommodation will not count towards their spending limit. Although personal expenses will not be included in the limit on election expenses, candidates will still report them to the chief electoral officer as part of their personal expenses in their expenses return.
These provisions bring local elections into line with other elections in Northern Ireland in respect of the personal expenses changes. The chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission confirm that they fully support the changes within the instrument.
In order that candidates at the forthcoming local elections can benefit from these improvements to the rules, we have chosen to move as quickly as we can to try to achieve this, rather than delay the order until after the local elections. If the order is approved, it will come into force on the day after it is made. The Electoral Commission will publicise the changes to the rules and update its guidance to candidates in advance of the regulatory spending period for the 2 May local elections.
I hope that your Lordships will support this order. I commend it to the House and beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, these Benches welcome the order. We support Articles 2 and 3, which will bring local election rules into line with those for other elections in Northern Ireland, as we heard from the Minister.
We especially welcome and support Article 4, to exempt disability-related expenses from the definition of “election expenses”. This is an important move to help to close the gap between disabled and non-disabled candidates. The Liberal Democrats have always championed diversity and we are keen to ensure that those elected at all levels reflect the wider population they represent.
One of our successes in coalition was the introduction of the Access to Elected Office Fund for disabled candidates to help with the extra costs of standing for office. We have been disappointed, therefore, to see the reluctance of the Conservative Government since 2015 to continue funding this.
Overall, the provisions of the order are important in furthering equality and transparency. However, as the Minister will be aware, although progress has been made to secure full transparency of political donations in Northern Ireland, there is still a significant gap. We welcomed the Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2018 when it was brought before Parliament last year, which allowed the Electoral Commission to publish information about loans and donations given to Northern Ireland political parties dating back to July 2017—I remember speaking in that debate—but we were deeply disappointed that the order did not provide for the backdating of information to 2014, as the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 allowed.
At the time the order was made, the Electoral Commission recommended that another order be brought forward to allow for full transparency dating back to January 2014, as the 2014 Act had anticipated. The Electoral Commission is already in possession the relevant data to allow this. Responding to the debate on that order, the Minister, said:
“Right now, we are not ruling out the re-examination of the period that precedes 1 July 2017. Indeed, the draft order will allow consideration of it, once we have had an opportunity both to bed in the transparency order and to examine the details reflected therein. We will not rule anything in or out on that point ... I recognise that the issue of backdating will remain sensitive. If, on consideration of the data as it is gathered, ascertained and seen, there are deemed to be issues that need to be examined further, the Government will consider them at that point. We are ruling nothing in and nothing out”.—[Official Report, 27/2/18; cols. 623-625.]
Have the Government had the opportunity to give further consideration to this important matter? If so, what are their conclusions? I end by restating our firm support for the provisions in the order before the House today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments made by the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on the divulging of information about election expenses. I do so because I recently put down a Written Question to which, I am afraid, my noble friend gave a rather disappointing answer. If further consideration has been given to this important point, I hope that he will now be able to give the House better news.
I will raise one point on the order itself, which I warmly welcome. Paragraph 6.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum informs us that personal expenses have been excluded from the limit on election expenses in the rest of the United Kingdom, under the Representation of the People Act 1983. Why has it taken so long to bring Northern Ireland into line and implement this obviously desirable change there? Was change not considered at any point by the Northern Ireland Assembly while it was sitting?
More generally, since this order relates to local government, is my noble friend able to provide any assessment of the performance of the 11 local councils in Northern Ireland which this year will complete their first five-year term following the reorganisation finally agreed in 2012 after years of discussion and dispute in the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, preceded by earlier disagreement going back to 2005? I have commented in the House before on the very restricted powers of local councils in Northern Ireland—the only elected bodies currently meeting. The Assembly acts as the upper tier of local government in Northern Ireland and I wonder, in view of the prolonged suspension, whether there is a case for reviewing the powers of the local councils to see if there are grounds for increasing them.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
Has the Minister reached any conclusions on the topics that have just been raised in the wake of the publication of the excellent report by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the other place? It reveals a good deal about the implications of the previous secrecy of donations to Northern Ireland election expenses.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, obviously I support the order before your Lordships’ House. It is two weeks now since my noble friend was at the Dispatch Box hoping to bring before the House quite soon news of progress towards the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. He expressed the hope that progress would be made. Every time that we discuss a Northern Ireland issue, it underlines the vital importance of making progress.
It is now well over two years since we had the Northern Ireland Executive and a similar length of time since the Northern Ireland Assembly met. At the risk of appearing like a worn record—I have mentioned this so many times—will my noble friend indicate that, if the Executive cannot be restored in the very near future, the Assembly at least will be summoned and have the opportunity to pass judgment on issues such as this and on more far-reaching matters?
In three weeks’ time, we could be facing the most dire constitutional crisis in our post-war history—and some would put it more strongly than that. Fundamental to that crisis is the position of, and the difficulties occasioned by, Northern Ireland. Had Northern Ireland had an Executive, it is conceivable, as has been mentioned before in your Lordships’ House, that we would not be in our present predicament.
I make no apology for slightly widening the scope of the debate. My noble friend, whom we all admire for his steadfastness, was at the Dispatch Box a fortnight ago and in all good faith he was hoping to come back to us about now. Can he at least say a word about that?
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
During this debate, reference has been made to the 11 super-councils that were created five years ago in Northern Ireland. The idea was that reducing the number of councils from 26 to 11 would reduce costs in local government administration. That may or may not have happened.
The order is welcome, of course, because it provides greater opportunity to those who represent wider, larger rural areas and a greater facility for those who are handicapped. It widens the opportunity for more candidates to stand for local government elections in Northern Ireland, and that is welcome. However, reducing the number of councils from 26 to 11 means that many people no longer know who their local councillors are. For the last few decades, everyone knew who their local councillors were. But the larger the councils become, the smaller the number of councillors in Northern Ireland, and local people no longer know who their councillors are. That is damaging democracy.
Worse still, at their monthly meetings some of these 11 super-councils are no longer discussing in public all the main issues but are making those issues subject to committee meetings at which some of the media are not even invited. There is no real democracy in some of our 11 new super-councils. I am sorry to say that some people will no longer know who their councillors are and will not know what is happening because of the items that are being discussed almost privately. That will result in a lower turnout in the local government elections in May.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and others have referred to the transparency of election donations. I hope that the Minister can give an answer—whether he sings it or says it.
One issue before us, in respect of local government in Northern Ireland, is on giving disabled people the opportunity to stand for election to local authorities— obviously, these Benches completely support the Government on that. The other issue concerns the exclusion of personal expenses from election expenses. Again, we very much support that. It brings the law into line with that in Great Britain.
The issue, though, begs a wider question—two questions, in fact. The first, regarding local government, concerns the fact, as I mentioned last week in the House, that we are in a strange position in Northern Ireland. Some years ago, Northern Ireland had the most sophisticated democratic system in Europe, as a result of the Good Friday agreement, with the Assembly, the Executive, the north-south bodies and all the other aspects of the agreement. Now, its local government is the least democratically run part of the United Kingdom or, indeed, of the European Union. Here in this Parliament there is no nationalist voice in this House or, of course, in the House of Commons. There is no Assembly and no Executive, so the only democratic institutions in Northern Ireland are the 11 local authorities. They will have elections fairly soon. Those elections, of course, will be keenly fought by all the parties in Northern Ireland, and my guess is that they will not be fought entirely on local issues either; they will be fought possibly on Brexit but certainly on politics of a wider nature in Northern Ireland. So the 11 local authorities, although they do not have the same powers as local authorities in Great Britain, have a hugely important role as a forum for political and democratic discussion in Northern Ireland.
It should not be like that, of course. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others about the restoration of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland is critical, and he is absolutely right to raise it every time Northern Irish business is debated in this Chamber. There will, of course, be an opportunity next week, when legislation comes before us regarding the budget and other issues in Northern Ireland, and I hope that that becomes a debate about where we are in the political situation at this moment. Frankly, it is a disgrace that we are in this position: to go well over two years without any Assembly or Executive in Northern Ireland is totally unacceptable. It is linked heavily with Brexit, and I am sure we will have an opportunity to debate that as soon as we can, but noble Lords ought to understand that at the end of May there are two deadlines: one deadline for Brexit and another for extending the role of the Assembly in order to have further negotiations. On 25 March, that deadline closes. In neither case, it seems to me, is anything happening at the moment.
So today is a mini-debate, perhaps, on this issue and I hope that next week will be a major one, but we welcome the order. It is important, but the fact that it has to be brought in this Parliament rather than in the Assembly in Belfast is a tragedy for us all.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for their constructive engagement on this issue. I welcome the support from all sides of the House for the changes in the orders we are bringing forward today. I think they will extend opportunity across Northern Ireland and that that will be welcomed by all in Northern Ireland. It will bring Northern Ireland into alignment with the rest of the United Kingdom. As often happens in debates on Northern Ireland, we had a small amount on the issue on the Order Paper and then we segued quite quickly into a broader discussion. If noble Lords will allow me to pick up some of those pieces, I will do so.
The substantive point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is an important one. I gave some undertakings the last time I was at this Dispatch Box. I am always loath to hear my words quoted back to me, but she is absolutely correct. I had a note in my briefing that I felt, when I read it, was not adequate in response to her point, so I solicited further information from my assistants in the Box. They are telling me now that the issues we are talking about, these reforms, have not had a chance to go through a complex election. A complex election is coming in May. I give an undertaking that we shall revert to this issue after that point, when I hope we will be in a better position to move this forward. I appreciate that she would like the answer now, but if she will forgive me I will bring this back after that complex election, when I hope we will be in a position to take this matter forward. I appreciate that it is a complex issue—
Lord Tyler (LD)
The Minister was very generous in his contribution on this issue in February of last year, and I endorse what my noble friend has said. But that was 12 months ago, and it is precisely because these elections are important that this issue of transparency remains so clear in our minds as something that needs to be cleared up as soon as possible. Of course we know that the transparency is there for the future, but clearing up what has happened in the past remains a very important political issue for a number of the reasons that have been given. In the context of the constitutional crisis of the next few weeks, to which the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Murphy, have referred, in which Northern Ireland—where there is such a democratic deficit—is so central, the need for clarity and transparency is all the greater. I understand what the Minister is saying, but coming 12 months after he gave an undertaking that progress would be made on the issue of transparency of election funding, it is, frankly, not good enough to say that we will postpone it a bit longer because there is another election coming up. It is not good enough, and it adds to the feeling that Northern Ireland is being treated in a way which is not in alignment with the rest of the United Kingdom at a time when it is extremely sensitive. The Minister himself says that the purpose of this order is to bring Northern Ireland into alignment with Great Britain. Here is another area where it should have happened long ago.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I will accept the criticism. I will not try to defend myself on that point either. We should be able to make progress on this matter, and I hope we can do so, but at this moment I cannot give an undertaking that progress will be made in the short term. For that I apologise.
If I may move on to some of the other issues raised in this particular debate, my noble friend Lord Lexden asked why it has taken so long. In actual fact, although we are reforming an Act which dates to the 1980s, the reform itself was not instituted in the 1980s. We are bringing ourselves into alignment not that long, broadly speaking, after the rest of the United Kingdom, and I hope that we will be able to make that progress today. My noble friend is also correct in looking at how the reorganisation has worked in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, has also pointed out, we do not yet have enough information to be able to assess that accurately and in the detail which we would require, but we will have to do so to make sure there was some value in undertaking the revision and reconstruction of those particular wards.
I note also the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, on how larger wards by their nature tend to create a greater distance between the individual constituents—if you will—and those who represent them. I was the former MEP for the whole of Scotland. Frankly, I was widely unknown everywhere in Scotland, but none the less I recognise that the shortening of the proximity between those who do the electing and those who do the response is a challenge. It is greater challenge for those with a larger constituency, particularly if that constituency is a rural one where there will, by its nature, be greater challenges. I accept that on the whole.
My noble friend Lord Cormack is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has also pointed out, that we should use every opportunity to flag up where we are on the wider question. Two weeks ago, I hoped to be able to report on greater progress from the first meeting of the political parties in Northern Ireland. I was disappointed that I could not do that at the time. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to meet them, and we are hopeful that we will be able to bring about the gathering which needs to take place as a precursor toward establishing the Assembly in a meaningful way with an Executive drawn therefrom.
We have not yet made that progress, but in truth we will have an opportunity to look at this in greater detail when the Executive formation extension element moves the deadline of 26 March to five months hence. I will bring back that very point to your Lordships’ House for a full debate. We can open that window of a further five months only if we have progress to report. Otherwise noble Lords will legitimately ask us, “What has changed? Why can we move forward at all?”. Noble Lords will say that to me, and I hope to bring forward on that occasion far more detail than I will give them today. At that point, I will explore exactly what we have done to try to bring those parties together.
There is no point in pretending that Brexit is not a part of it—I would sound very foolish if I pretended that—but we have to recognise that we are where we are, and it is against that backdrop that we must make progress. We do not get to choose the timing of these issues; we have to work with what we have before us.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, for raising the important report, which I have read in part. The issue of transparency is absolutely at the heart of Northern Ireland. There needs to be that confidence, which is why the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, needs to be made; we need to have confidence not just in going forward, but also in the past. We need to have that. We need it as quickly as I can bring it back here, and I will bring it back here as quickly as I can.
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, flagged up an important debate next week on the wider budget, and we will have longer to discuss in some detail the functioning of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the delivery of services, and each of the challenges which go with it. I know that we will have a thorough discussion on that occasion.
The restoration of the institutions is important. My noble friend Lord Cormack asks, “Why cannot the Assembly meet again? At least get one of the institutions sitting to explore these issues”. I will take that away again for further consideration, but I do not believe that it should be ruled out of hand. Every possible avenue needs to be explored at this point.
Lord Cormack
I am exceptionally grateful to my noble friend for what he has just said. Nobody is criticising him personally, but if, in the rather more substantive debate next week, he could report back specifically on that issue, I think we would all be extremely grateful.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Yes; I will report back at greater length on that very point.
I hope, looking at my notes, that I have covered all the aspects. I thank all noble Lords for their support for the two changes themselves, which I believe will be important when they will be brought in. This will bring about a greater diversity in Northern Ireland; we need as many voices as we can possibly have in Northern Ireland, both at local government elections and beyond, when that moment comes. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Order laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, in my view the provisions in this order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2019 reflects the Government’s continuing commitment to: increase the basic and full rate of the new state pensions by the triple lock; increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings; and increase carers’ benefits and benefits intended to meet additional disability needs in line with prices.
On the basic state pension, the Government’s continuing commitment to the triple lock means that, this year, the basic state pension will continue to be uprated by the highest of: earnings, prices, or 2.5%. The triple lock has been an invaluable tool in combating pensioner poverty. Maintaining it ensures that pensioners receive the financial security and certainty that they deserve.
This year, the increase in average earnings was the highest of the triple lock figures. As a result, the basic state pension will increase by 2.6%, rising from £125.95 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 in April 2010. We estimate that the basic state pension will be around 18.4% of average earnings—one of its 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 triple lock the full rate of the new state pension. Therefore, from April 2019, the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £164.35 to £168.60 a week. This is approximately 24% of average earnings.
On the additional state pension, this year state earnings-related pension schemes 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. In addition, we are continuing to take steps to protect the poorest pensioner households, including through the pension credit standard minimum guarantee—the means-tested threshold below which pensioner income should not fall. This will rise by 2.6%, in line with average earnings. From April 2019, the single person threshold will rise from £164.35 to £167.25 a week—more than £1,800 a year higher than it was in 2010. Pensioner poverty continues to stand at one of the lowest rates since comparable records began. These measures will help us keep it that way.
In the 2018 Autumn Budget Statement, the Chancellor announced additional assistance for those on universal credit. As such, universal credit work allowances will rise by £1,000 once they have been increased by prices. 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, I turn to disability benefits. The Government 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. So, disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit and the personal independence payment will all rise by 2.4%, in line with the increase in prices. In addition, the carer and disability-related premia paid with pension credit and working-age benefits, the employment and support allowance support group component and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit will also increase by 2.4%. These increases will continue to ensure that our welfare system provides the most support to the people who most need it.
In conclusion, in this order the Government propose to spend an extra £3.7 billion in 2019-20 to increase benefit and pension rates. With this spending, we are maintaining our commitment to protect the country’s pensioners through the triple lock and helping the poorest pensioner households who count on pension credit. We are also ensuring that people on universal credit can earn more before their payment is reduced and providing essential support to disabled people and carers. On this basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, last week I received notification from the Pension Service of the increase in my pension from 8 April, under the triple lock. If I were a hard-pressed mother, claiming child benefit and most other working-age benefits, I would not have been so fortunate.
It has become something of a tradition in these uprating debates that some of us focus on the benefits that are not being uprated because of the benefits freeze. I am sure it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I do not plan to break the tradition. It is particularly pertinent this year, given the growing pressure from a number of quarters to end the freeze a year early. I welcome the real increase in the work allowance, after it was defrosted last year. I hope that the Government will start thinking about a second earner work allowance as a targeted way of addressing child poverty and encouraging more women into paid work.
As my noble friend Lady Sherlock spelled out in the earlier tax credit uprating debate, with her customary forensic skill, the freeze has had a much greater impact on working-age benefits than was originally anticipated at the time of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. This is because of higher than expected inflation, due largely to the outcome of the referendum. According to the Resolution Foundation, the overall, cumulative, real cut in benefits will amount to around 6% by this coming benefit year. The total saving to the Treasury is around £4.4 billion. That is £4.4 billion being taken out of the purses and wallets of some of the poorest members of our society.
According to House of Commons Library calculations for Neil Gray MP, the higher than anticipated inflation rate means that around £1.2 billion is being cut this coming year over and above that originally budgeted for. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that maintaining the freeze for this final year will mean 10.7 million people living in poverty missing out on £220 to help cover the increased cost of living, and as many as 200,000 more being locked into poverty. The scenario will be even worse in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her announcement today. It is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who knows so much about this subject. I too feel struck by the benefits that are not in this order. I suspect we will all today mention the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which described this as “the biggest policy driver” of poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is the organisation that established the concept of the minimum income standard. The statistics for that are breathtaking. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has given us important figures and shocking facts but we should look at the minimum income standard.
A single person has to earn £18,400 to reach the minimum income standard. Each parent in a working family must earn £20,000. The minimum wage is too low to reach the minimum income standard. A lone parent with two children, working full-time, had disposable income 4% below the minimum income standard in 2008; today it is 20% below it. The freeze is set to cost working-age families £4.4 billion a year in 2019-20, and the average single parent will be £710 worse off—that is 3% to 7% of their income.
We have talked about removing the freeze a year early and we would support that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, where there is a will there is a way. If we removed the freeze for the last year, the result would be to reduce the number of people in poverty by 200,000 in 2020-21; 27.5 million people would gain, at a cost of £1.4 billion to the Treasury; and a proposed cut of £250 to single parents’ budgets would be prevented.
In the last Budget, the OBR found £13 billion in extra headroom, £1.3 billion of which went to cut tax for higher earners. Commentators today are saying that they expect the forecast for public finances to improve, so will the Government consider using the £1.4 billion to end the benefits freeze a year early? Can the Minister explain the freezing of bereavement support payments for the coming year, even though the widowed parent allowance it replaces has been raised in line with inflation?
I support and associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I hope the Government will listen and look at this issue again. It is getting to alarming proportions and should shock us about the state of our country.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this order and both noble Baronesses who have spoken. As we have heard, the purpose of the order is to make changes to the rates of those benefits which have been fortunate enough to escape the Government’s freeze, which is causing so much damage, as we have heard from the noble Baronesses. We now have a series of different categories of benefit which get treated in different ways when it comes to uprating time.
We have a category which is going to be uprated by at least the increase in earnings: the state pension because of the triple lock; the standard minimum guarantee of pension credit; and some aspects of widows’ and widowers’ pensions in industrial death benefit. They all get to go up by 2.6%, which is the increase in earnings.
Then we have a category which will have to be increased by at least the increase in prices. This includes attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, DLA, PIP, severe disablement allowance, other aspects of widows’ benefits, the additional state pension, graduated retirement benefit and increments to the state pension. They all get to go up by CPI—inflation.
Then there is a category over which the Secretary of State has discretion. She has decided to use that discretion by uprating some benefits by CPI—by inflation—including statutory sick pay, maternity and paternity pay, adoption and parental leave pay, the support group components of ESA, disability and carer premiums, the carer element of universal credit and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. They go up by 2.4%.
Then there are the benefits which are not being uprated at all. These include all the main means-tested working-age benefits, including: the personal allowance elements of income support; jobseeker’s allowance; the personal allowances and work-related activity components of ESA and housing benefit; and the standard allowance, limited capacity for work element and the lower disabled child addition of universal credit. Those are the main things on which most of our poorest fellow citizens depend. However, they have been frozen at the 2015-16 cash levels, having previously been increased by only 1%. Now, as we have heard, we have to add to the list bereavement support payment. It will be paid at the same cash rate as it was last year, which means that, like all those benefits, its value is being cut yet again. There is no triple lock for anybody except pensioners.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has certainly focused on things outside the order itself, but I thank noble Lords for appreciating the upratings made in the order. It feels like 10 minutes ago that we were debating this last year, so I was, to some degree, ready for some of the points that would be raised; I expected there to be references to the benefit freeze and various other issues.
I begin by referencing something that my honourable friend, Justin Tomlinson MP, stated last night in a similar debate in another place. He said that we will always share the proceeds of economic growth to target our support for the most vulnerable in our society. That is why we are spending £7 billion more than in 2010 to support those with severe disabilities and mental health issues.
It is true that things have changed. Our approach is, to some degree, different to that of the party opposite when it was in government. We want to incentivise people; we want to look at the root causes of poverty and lift people out of it. We know—we have research that tells us this—that lifting people out of poverty and into work is the best route. Our welfare reforms incentivise moves into work and support working families. What we are providing is different in some ways, but we know this approach is working. The number of people in work is now at a record high. Through our welfare reforms, the Government have introduced 30 hours of free childcare a week for working families in England; cut income tax for 31 million people; and provided the lowest earners with their fastest pay rise in 20 years through the national living wage.
Our reforms have been highly redistributive. The latest analysis shows that, since taking office in 2016, the poorest households have gained the most as a percentage of net income. The annual average income of the poorest fifth of households has risen in real terms by more than £400 since 2010, while incomes of the richest fifth have fallen. Income inequality is lower than it was in 2010. In 2019-20, the 10% of households with the lowest incomes will receive more than four times as much support in public spending as they contribute in tax. We believe it is right that the poorest households should gain the most as a percentage of net income.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referenced several studies showing that the number of children in poverty will increase substantially over the next few years. However, experts such as the IFS, who undertake these forecasts, acknowledge a degree of uncertainty around them. We stay with our firm belief and principle that work offers the best chance for families to get out of poverty.
Since 2010, there are more than 3.4 million more people in work and around 637,000 fewer children living in workless households. Children are about five times more likely to be in poverty if they live in a workless household, compared to a household where all adults work. There are 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, compared to 2010, meaning we are currently at a historic low. We know that children in workless families can face real disadvantages to their development and prospects. This is why we will continue with policies that support and encourage employment, reform the welfare system to make work pay—as I always say, to make work transforms lives—and introduce universal credit to strengthen incentives for parents to move into and progress in work.
The rates of children in material deprivation have never been lower. As I said, children in households where no one works are more likely to be in poverty, but we will be investing more than £6 billion a year in childcare by 2020. There are a number of key ways in which we are demonstrating that our approach is different.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has touched on the Opposition’s policy for work in previous debates. How would she respond to the executive summary of a White Paper produced when we were in government, which states:
“This White Paper sets out a vision and route map for a welfare state where everyone is given the help they need to get back to work, matched by an expectation that they take up that support”—
a concept supported by the noble Lord, Lord Freud? Indeed, he worked on that programme for the DWP.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, what the noble Lord just referenced goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve. The reality is that we are providing support in every which way to help people into work, and to help people through our jobcentres with our work coaches and case managers. The important thing is that the first thing people do when they go into a jobcentre is talk to a work coach who is interested in ensuring that they have the right support, the right benefits and a roof over their head. We signpost them to the right support where that is lacking. From there, we do all we can, working with a bespoke work coach and case managers. It could take months, weeks or days to encourage people to go into work. Of course, as we know, some of these people have never been in work. Indeed, in 2010 a fifth, of all households in the United Kingdom—20%—were entirely workless. We have brought that down to 13.9% of all UK households. That is still an enormous number of households where nobody is actually working. We genuinely believe it is crucial that we change that, and we are changing it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Can the Minister tell me what the figure was when the Conservative Government left office previously?
Baroness Buscombe
I am not able to share that figure with the noble Lord, but I believe so strongly that what we are doing in introducing and developing universal credit with bespoke and universal support is a far cry from what previous Conservative Governments prior to 1997 and the party opposite in Government up to 2010 did with legacy benefits, when people had no contact.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I offer my noble friend a little assistance, because the Government should be rightly proud of the enormous strides that have been made in employment for older people. The Government have made specific efforts to ensure more older people are supported back into work. That has not been done by previous Governments.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank my noble friend for that. It is a very important point because, as we know, life expectancy is extending. The reality is that there are so many people out there, particularly women, who have never had the confidence to go back to work after having children. So many of my peer group would love to have had the confidence to go back to work. That is the sort of thing the Government have been doing and are working so hard at. We have all sorts of projects and support systems in place. In fact, two Secretaries of State have announced in the last year different projects to encourage older women particularly. When we say “older”, we—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
On the point about encouraging women back into work, which I very much agree with, would the Minister be willing to take away my point about work allowance? At present, second earners have little incentive to get back into paid work. She made the point that we need all adults to be in paid work to have the full impact on poverty. I do not expect her to say that the Government are going to do that but perhaps she might consider my point when developing universal credit policy.
Baroness Buscombe
Yes, I noted somewhere in my papers and will say now that of course it is right that we look at every way to incentivise the second earner to go back into the workplace; that is very much our thinking at the moment. We are looking to find different ways to help and incentivise people. We also have to think about affordability. We touched on that when we debated these uprating measures a year ago; it has to be taken into account as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, talked about how much was spent at the last Budget, but actually quite a large proportion of that—£4.5 billion—went towards the work that we are doing at the Department for Work and Pensions in supporting people, so we have to ensure—
Baroness Sherlock
On the affordability question, will the Minister address the point that I and another noble Lord made: the Government are likely to save half a billion pounds more on this freeze than they did from the 2014-15 Budget, so why could that money not be put to this purpose? While she is at it, her comments about work are very interesting, but if I could bring her back to the order under discussion, if the aim of this freeze is to incentivise work, why are the Government freezing payments made to some of the people on employment and support allowance whom they have deemed not fit to work? Why does the freeze include benefits paid to mothers of very young children, whom the Government do not require to work? Why does it apply to in-work benefits designed to make work pay?
Baroness Buscombe
Because of the issue of affordability, we have to make some difficult choices. I will not pretend that we are not constantly looking at this; indeed, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a speech only today amplifying the fact that we are looking at different ways of supporting people with disabilities. They may not attract a price tag, if I may put it that way, but they are going to help transform the lives particularly of people with severe disabilities, because the reality is that we cannot simply take that difficult leap and say that we are going to lift the benefit freeze. As my noble friend said last night in another place, we have to face the fact that under the previous Labour Government, welfare spending increased by £84 billion—the equivalent of £3,000 additional cost for every working household in this country. We have to strike a fair balance between those who are funding the welfare system and those who are in receipt of it. It is always a difficult balance, but again, I thank noble Lords who are making suggestions and encouraging me to amplify the fact that we have a particular interest in supporting those who may not have been in work for a number of years, or who may never have worked, to have the confidence to do so.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is speaking with great passion and conviction about her commitment to get people back into work. Is it not also incumbent on us all, irrespective of party, to keep constantly under review exactly what some of this work amounts to? It is hardly surprising that there are large numbers of families still not in work: the attraction of going into the sort of work available is the attraction of going into hell.
Baroness Buscombe
I am pleased to say that the vast majority of jobs which people are taking are full-time employment but, as I have said before at this Dispatch Box, it is really important that we focus on low pay. We have introduced the living wage, which has made an enormous difference. However, there is an issue not just in the private sector but in the third sector and others, where low wages are paid on the expectation that they will be supplemented by the state. We have to think about how we can tackle that. It is a very tough one. In a sense, I speak now not as a Minister but we have to take it on board. The reality is that until we have more people being paid what one might call properly, so that they do not have to turn to the benefits system, there will be the issue of how we maintain and sustain an affordable welfare system in the years ahead.
The costs are going up. I do not know whether I dare say this without checking my notes but the reality is that in a few short years—here we are, it is by 2022—our expenditure on welfare will rise by a further £28 billion. We are already spending more than £100 billion on benefits for people of working age. That £100,000 million will go up by £28,000 million by 2022.
Baroness Altmann
It is important for the House to recognise that there are a number of people, particularly older workers—yet again, I declare my interest—who want to work part-time and on zero-hours contracts. It is not as simple as it might appear from looking at the bald figures. That is perhaps work that the department might wish to take further but it is an important point.
Baroness Buscombe
Again, I thank my noble friend. It is a very important point. I often come across people who actually want to work on zero-hours contracts. They want to work in a flexible way so that they can work around their childcare arrangements or caring responsibilities. We live in a complex space. This is where I think the universal credit system is so brilliant, although we constantly seek to improve as we develop it. We inject every two weeks, on average, a new piece of software into that system to improve it, on the basis that everybody’s situation is different. We therefore have to have a system that can be as flexible as possible in responding to people’s way of working and their family arrangements, which are many and varied and can of course change literally overnight. People may then need to turn, maybe overnight, to our support and help.
That is why we are working hard to ensure that we can support the system in a way that provides for those who are in most need. We will not always agree about every benefit in it, but I hope noble Lords will accept that we at the Department for Work and Pensions are doing our best to develop many policies to encourage and empower people to go into the workplace to provide for their children, and therefore to have fuller lives and fulfil every opportunity for their potential.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I sense that the Minister is about to sit down—I apologise if she was not—but I made one point on which I asked her to respond. It would be a new policy but would not cost anything, other than the administrative costs of doing it. It would be to routinely publish the poverty depth statistics, which would help to answer for the future the question that my noble friend Lady Sherlock asked, which has not been answered. What attempts are the Government making, or have they made, to measure the impact on poverty of this freeze?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 was supported by a number of impact assessments that considered the whole picture of the Government’s welfare reforms. Any estimate of the impact will fluctuate whenever the number of people claiming benefit, or assumptions about the economy, turn out differently from the forecasts at the time. Although CPI for this year is higher than anticipated, at the time of the impact assessment for 2017-18 CPI was lower than expected. Since the impact assessment for the Welfare Reform and Work Act, we have seen employment reach record levels. If people choose to move into work or to increase their hours, they may mitigate or never experience the notional loss. In total, freezing benefits and tax credits overall is expected to result in £3.5 billion of savings in 2019-20, but the 2015 impact assessment shows a saving from the benefit freeze this year of around £1.4 billion.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that I will share with my colleagues the points that have been raised in this debate. We constantly review whether we have the right policies, what we can do to change them and what our constraints are given that we are just one of numerous departments. We account for 25% of the entire government budget. Therefore, it is always a tough challenge for us to influence change. I have huge respect for the previous and current Secretaries of State, who have been able to encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some changes.
A question was asked about those with a disabled child. All those qualifying for the disabled child addition also qualify for disability living allowance or personal independence payments, which are exempt from the freeze. Another question was asked about the two-child element. We believe that families on benefits should face the same financial choices when deciding to grow their family as those supporting themselves solely through work. A benefits structure adjusting automatically to family size is unsustainable. I think I have answered almost everything—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My noble friend asked a rather pertinent question: do the Government think that these benefits are too high?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, no; I can answer that very simply. We do not think that the benefits are too high, but we feel strongly that we have to focus them where the need is greatest.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that we have had a full debate, much of which has related to matters other than the uprating itself. The social security uprating order will provide an extra £3.7 billion of support for the most vulnerable in 2019-20. The triple lock on the state pension will provide an extra £3.6 billion for pensioners. The uprating of disability living allowance, personal independence payments and carer’s allowance are worth £0.7 billion in 2019-20 alone. The increase in universal credit work allowances by £1,000 will provide 2.4 million working families with an extra £630 a year from April 2019. This Government have a track record of increasing their generosity in welfare spending. Since 2016, they have invested more than £9.5 billion in universal credit. I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I beg to move.
Social Security Coordination (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported the presentation of these four statutory instruments, and I will also speak to the remaining three.
These regulations were laid before both Houses on 30 January. They enable the Government to address deficiencies in retained EU law caused by the United Kingdom withdrawing from the EU, which would impact the operation of the retained social security co-ordination regulations in a no-deal scenario. The whole system of social security co-ordination across the EU relies on co-operation and reciprocity. The legal framework for this will cease in a no-deal scenario. The UK will have no means of enforcing reciprocal obligations on EU member states and cannot therefore legislate for this when correcting deficiencies in the co-ordination regulations.
These instruments aim to maintain the status quo on a unilateral basis, ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected as far as possible in a no-deal scenario in relation to social security. They are intended to ensure a functioning statute book in the event of no deal, by fixing deficiencies in retained EU law, in line with the power provided by Section 8 of the EU withdrawal Act.
The list of specific legislation that these regulations amend is lengthy but can broadly be split into three categories. The first is data and information sharing. The co-ordination regulations require EU member states to exchange information through specific administrative procedures laid down in the regulations. Data shared is used, for example, to establish which member state is responsible for payment of benefits to avoid overlapping benefits being paid in different member states. These instruments will enable us to ask claimants to provide, within reasonable time, the relevant information to determine competence in cases where the relevant member state does not do so when asked. They also include provisions to ensure that the UK can continue to share data with member states when they are applying the co-ordination regulations.
These SIs also remove provisions within the retained co-ordination regulations that will be inoperable if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. For example, the co-ordination regulations make provision for a number of bodies at EU level to deal with administrative and technical issues or disputes arising from the application of the social security co-ordination regulations—the administrative commission being the main one. These instruments remove references to these bodies on the basis that they will be inoperable when the UK withdraws from the EU in a no-deal scenario.
Finally, they deal with applicable legislation. The co-ordination regulations state that an individual shall be subject to only one EU member state’s legislation at a time. These arrangements rely on co-ordination between member states in order to operate effectively. These instruments amend the co-ordination regulations to maintain the status quo for when UK legislation does, and does not, apply. These regulations are made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal inoperabilities and other deficiencies that will arise on exit in retained EU law, so that the converted law continues to operate effectively post exit, and to make consequential provision.
The legal powers used are those provided for under the EU withdrawal Act, and the amendments made are completely in line with both the policy and legal intent of that Act. The use of secondary legislation to amend primary legislation—the so-called Henry VIII powers—was debated at length during the passage of the Act.
These statutory instruments are part of a wider legislative package that my department is laying. We have already laid SIs relating to private pensions, the European job mobility portal regime—more commonly known as EURES—and consequential powers. My officials will be happy to provide noble Lords with more information on the department’s legislative programme following the debate.
No formal consultation on the regulations has been carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions as the instruments address deficiencies in retained EU law and there is no significant impact as a result. My officials, nevertheless, had informal discussions with the Social Security Advisory Committee on these instruments; these focused on technical issues and policy considerations. Similarly, we expect the regulations to have no impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector.
In my view, the provisions in these statutory instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister of State for Employment has also made the same statement.
All noble Lords will know that the EU withdrawal Act is a crucial piece of legislation that will ensure that whatever the outcome of negotiations, we have a functioning statute book on exit day, providing certainty to people and business across the UK. The Act enables this by providing a power for Ministers in the UK Government and devolved Administrations to deal with deficiencies in the law arising as a result of our exit from the EU.
These regulations are an essential part of the legislative programme that my department is laying in preparation for a no-deal scenario. They are needed to correct deficiencies so that the system can function, albeit unilaterally, and to retain the department’s ability to make payments to claimants and to determine claims. Not proceeding with this legislation would result in a statute book that does not function correctly and would fail to protect citizens’ rights. Passing these SIs will ensure that we are ready for all eventualities.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As we have heard, they seek to address deficiencies in retained law caused by the UK withdrawing from the EU. They amend the retained EU regulations comprising the co-ordination regulations, which currently co-ordinate social security systems throughout the EU.
Given that the changes these regulations cover potentially create new imposts and a move away from the status quo, it seems to us that there is a case for an impact assessment and some consultation. Change is necessary, as we have heard, because the current system relies on co-operation and reciprocity from other member states and that cannot be guaranteed when we withdraw in all respects. It will not be possible, for example, to impose reciprocal obligations on member states when correcting deficiencies, or say when co-ordinating rules relate to individuals moving to or from the UK. We understand and accept that.
The regulations will amend retained co-ordination regulations covering provisions that will not apply to the UK, confer functions on EU entities that will no longer have functions in relation to the UK, and make provision for reciprocal arrangements between the UK and other European Union member states. According to the Explanatory Memorandum:
“The instruments aim to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected as far as possible in a no-deal scenario”.
How? It is asserted that this is about maintaining the status quo, but will the Minister say to what extent the instrument varies from the maintenance of the status quo in practice? How does she characterise this?
The legal framework, as we have heard, for co-operation and enforcing reciprocal obligations in a no-deal scenario will cease. The Explanatory Memorandum states that:
“These instruments aim to maintain the status quo on a unilateral basis”,
but there will be arrangements which are inoperable. These include the denial of membership of such bodies as the administrative commission, the advisory body and the audit board. Will the Minister say in more detail what the implications of this are? It is noted that the ability to make provisional payments in the event of an unresolved dispute will no longer exist, although it is understood that these are in fact little used.
The approach to amending the co-ordination regulations is to focus on circumstances where the UK legislation does apply. Will the Minister please expand on that assertion? The Explanatory Memorandum identifies that the change,
“may give rise to occasions where an individual becomes subject to the legislation of more than one state at a time”,
and possibly to the legislation of two or more states. This is noted as being an unavoidable consequence of a no-deal exit which cannot be managed using powers in the withdrawal Act, but has any assessment been undertaken of the consequences? On what basis does the Minister conclude that the changes,
“do not give rise to any new costs or any financial or economic impact”?
Further, it is understood that fixes for deficiencies relating to healthcare are not provided for in these SIs. How and where are they to be provided for? We know that, by virtue of the EEA agreement and the Swiss free movement of people agreement, the co-ordination regulations also apply in the EEA. Will she outline the full consequences of that for us tonight? I am conscious that there were one or two technical questions there, but this is a technical document and we are entitled to ask them, although I do not believe that we will have undue problems in supporting the regulations.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing this rather hefty set of statutory instruments and I echo my noble friend Lord McKenzie in citing paragraph 2.6 in the Explanatory Memorandum—which the Minister also cited:
“These instruments aim to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected as far as possible in a no-deal scenario”.
Phrases such as “as far as possible” rather leap out at us when we are looking at these things. What does it mean exactly? Will the Minister tell us what scenarios are envisaged in which it will not be possible to protect existing citizens’ rights?
Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will be very brief, after my rather lengthy speech earlier, but I am more worried having read the debates in the Public Bill Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. A number of those giving evidence to the Committee raised serious concerns about Clause 5, which deals with future social security co-ordination and which, in the words of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is,
“so lacking in any substance whatsoever that it cannot even be described as a skeleton … There is, moreover, no indication at all in the Explanatory Notes or Memorandum that the Government have even begun to devise their policy on the future of social security co-ordination post EU exit”.
Will the Minister explain how the regulations and this thinner-than-a-skeleton clause in the Bill relate to each other? Can she give us some assurance that the Government have begun to devise their policy regarding future social security co-ordination post EU exit, and perhaps some inkling of the lines on which they are thinking?
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too have some questions. In May 2018, the Commons European Scrutiny Committee raised very strong concerns about providing legally binding arrangements to protect existing rights. We have already heard mention of non-emergency healthcare; these regulations apparently do not provide that. There are also issues about EU-wide dealings or the need for bilateral arrangements with EU and third countries.
The noble Baroness spoke about data and information sharing. Again, this is a vexed area of negotiation. Certain laws govern the ability to share information and, unless we have some form of legally binding agreement, I cannot really see how this can happen, having looked at the evidence of various people who have looked into data sharing with the EU after Brexit.
We are talking about removing inoperable clauses, under the withdrawal Bill, in relation to the administrative commission. We have mention of disputes; who will settle disputes? There will be a need for medical assessments if they are not provided by individual countries.
It is not clear what is meant by “evidence”. I know that, in my own city, EU citizens have had a very hard time providing evidence of residence in this country, even though some of them have lived here for 40 years. I would like to know what sort of guidance will be given on the quality of the evidence, and how that will be provided to people.
On disputes and the removal of provisional payments, again it is not clear how and under what authority disputes are to be resolved. What is the final authority? This is left fairly open, and could be open to legal action. How will rulings be managed if we come out without a deal and are not proposing to recognise the European Court of Justice?
I am sure it is important that the Government look ahead to the possibility of no deal, but it seems to me that there are lots of very open areas in these regulations that need to be fleshed out. We are talking about the rights of individuals and how they can manage without benefits—where there are disputes, for example.
I very much echo the calls made by other Members here for an impact assessment. It seems to me that there is a fundamental need, given the potential impact of these systems not working after Brexit day, for an impact assessment to be carried out.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and all noble Lords for their contributions. I start with an apology, because I will not be brief. I do not often make lengthy speeches in this House, but I have been through these regulations as best as I can—and there are a lot of them—read the Explanatory Memorandum and listened carefully to the Minister’s introduction, and all that I have read in the Memorandum and the introduction implies that these are simply technical amendments which will not make much difference or have much impact. I must therefore have misunderstood them, so I apologise because I will ask quite a lot of questions, since I can only conclude that my understanding of their impact is in some way erroneous. I look forward to having that corrected.
First, my understanding is that the current rules about social security co-ordination within the EU are based on four principles: the single state principle, which means that at any point in time I am covered only by the social security system of one country and pay contributions only in one country; equal treatment, which means that if I am in another member state then I am treated by it the same way as one of its nationals; aggregation, by which periods of insurance, employment or residence in another member state count when determining my eligibility for benefits; and exportability, which means I can receive benefits from one member state even when I am living in another one.
If we have a deal, the withdrawal agreement will cover the transition period during which EU social security co-ordination will continue to include the UK and our citizens, and the political declaration says that the UK and the EU agree to consider future social security co-ordination in the light of future movement of persons. I guess that the presumption, therefore, is that the UK will seek to strike a single deal with the EU rather than bilateral agreements with member states.
However, if there is no deal, there are no provisional transitions, and in the absence of comprehensive alternative arrangements, problems could arise on all those fronts, including whether you can aggregate contributions, export benefits to other member states, the risk of having to pay double national insurance contributions, a lack of clarity about which country is responsible for paying someone’s benefits, and no mechanism for resolving disputes.
The scale is significant. The House of Commons Library briefing on the immigration Bill said:
“In 2017-18, UK benefits totalling around £2 billion were exported to around 500,000 claimants living in EEA countries. Over 90% … was on State Pensions, and over 90% of the recipients … were UK or Irish nationals.”.
In addition, more than 1 million people will be affected by the aggregation issues, according to evidence given to the Commons committee on the immigration Bill by British in Europe.
My first question for the Minister is this. There were some bilateral agreements between the UK and some EU member states, which predate either their or our entry into the EU. Would any of those still be applicable in a no-deal scenario? Would we seek to update them, would we want to negotiate additional unilateral arrangements with other member states, or is it our intention to seek a whole EU deal in the event of there being no deal?
If we end up with no deal, we could see UK citizens returning to the UK, perhaps in significant numbers, and needing help. DExEU published a policy paper on 6 December called Citizens’ Rights—EU Citizens in the UK and UK Nationals in the EU, which accepted the importance of returning UK nationals being able quickly to access benefits and housing. Paragraph 24 stated:
“Arrangements will be made to ensure continuity of payments for those who return and are already in receipt of UK state pension or other UK benefits while living in the EU. We are considering how support could be offered to returning UK nationals where new claims are made and will set out further details in due course”.
Given that “in due course” is running out, can the Minister tell the House what continuity arrangements have been put in place for those whose benefits are already in payment, and what support will be offered to new claimants?
The European Commission has called on member states to protect citizens by taking account of periods of work or insurance in the UK before Brexit for both EU 27 and UK nationals, by ensuring the aggregation benefits for those who carry on living in the UK, and more crucially, by encouraging member states to carry on exporting pensions to the UK even though it will then be a third country. But we do not know what will happen in practice. The Government’s website has a page entitled “UK nationals in the EU: benefits and pensions in a ‘no deal’ scenario”. However, it tells you very little at all, except that if someone is already getting UK benefits for a state pension transferred to another member state, that can carry on being paid there, and that their entitlement to any in-country benefits will depend on what the EU decides. So we are very much in the dark.
As my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, the whole system of social security co-ordination relies on reciprocity, which cannot be assumed in a no-deal world, so we cannot make other states give us information or co-operate, or require them to apply the current rules to us. The Explanatory Memorandum said—and the Minister has said—
“These regulations aim to address deficiencies in retained law caused by the UK withdrawing from the EU and ensure citizens’ rights are protected as far as possible in a no deal scenario”.
In other words, they are designed to maintain the status quo. I have never liked this language of “deficiencies”, because these are not accidental deficiencies but a direct consequence of the Government refusing to rule out no deal. Those deficiencies are a loss of all kinds of rights, acquired in some cases over decades, which people may experience. This is entirely avoidable—it is simply because we could be in a no-deal situation.
These regulations are intended to maintain the status quo, so I want to try to test the veracity of that claim in a no-deal scenario. The current rules allow you to use periods of insurance contributions elsewhere which can be aggregated together. So someone who has worked in other member states can make one application to the relevant agency in the country in which they live. In the UK, this is the International Pension Centre in Newcastle.
The Commons brief on the immigration Bill gives a really good example, if noble Lords will allow me to describe it. Someone called Jo worked in France, after leaving university, before returning to the UK in 2008. He carried on working here, paying UK national insurance contributions until he reached state pension age in November 2018. As things then stood, Jo did not have to make separate claims to get his French and UK pensions. He had to submit a single claim to the international pension authority, and the centre in Newcastle contacted the French pension authorities. They calculated his entitlement to a French pension and put it into payment. The centre also calculated that Jo was entitled to 9/35ths of a full UK state pension because he had paid nine years of contributions here. That was put into payment as well. The only reason he got it was because his period of insurance in France meant that this tipped him over the minimum of 10 years of national insurance contributions that you have to have to get into the British state system in the first place.
My primary question is: do these regulations preserve the right of UK and EU nationals to aggregate periods working in other EU member states when determining entitlement to UK benefits and the state pension? Where is this spelled out? Is it in domestic legislation? Is it remaining unchanged? Does it include EEA states? Where is it laid out unequivocally?
Secondly, the regulations allow the DWP to ask claimants to provide the relevant evidence where the EU member state cannot or will not. The Explanatory Memorandum says, at paragraph 7.2:
“in the event that the information provided by the claimant is insufficient, the UK will no longer be required to fulfil any obligation under the Coordination Regulations”.
This sounds quite harsh. What would happen to Jo if he retired after a no-deal Brexit? He would have to do two things. First, he would have to access his French pension. Would this be done through the International Pension Centre, as it is at the moment? Or would he have to apply directly to the French authorities? Crucially, would he definitely be able to have that French pension paid to him in the UK? In other words, would France export the pension, as requested by the Commission? If not, Jo could be in an impossible position. He might need to return to the UK to care for elderly parents, but if he could not get the bulk of his pension here, what would he do? What if some of our citizens found that they had no residence rights anywhere else, so were forced back to the UK and yet could not access the benefits or pensions they needed because they had entitlement in other member states? What would happen to them?
Then Jo would need to access his UK pension. To get that, he would need evidence that he had paid national insurance contributions in France, as he would need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get into the UK system. This would raise other questions. Would the International Pension Centre in Newcastle contact the French pension authorities to get this evidence for Jo, or would he have to get it himself? Either way, if the French did not oblige, what would Jo have to produce? If he did not have documents that the DWP liked, he would get no pension at all in the UK, even though he was legally entitled to it. Would he have to pay to get documents translated and notarised? How long would this all take?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, it is crucial to know what would count as evidence. I could not produce payslips from 20 years ago, and I think a lot of noble Lords could not either. So, if the authorities in another EU state refuse to co-operate, what should people do? They could go back to their employer, but firms go out of business or merge. In most countries, they would not be required to keep records dating back decades. So, would other forms of evidence be accepted—for example, witness statements from co-workers, neighbours or doctors? Has the evidential basis been published? If not, will the Minister guarantee to conduct a consultation on it at once, so that we can see what would happen?
If a UK firm posted a worker abroad, could the firm be compelled to provide the necessary information to the DWP? If Jo were legally entitled to a state pension here, but could not prove it because the French Government would not co-operate, who would decide that he would not get that to which he was entitled? How could he appeal a refusal?
I have a few more short questions. The Commons brief points out that these regulations remove entirely article 4 of EU regulation 883/2004 which contains the equal treatment provisions to which I referred at the outset. The Explanatory Memorandum does not explain why this provision has been removed. Can the Minister tell us why it was? UK nationals working in the EU and EU residents working in the UK could be required to pay national contributions here as well as paying contributions in another EU member state, so a worker posted to Germany by her British company could end up paying double national insurance contributions. Did the Government consider waiving NICs for someone in this country, which would of course replicate the status quo rather more precisely that what seems to be in here? If not, as my noble friend asked, how could they then say that there are no costs attached to these regulations?
The regulations abolish provisional payments while a dispute is being resolved with an EU member state. The memorandum says that these provisions are hardly ever used, but since there will not be any resolution mechanisms in the future and there will not be a common rulebook, it is entirely possible that the situations which might require them to be used could be far more numerous. What assessment was made of the likelihood of disputes arising in no deal which would trigger payments of this sort? While these regulations are operational, if they ever come to be, what is the status of post-Brexit contributions in other EU states? Will UK state pensions be uprated when paid in other EU member states after no deal? Ministers have said that they will be for 2019-20, but what happens after that?
I want to say a brief word on the point raised by my noble friend Lady Lister about the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which has been debated in another place and which in its territory overlaps very much with this instrument. As we have heard, that Bill contains eye-watering Henry VIII powers that basically would allow Ministers to rewrite the social security co-ordination rules at will. I am not a Brexit specialist, so can the Minister can explain this to me? If there is no deal, does that Bill fall? If it does not, how do the Government intend to honour the commitments spelt out by the Minister herself and spelt out in the memorandum when they have the power to rewrite them entirely? Will they commit to use those Henry VIII powers only to replicate the provisions of these regulations?
Finally, if there is a deal, what is the status of these regulations?
I apologise for asking so many questions, but they are all important for the great many people who could be affected. I gave the Minister notice of my technical questions, albeit only yesterday, but my priority is to get things answered on the record. The date of 29 March is only three weeks away. If the Government allow a no-deal scenario, these problems will become a reality for many UK citizens living in the EU and vice versa. They and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent debate and for the searching questions, if I may say so. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for giving me early notice of some of the very technical questions. I have to say, I am certainly not an expert in Brexit and I am not quite sure who is. We all hope very much that we will have a deal and we wish it was already in place. Let me do my best to respond to noble Lords’ questions.
As regards an impact assessment, I shall be absolutely straight. An impact assessment has not been prepared for these instruments as they make only technical changes to retained EU law and, as such, do not give rise to any new costs or financial or economic impact beyond the status quo. There is no, or no significant, impact on businesses, charities or voluntary bodies as a result of the instruments and there is no, or no significant, impact on the public sector. That said, as I referenced in my opening remarks on the statutory instruments, we take the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee very seriously. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on consultation, the SSAC provides impartial advice on social security and related matters. It scrutinises most of the complex secondary legislation that underpins the social security system. The committee had the opportunity to review these regulations and a meeting was held on 7 March last year for it to share and discuss the initial drafts. The committee was content with the approach being taken.
Noble Lords asked a number of questions about future policy for social security and how these SIs fit with the immigration and social security Bill currently going through Parliament. These statutory instruments provide for a functioning statute book immediately after exit day, and the immigration and social security Bill ensures that there is the legislative framework required to deliver future policy at the appropriate time. Future policy changes will be set out in regulations made under that Bill and will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred to healthcare entitlement. I assure noble Lords that these statutory instruments do not make changes to healthcare policy. Any such changes will be brought forward by the Department of Health and Social Care via the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill and its statutory instruments. The Department of Health and Social Care is bringing forward the healthcare Bill to enable the UK to implement any future relationship with the EU on reciprocal healthcare as necessary and to ensure that the UK is prepared for any outcome if there is a no-deal exit. The healthcare Bill contains a power to amend, repeal or revoke retained EU law, so we do not anticipate the Department of Health and Social Care using this power.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked how the regulations vary from the status quo. The amendments retain the status quo for UK obligations to individuals. They include provision to allow information to be provided by the claimant where we now receive it from the member state. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also asked why provisional payments have been removed. The current provisional payment system operates where there is a dispute between member states of the European Union, disputes being an issue raised by all noble Lords. These disputes are resolved following a decision made by a mediation body, the administrative commission of the European Union. In a no-deal scenario, the UK will no longer be a member state or part of this body. That is why this provision has been removed. We will continue to use the same rules as now to determine whether the UK is competent. Any challenges will instead be resolved through domestic routes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the terminology “as far as possible”. Perhaps it is the lawyer in me, but the reality from a legal standpoint is that it is sensible to use the terminology “as far as possible” rather than providing guarantees and raising an expectation, when something could happen where we would then fail to deliver. We are extremely keen to avoid that, particularly on such an important issue as social security. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also asked why this legislation only maintains the status quo and whether it is the Government’s plan not to change anything relating to social security. This legislation is about maintaining a functioning statute book. Of course, future policy is a matter for negotiations and, as such, cannot be discussed or raised today. I cannot say more than that today, but we are considering future policy with care. The Government are planning an ambitious deal with the EU in many areas, and this legislation is not about future policy but technical amendments to retained EU law.
The Government are confident that a deal will be reached. However, as a responsible Government, we are planning for all eventualities, including a no-deal scenario. Announcements relating to social security will therefore be made when it is appropriate to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also asked about social security co-ordination and how these statutory instruments fit with the immigration Bill. As I have said, this will be set out in regulations under that Bill.
There was a question about the ESIC referring to changes to retained EU regulations ensuring that any bilateral agreements between the UK and an EU country take precedence over the retained regulations and what impact this will have. Changes made through these fixing SIs are intended to deliver a functioning statute book on day one of exit to ensure a smooth and orderly exit. However, the UK will operate these retained regulations on a unilateral basis. As the Government negotiate future agreements with EU countries that provide for reciprocal social security co-ordination or agree to revive an existing reciprocal arrangement, retained EU law that delivers a unilateral system will no longer be appropriate.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that we have 17 reciprocal social security arrangements within the EU—with Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. We have reciprocal arrangements with two EEA countries, Iceland and Norway, and with Switzerland. However, there are apparently no reciprocal agreements with Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
There was question about people being affected by double contributions. The latest published figures from the EU show that in 2017 around 50,000 UK workers went to work in the EU and around 60,000 EU workers went to work in the UK under the co-ordinated regulations, which work to avoid duplication.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, referenced data sharing. We will continue to work closely with the EU 27 so that the first port of call for all contribution queries will be the appropriate administration in a member state. We would expect the claimant to provide wage slips or proof of contributions made. The Government will provide support to claimants where any additional information is required from them. The instruments include provisions to ensure that the UK can continue to share data with the EU member states when they are applying the co-ordinated regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked what evidence an individual will have to produce to confirm contributions in the EU. The UK will consider evidence on a case-by-case basis. We would expect the claimant to provide wage slips or proof of contributions made. The Government will provide support to claimants where any additional information is required from them.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about healthcare. As I have said, the Department for Health and Social Care is bringing forward a healthcare Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked what scenario is envisaged where rights would not be protected. We are not able to protect the rights of citizens to the extent that they are provided by member states. We have sought assurances, and will continue to do so, from member states that they will respect the rights of UK nationals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about bilateral agreements. In the event that the UK leaves without a withdrawal agreement, we will keep pre-existing reciprocal agreements with individual member states under review. Whether these come back into force will be subject to discussion and agreement between the UK and the relevant EU member state.
Will returnees have access to benefits? Returning UK nationals have the same rights to access benefits as other UK citizens or UK residents. For some benefits, in addition to meeting the entitlement conditions, certain residence criteria must be satisfied. For income-related means-tested benefits, such as universal credit and pension credit, claimants must be habitually resident in the UK. In general, this means that they will need to show that they have made the UK their home and plan to stay here. Those returning to the UK after a period spent abroad may be considered to be habitually resident on arrival if it can be established that they were previously habitually resident in the UK and are returning to resume their residence.
For some disability and carers’ benefits, such as personal independence payment and carer’s allowance, claimants must be habitually resident in the UK. They must also have been present in the UK for a specified period before the claim but this requirement may be satisfied if they have links with the UK—for example, if they have worked and paid national insurance contributions in the UK in the past.
The noble Baroness referred to the terminology “deficiencies”. The word “deficiencies”, from a legal standpoint, contains anything with no practical application to the UK rather than this being a political deficiency on the part of government. I want to make that clear.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me. The noble Baroness asked a number of technical questions, and I will do my best to answer them as efficiently and speedily as possible. First, it is correct that the UK has reciprocal social security agreements with 17 EU member states, as I have already referenced. These arrangements are generally superseded by EU social security regulations in the UK but are still in use by the Crown dependencies, where EU social security regulations do not apply.
Social Security Coordination (Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, EEA Agreement and Swiss Agreement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 987/2009) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
Stronger Towns Fund
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Statement is as follows:
“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 honourable 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, with 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 the 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 United Kingdom on more deals, including in Belfast and 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 and 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 which 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 which 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 mayoral combined authorities 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 honourable friend the Member for Harlow 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”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made yesterday in the other place by his right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. This supposed funding boost is extremely disappointing and will do little compared with the billions of pounds that his Government have already cut from local communities. After all the hype, I would have expected more from him and the Government. This will do little to reverse the damage that they have inflicted in each region of England.
The reason why many of our towns are struggling is a near-decade of cuts to local authority funding and to public services by the Minister’s Government. The fact is that between 2010 and 2020 councils will have lost 60p in every £1 that the Government provide for services. Can the Minister tell the House why nine of the 10 most deprived councils in England have seen cuts three times the national average? How can that be right?
The Statement says that the Government have taken deprivation into account when considering the allocation of this fund. I am very pleased that they have done that, but I am also conscious that the Minister’s right honourable friend in the other place refused to say that deprivation would be taken into account when considering the local government settlement. Can the Minister tell the House why that is the case? It is quite rightly included in this fund but not in the fair funding formula review.
The Minister mentioned Blackpool. Blackpool is one of the most deprived areas in England and has seen a cut in spending power of more than £45 million. That is more than the £40 million a year that the entire north-west of England will get from this fund. Look at the east Midlands, an area I know very well. Over seven years it will get £110 million, which is £15.71 million a year. If the Government allocate that funding evenly per local authority—I know they will not do that, but if they did—it works out at around £393,000 per year per authority.
This funding announcement is a drop in the ocean. We have seen spending cuts of £7.3 billion over the past decade because of nine years of austerity. Even if we are being favourable to the Government and to Ministers, this enticement is £5.7 billion short of the cuts that they have already inflicted.
The funding promised by the Secretary of State over the next seven years does not even get close to matching the amount of funding that regions have received from the European Union over the last seven years from the European Regional Development Fund. This package is £642 million a year short of the money that England would have received.
Also, why is £600 million unallocated? I know the Minister said that there will be some sort of bidding process, but we have had no more clarity about that. How will the money be allocated? He also mentioned other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the money be distributed through Barnett-type formulas? Will there be additional money for the other parts of the United Kingdom? What will the allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be?
This is a most disappointing announcement indeed from the Government, but unfortunately not surprising. We have such serious problems in our towns, seaside resorts, communities and high streets that we need an ambitious programme to deliver their success so that they can thrive, with proper support for jobs, transport, housing and communities. As I said, the Government have failed in this announcement.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind Members of my registered interests, in particular that I am a councillor in Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but it raises far more questions than answers, so I will ask those questions in the hope and expectation of finding the answers.
The funding is described as being for towns. Could the Minister define what towns will be eligible? Are cities excluded? For example, my part of the country—West Yorkshire—contains Dewsbury, a town, eligible, and Bradford, a city, not eligible, despite the fact that their deprivation assessments will be very similar?
It seems from the Statement that the funding will be allocated to the local enterprise partnerships and the mayoral combined authorities, yet these are the very institutions that have clearly not used growth deal funding to invest in those towns; otherwise, there would be no need for this additional funding. The city region-centric approach may well be successful in bringing new jobs into cities, but my experience is that these institutions have not succeeded in reviving our towns. Yet these are the self-same institutions that will be the keepers of this small fund. Could the Minister explain the rationale for this approach? Given that the LEPs serve large populations, how can the needs of small towns feature and be understood? Local councils are much better placed to understand their communities and which ones will benefit from the relatively meagre investment, so why the LEPs?
Then there is this total failure of government thinking that devolution equals handing out funding that in some way local people can influence. The Statement refers to the Government being in charge. It says:
“We will work with local areas to explore town deals that unlock local potential”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/19; col. 714.]
This is no way to engage communities. Will the Minister confirm that plans for investment have to be agreed with the Government? How will residents and councillors of the towns involved be able to determine what funding programme best meets the needs of their town?
The Statement lists the aims of the funding: to create new jobs and training opportunities, and economic development. The list sounds familiar. The Single Regeneration Budget programme 25 years ago had the same aims. However, that had a budget of £5.7 billion over six years—many times larger than what is now on offer. The criticism of the SRB was that gains made in local economies were not sustainable. Have lessons been learned?
That leads me to the size of the funding pot. To take an area I know, Yorkshire and the Humber is allocated £197 million over seven years—£28 million per year for the whole region. These are some of the towns in the region that I think will meet the criteria loosely set by the Government: Dewsbury, Batley, Huddersfield, Halifax, Rotherham, Doncaster, Castleford, Pontefract, Scarborough, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Barnsley, Selby, Goole, Bridlington, and no doubt others. They may have around £2 million a year to invest. It will do something, of course, but—to use a catchphrase—not a lot.
In the context of the massive cuts to local government funding, this is a drop in the ocean. My own council has had cuts of £183 million up to 2018, and has to make a further £40 million of cuts in the next two years, despite government claims of funding rises, which ignore rising demands—and of course, these cuts do not include the squeeze on school spending.
Another way to consider the funding is to compare it with the £1 billion granted to Northern Ireland. The exchange rate per DUP MP is £100 million. There are 54 MPs in Yorkshire and the Humber. Their exchange rate is £3.5 million. So this fund is a lollipop, a sweetener, and, as they say in Yorkshire, “summat for nowt”. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister responds, when I spoke earlier, I should have drawn the House’s attention to my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contributions from the Front Benches of their respective parties. I will try to cover the points they raised. First, I will try to put into perspective what is regarded as “something for nowt”.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
“Summat for nowt”. It is £1.6 billion. I do not think that is to be sniffed at; I am sure communities up and down the country will not be sniffing at it. Indeed, some of the communities in the south of England which, because of the way the programme is designed, are not getting as much, are very envious of assistance that is going elsewhere. Yes, it could be more—it always could—but £1.6 billion over seven years is not to be sniffed at.
The other important point is that comparisons were made. I understand that when a Statement offers quite a lot, people want to talk about things where the record might not be quite so rosy, and so there was a concentration on talking about local government settlements over the years but no mention that this year there was a real-terms increase in it, which was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, the chairman of the Local Government Association. We need to put this into perspective. It is also worth saying that the Labour Party was putting in place cuts to local authorities before the 2010 election, so whichever party—or combination of parties—had formed the Government, there would have been cuts.
Baroness Pinnock
If there has been a rise in core spending power—which is different from core funding—how is it that councils up and down the country have had to continue making cuts?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Baroness raises a fair point in a sense, but she cannot expect me to give a running commentary on all the local authorities up and down the country. It is established that there is that increase—I accept that over time there have been cuts—but let me proceed, because it is only fair that I try to cover the points raised. It is worth putting into perspective that there are other funds local communities can draw upon; for example, the Coastal Communities Fund and the Future High Streets Fund. It is also worth reiterating that with regard to the billion pounds, the essence of this programme has been finding the communities that have suffered deprivation and have lower incomes. As we all know, they tend to be in the north of England, and to some extent the Midlands, rather than the south. People asked how the £600 million was arrived at. It was because there are poor communities throughout the country—one thinks of Cornwall, which is in the relatively prosperous south-west, but Cornwall itself is not—which will be able to make bids against that fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a point about losses from the European programme. I stress that this is not part of the UK shared prosperity fund substitute, but is quite independent of that. It is an additional programme. We still need to address the issue of the shared prosperity fund, which we are talking to the devolved Administrations and others about. Questions were raised about the devolved nations—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—which, as noble Lords can imagine, are dear to my heart. The Secretary of State in the other place undertook clearly that he would be coming forward with the proposals in relation to the devolved nations shortly and would keep the House informed; no doubt I will be doing the same here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the size of the funding for Yorkshire and Humberside. As she rightly said, that is £197 million over the length of the programme and will be geared to towns rather than cities. This is the essence of this. We are looking to towns because cities have had their day in the sun, as it were. This is essentially a towns programme, and we will be looking at the proposals from the towns concerned. As mentioned in the Statement, the Secretary of State is going to publish a detailed prospectus about how it will operate and how the process will move forward.
If there are points I have missed, I will ensure that noble Lords have answers, and will undertake to write to them and place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, the money announced for the north-east of England amounts to £5 per person in the north-east for each of the seven years. Is it not the case that this in no way mitigates the cuts in local government spending across the region, nor the effects of Brexit, particularly under a disastrous no-deal scenario? Does this £5 per head of population not contrast dramatically with the £245 per head of population in Northern Ireland as a result of the deal concluded between the Government and the DUP?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness, who will be aware that the north-east actually has the most favourable treatment of all the regions that have had their monies announced—£105 million, £40 per head over the length of the programme—because of deprivation. We have been here before on the point about the agreement with the DUP; obviously, that is quite independent of this and is money that goes to Northern Ireland for programmes rather than to the party, as the noble Baroness will know. We need to nail that; it is not part of this initiative. Northern Ireland will get a sum of money for towns in Northern Ireland, which will be announced by the Secretary of State shortly.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, although the Minister stated that towns in Wales can benefit, will it be the Welsh Government who administer that fund? In the context of the size of any such fund, will he bear in mind that west Wales and the valleys have been benefiting from £375 million per annum from European funds? Can he guarantee that there will be no drop-back from such a level of funding?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord for the question. In relation to the first point, he will have heard me say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement about the position for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and clearly there will be a role for the devolved Administrations. In relation to his specific point about west Wales and the valleys, I represented a large part of that area in the National Assembly and know, as the noble Lord does, the importance of European funding to them, but as I have indicated, this is quite separate from the UK shared prosperity fund, which would encompass the spending that was directed to those areas in relation to that. That discussion is ongoing. I am sure that in due course an announcement will be made.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, we read in the Statement that the Secretary of State has looked at relative productivity, income and skills and ensured that localised economic conditions are taken into account. Given the many and complex factors underlying the issues that these towns face, could the Minister tell us how long this scheme has been in development? Could he confirm which local organisations, charities and expert bodies have been consulted in developing the scheme, and could he confirm that the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth has also been drawn into the development of the scheme, to ensure that it truly meets the long-term needs of these towns?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. It is important to note first that the Secretary of State has indicated that there will be a prospectus giving details of not just the process for application, which will clearly be important to areas, towns and communities, but the thinking behind it and the way those aspects were considered and weighed. I think she will recognise from the figures that detailed work has been done. I appreciate that there is a breakdown behind those figures, but one can see that rough justice has been done there for the areas. We will look to communities to help develop the programme, and to set out the spending profile and how the fund operates. I am sure that will become clear once we see that prospectus when it is issued.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as someone from one of Britain’s Celtic nations the Minister will probably know that it is St Piran’s Day today—the patron saint of Cornwall. Cornwall is the only lesser developed region within England, yet the funding under this scheme seems absolutely minimal. Can the Minister tell me something specific regarding the town of Newport? I should have said Newquay—my apologies to my Welsh colleagues. Newquay Airport is bidding to be a spaceport under the Government’s programme for a launch. A consortium has, together with Virgin Orbit, put together £14.7 million but after two years, it is still waiting to hear from the Government about their own funding contribution. This would be a fantastic boost to Cornwall’s economy. Can we please have an answer, and a positive one at that?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, may I first reciprocate and wish the noble Lord a happy St Piran’s Day? I have been speaking today to the deputy leader of Cornwall Council, Julian German; it was not specifically about the Newquay bid and it would not be wise for me to comment in detail on that bid. But it is obviously the sort of thing that could come forward, given the £600 million part of the programme announced by the Secretary of State. It is certainly right to say that there are areas of poverty in Cornwall, although it finds itself in a relatively wealthy region. That is one reason why the funds have been split as they have: to allow the poorer communities in the wealthier areas to have an opportunity to bid. I very much hope that Newquay will be part of that bidding exercise, as it sounds like a good bid.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, in view of the rather underwhelming response so far, might it be wise for my noble friend to repeat that this is money going out from the Government to the towns and local communities? The key to its success will be the alacrity with which they formulate their plans and perhaps use that money as a catalyst to get funding from other quarters so that, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, there truly is a lasting effect.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is certainly new money, as my noble friend rightly says, and it is important to stress that point. It is also important to stress, as he has, that towns and communities should respond. I am sure that they will and that many of them—as we just heard in relation to Newquay, for example—have been developing plans for which they hope to get support. We would certainly not close down the possibility of communities coming forward with help in kind, or help that they have from money that is already there. As I say, the evidence is that communities will be responsive and that this will meet a need out in the communities.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I notice that this new money is heavily weighted towards the north. Can the Minister give me any hope for my nearest town, which has four names, namely Radstock, Midsomer Norton, Westfield and Paulton? It is a built-up area with perhaps 30,000 people but it has only four parish councils within its unitary authority, Bath and North East Somerset. The area has taken very hard knocks in the last two generations. It has completely lost coal mining; it lost two railways, which are now cycle tracks; and it has lost a swathe of the printing industry. The result is that many people have to commute into either Bristol or Wiltshire. Is this the kind of area which, although it is in the south, has some hope of extra help?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I think I can give the noble Lord some comfort in relation to the community that he talks about—Radstock and so on in Somerset. Like many parts of the country, that community has lost coalfields. First, the south-west will get a £33 million allocation over the length of the programme, so there is that opportunity. But significantly, there is also the £600 million I referred to and it is open to communities throughout England to bid for that. I am sure that well-developed ideas will come forward from the towns and communities he was talking about. They will certainly be eligible within that part of the programme.
Lord Smith of Leigh (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member and former leader of Wigan Council, and as a vice-president of the LGA. I welcome the Statement, for two reasons. First, it is an admission by the Government that austerity has damaged the north and the Midlands much more than any other part of the country. At least we are hearing that from them and they are going to try to do something about it. Secondly, they are saying that if we are to have an equitable form of funding, deprivation has to be taken into account. We welcome that but cannot understand why it is not done through the new fair funding formula for local authorities, because that new formula will mean the very authorities that the Government are trying to help here will lose about £390 million per year. That loss will hardly be compensated by this additional money. The north-west of England will get £40 million in total and my own authority has lost £160 million since 2010. That is some bribe.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution and his at least qualified welcome. I think the honourable Member for Wigan, Lisa Nandy, gave a similar welcome in the other place. It is important to take deprivation into account, as he says. This enables me to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about the fair funding formula, which I missed when answering his question. First, the clue is in the name: it is a fair funding formula and that is what we propose to do. Secondly, we have been clear that fair funding is essential to the social care elements, for example, of the formula. I am not quite sure where the scare stories come from that fairness will not be part of it and that we will not look at deprivation. In essence, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith: it is important that we move forward and seek to tackle deprivation. That is the aim here and I think it will be exemplified once the detailed prospectus is issued. But as one can see from the rough-hewn figures we already have, it permeates them with the concentration in the parts of the country where there are more deprived communities.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, this is not the only money available to local government and to communities. Given that cities have generated quite a bit of economic growth through economic partnerships, surely it is not unnatural that there should be extra money for those towns, which might be on the periphery of cities, to make a difference. It does not seem to me to be “Summat for nowt” but something very welcome indeed. As the late President Reagan said, with a billion here and a billion there, you are soon talking about serious money.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the importance of recognising that a significant amount of public money is coming forward here. One thinks of looking gift horses in the mouth. I am sure communities up and down the country will be keen to take advantage of the money available. It is also true to say that there are many other programmes. I have mentioned some; the mayoral combined authorities are obviously getting funding. I take this opportunity to recommend that Sheffield gets its act together as well, to help it ensure that it gets a share of the action as a mayoral combined authority. There is also the Coastal Communities Fund and the Future High Streets Fund, and so on.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Pinnock asked the Minister about defining the word “town”, which I do not quite think he did. However, it is an important question. It may be defined in the prospectus but if the prospectus is not consulted upon beforehand, that needs to be clear. Is the Minister in a position to define a town and whether there is a minimum population threshold? Is it simply anywhere that is not a city or a village? In which case, if a city is a cathedral city outside a combined authority—I am thinking of cities such as Carlisle, Gloucester and Hereford—can it bid into a fund which is for towns when they themselves are cathedral cities?
Will the Minister confirm that towns inside city regions with metro mayors and the resources of combined authorities’ additional funding can nevertheless be part of the scheme? Or will those areas—I am thinking in particular of the county of Northumberland—find their funding cut because the combined authority has been receiving more money?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I find that last question much easier than the others. Certainly, towns such as Berwick—one that is having elections this year would be eligible—although they are in a metro area.
On the definition of a town and whether it is anywhere that is not a city or a village, I know from visiting the cathedrals of England that not all of them are in cities, which adds to the complexity. Chelmsford is now a city, but it was not until recently; Southwell is certainly not a city, and so on. I do not think that it is as simple as the noble Lord put it in his question. I do not want to give a definition. Within mayoral combined authority areas, towns which are visibly towns and not cities will certainly be eligible.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as a councillor in Newcastle and vice-president of the Local Government Association. The north-east will receive this wonderful benison of £15 million a year for seven years across the region. It is still a trifling sum given the scale of the problems that the region faces. What role, if any, will county councils have in the process? I understand that the Minister is saying that they will not get no money, but they will surely have a role in promoting any improvements, particularly on the economic side, of the constituent district councils in those areas. What will that role be in practice? How will the Government evaluate the proposals being made? How long will the process take? Can the Minister give any assurance that the north-east in particular will benefit from significant improvements to its infrastructure, which is desperately in need of improvement? How much would he expect such a modest sum to afford when the county council in Durham has a deficit of £245 million a year?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, rightly said that the region will receive £15 million a year for the seven years, or £105 million over the length of programme. For reasons that we know, it is an area that is due to benefit more than any other.
The noble Lord asked about the role of the county council in developing proposals. It will certainly be central, as will all councils. We want civic engagement, although, as he said, county councils will not necessarily be in the dominant position; however, they will certainly be there.
How proposals are evaluated will be outlined in the prospectus. I do not want to get ahead of myself by saying that money will go on infrastructure rather than on other projects, but certainly infrastructure will be eligible. We hope that the spending will be transformative, so infrastructure is important. I do not think that we can expect to sort out the bids yet. We do not know the quality of the bids; we do not know the process of the bids. These things are yet to happen.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement. Although other noble Lords have pooh-poohed it, which is regrettable, this is new money coming in to help local authorities around the country.
I have two questions for my noble friend. I understand that £600 million will be invested following a competitive process later this year, but my question relates to the £322 million allocated earlier to the Midlands engine. How will that be organised and who will approve it? My question merely follows on from the previous one about the involvement of county councils. The Statement gave no indication as to how bids will be made and how they might be successful. I realise that the £600 million will come later, but there is nothing at this stage on the earlier bit.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for once again emphasising that this is new, additional money. Perhaps I might again correct a feeling that this is something to do with the shared prosperity fund—that was certainly the feeling in the other place. It is quite separate from that; this is new money.
My noble friend referenced the £600 million, which will apply across the whole country, including London, which receives no money from the first allocation of £1 billion—London would be eligible within the £600 million. She referred to the £322 million for the Midlands engine, comprising £110 million for the east Midlands and £212 million for the West Midlands. As I indicated, there will be civic engagement and leading parts for mayoral combined authorities, where appropriate, and the LEPs in looking at this. It will be covered in the detailed prospectus which will follow shortly and be issued by the Secretary of State.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as declared in the register, particularly as a member of Sheffield City Council. The Conference for Peripheral Maritime Regions in its report of January 2019 showed that through the European Regional Development Fund and Social Fund more than £11 billion would have come in from European funding between 2021 and 2027. This is a tenth of that £11 billion. Where will the other 90% come from so that no region or no country is left behind?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and, knowing his role in Sheffield, thank him for his support in encouraging Sheffield to get on with its deal, which is important. I come back to the fundamental point that this is not related to substituting European money; it is something that over generations and successive Governments has needed to be done to assist areas of deprivation. It is not about substituting the shared prosperity fund or European funding—that is quite separate. I note what the noble Lord says, but this is additional government funding.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument will fix deficiencies in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and subordinate legislation made under FiSMA, which is an important part of the UK’s regulatory framework for financial services. This instrument has already been debated and approved by the House of Commons.
A key function of this legislation is to define the regulatory perimeter which sets out the activities and financial institutions that are in scope of UK financial services regulation. In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the EU’s supervisory and regulatory framework, resulting in deficiencies in the existing legislation. Specifically, many provisions in this legislation set out the scope of regulated activities based on firms being authorised and operating across the single market, or by referring to definitions in EU law, which will no longer be workable after exit. In particular, the UK is currently part of the EEA’s financial services passporting arrangements, which allow EEA firms to freely provide products and services throughout the EEA. Once outside the EU, the UK will no longer be part of these arrangements.
As your Lordships will be aware, the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which Parliament has approved, begin the process of removing legislative provisions which facilitate passporting in the UK, as well as providing for a temporary permissions regime allowing EEA firms to continue their activities for a limited period after exit day, giving them time to become UK-authorised. Although the statutory instrument being debated today does not alter the underlying policy of the UK’s legislative framework for financial services, many of the proposed changes in this SI are necessary to complete the task of removing passporting-related provisions, and to define the UK’s regulatory perimeter as a regime operating outside the EU.
Many of the definitions for regulated activities in FiSMA, and in the 2001 regulated activities order made under it, include the EEA in their scope and rely on definitions in EU law to operate. To reflect the UK’s new position outside the EU, the SI will amend the territorial scope of these definitions where needed so that they only apply to the UK after exit. Some of the changes proposed in this SI are also needed so that UK regulators can continue to carry out their existing statutory functions. As mentioned already, this SI will complete the process of removing passporting-related provisions. This will mean that some firms and fund managers will face new requirements as a result of these necessary changes. The SI therefore creates some transitional arrangements to mitigate disruption to those EEA firms and their consumers. For example, some of the transitional provisions relate to certain financial instruments, financial documents, or contracts which have been issued or entered into pre-exit, ensuring that they continue to operate effectively after exit for an appropriate period.
I will use the rest of my opening remarks to focus on the temporary transitional power in Part 7 of this SI—a very significant part of the no-deal preparations—to which some of your Lordships are paying particularly close attention. This power is a significant delegation of responsibility to the UK regulators so it is quite right that noble Lords have been scrutinising this power in detail. The Economic Secretary and I are very grateful for the constructive meeting which we had with the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, last week to discuss the temporary transitional power. My opening speech will be longer than normal as a result of that meeting, at which they invited me to put on record some remarks to make the nature of those transitional arrangements clear.
Despite the specific transitional arrangements which we are putting in place through a number of SIs, firms will still be faced with a large volume of regulatory changes to which they will need to adapt in a no-deal scenario. This could cause significant disruption to the financial services sector, and consumers, immediately after exit. To prepare for this scenario, this SI creates a temporary transitional power, which allows the UK regulators to defer or modify changed requirements for firms. While I acknowledge that this is a broad power to delegate to UK regulators, in a no-deal scenario the regulators will need flexibility to ensure that firms can reach compliance with onshoring regulatory changes in an orderly way and to respond to unforeseen pressures on firms. Given their supervisory responsibility for firms, the regulators, using their supervisory judgement, are best placed to decide how to phase in onshoring regulatory changes.
This is not intended to be a crisis intervention power to deal with failing firms or financial instability. UK regulators already have a comprehensive range of crisis intervention tools available. Rather, the power is intended to give the regulators flexibility to smooth the regulatory adaptation challenge for firms, to prevent instability and disruption from arising in the first place. While the power is broad in terms of the regulatory requirements it can apply to, the purpose for which it can be used is very specific. It can be used only to prevent or mitigate disruption that may reasonably be expected to arise for firms as a result of legislative changes made under the EU withdrawal Act. Also, the regulators can use the power only to delay or modify financial services requirements which they are responsible for supervising. Onshoring changes on accounting standards, for instance, are not the responsibility of financial services regulators and would be out of scope of this power.
Given that firms have been preparing on the basis that there will be a withdrawal agreement, this temporary power is designed to replace the adjustment time that firms would have if the implementation period in the proposed withdrawal agreement were ratified. For this reason, the temporary transitional power is available for two years from exit day. The power, and any directions made under it, would therefore automatically expire at the end of this two-year period, after which firms would have to comply with all new requirements set by Parliament in legislation. If, for any reason, the Treasury subsequently took the view that more time was needed for firms to adapt, we would need to return to Parliament with new legislation. This SI does not provide for any extension of the transitional power.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on moving this statutory instrument, which I welcome. I have a few questions about it.
What has changed since this instrument was considered in the House of Commons is that the Government have published Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019. Paragraphs 41 and 42 flag up a particular case study and the implications for financial services. I shall not rehearse all the arguments, but it concludes that, in,
“the absence of action by EU authorities to mitigate risks in some areas of financial services, there could be some disruption in a no deal scenario”.
When this instrument was considered in Committee in the other place, a number of issues were raised, and I hope that more details may be put to the House this evening.
Page 21 of the impact assessment very helpfully sets out that the importance of the financial services sector to the UK is approximately £4.5 trillion, and it itemises various aspects of how that is broken down:
“Approximately £4.5tn … is currently invested in the UK’s capital markets (both primary and secondary) through pensions funds, insurance policies and individual private savings”.
That is a not inconsiderable sum; it brings many jobs, primarily to London, but also to other financial centres such as Leeds and Edinburgh.
A number of comments were made about the size of the statutory instrument considered in Grand Committee yesterday, where all the regulations were lumped together. The Government cannot win, because putting them all together leads to criticism. However, there has been justified criticism about this mix-and-match, rather piecemeal approach. My noble friend referred to a number of regulations that have already been considered and have a crossover effect on this statutory instrument and others that will follow. If it is confusing for your Lordships’ House, imagine how much more confusing it is for those who have to abide by this rather scatter-gun approach.
The specific questions I would like to put to my noble friend relate to costings. There is a rather interesting table—Table 3 in the impact assessment—which may be in language that I do not understand. It gives a “Summary of anticipated costs by SI” but it is blank; it just has crosses against it. I am not very good with figures, but “X” is not a figure. This was raised by my right honourable friend Nicky Morgan, who chairs the Treasury Select Committee which has spent an inordinate amount of time, quite rightly, scrutinising this in the other place. If your Lordships’ House does not have those figures, how on earth are firms operating in financial services expected to know?
I understand that a figure of £1,900 has been given as a costing for each firm, but I do not know whether that is purely for familiarisation or if it also goes to the cost of complying with the regulation for business. Should we simply multiply that figure by the number of companies operating in the sector? It would be very helpful to understand exactly what the costs will be.
My second question is on the SI’s regulatory reach, particularly the rather formidable array of regulatory authorities that companies will come under, quite rightly, for continuity purposes. That includes the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Bank of England, as my noble friend mentioned, and the Treasury. I have a concern about the duration of the powers. My noble friend very kindly explained that, in one scenario, it will be two years from exit day in the event of no deal. I hope that this statutory instrument and the others we will consider will not be needed, because I fervently hope that we will have a deal and an orderly exit. In other circumstances, the deadline is 12 months, and I am mindful of the fact that my noble friend referred to the loss of passporting rights. We cannot imagine what the cost of that loss will be until we have left the European Union; it took us years to establish passporting rights, and now we are giving them back. I understand that there is a temporary arrangement giving London-based clearing houses licences to carry on doing business with EU-based customers, but that is only valid for 12 months. Already we have identified two different dates with which all the firms operating in the City will have to comply.
My last question relates to the concern that has been expressed by the City of London about the ongoing lack of clarity, shall I say, regarding contract continuity, cross-border data references and uncleared derivatives. It may well be that my noble friend does not have the answer this evening—it may not form part of this statutory instrument covering all the regulations before us this evening in this one instrument—but it is causing concern in the City of London, and I would be very grateful if he could assuage those fears.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I begin with a thank you. My noble friend Lord Sharkey and I—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will speak for himself, as he always does so well—very much appreciated the opportunity to meet the Minister, the Economic Secretary and key staff to talk in detail about this statutory instrument. I completely concur with the comments of the Treasury Select Committee that these are sweeping powers which, under normal circumstances, I do not think anybody, in any part of this House, would dream of granting to a regulator. However, under the circumstances we would face in a no-deal scenario, it seems vital that the regulator has the ability to mitigate a crisis cliff edge for key parts of the financial services industry.
I note that in the guidance published by the Bank of England and the FCA last Friday, they will be attempting to limit the transitional period, as the Minister said, to 15 months, so that firms will manage within that 15-month period to go from where we are now, essentially—let us call it scenario A—to life outside the EU in a no-deal scenario, which we will call scenario B. It would give them some 15 months, typically, but with the capacity to extend that to two years if necessary. Also, the Bank of England has made exceptions for the bail-in rules, the stay in resolution rules and the FSCS rules, all of which relate closely to financial stability. We appreciate that it would be very hard to provide any transitional time for those rules and their consequences, but does the Minister have any comment to make around the significance of deciding on those three exemptions? Can he confirm that, if we were to have no deal and find ourselves in that reality and the regulators decided that the situation was better managed by finding some flexibility around these three rules, the regulator has given away the capacity to do so? Or does it retain an opportunity to change its mind and provide some mechanism for adjustment? One would hope that that was not necessary. Across the credit rating agency assessments, we will get only a 12-month extension, though I think all of us recognise that that is probably not problematic for any of the players.
In our discussion, as the Minister indicated, we asked for more frequent reporting than just 12 months from now. It seemed a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted to wait for that period. We very much appreciate that the Treasury and the regulators have agreed that they can update us every six months: that is exceedingly helpful. We also appreciate the description that the Minister gave when he had to make a correction, which we perfectly accept is a very minor correction. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, picked up the fact that the complexity here is extraordinary. It is very hard to predict, very hard to track and very hard to play through the scenarios and understand exactly how each needs to be handled, certainly in advance. So I think we might find ourselves trying to take advantage of the offer from the regulators of specific discussions if a particular issue arises. I am grateful again that the Minister has had a conversation with the regulators that led them to say that that will be open to us: it is exceedingly welcome.
This underscores the point of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the extent to which, given all this complexity, there might be some way to provide some mapping of exactly what is happening where—what is moving and what is changing. That is a big ask at the moment, I understand, but if there could be some thought around that, it would be very useful, not just to this House and the other place but to the industry, which I am sure must be struggling with all this, although it very much appreciates the detailed engagement it has had with the Treasury, with Ministers and with the regulators. If we move to a practice of mapping under such circumstances, that might be a healthier environment to get to. It was one of our asks of the Minister that he felt he could not commit to at this point.
Our second ask was for some specific examples. My noble friend Lord Sharkey is unable to be here. He was particularly concerned to work through some specific examples in his head, so he may come back to ask for something more detailed. I particularly appreciated that the Minister gave an example of an issue that, as he knows, has exercised me: how do we manage the fact that our major financial institutions have significant exposure to EU and EEA assets and will incur higher capital ratios because they will no longer have preferred status if we leave on a no-deal basis? I was very glad that he gave us that particular example.
We very much hope that we do not have to use this, and it would be exceedingly helpful to know that we are not going to have no deal, because despite all the preparation that I understand is being done with real concentration and thought, it does not deal with the fact that there is going to be an almighty problem. I can see firms—all of them, though they are competitors—in different stages, different states with different micro-problems, all of which regulators are trying to manage so that there is no knock-on effect on financial stability or to the economy. It is going to be an extraordinarily difficult situation to manage, and anything we can do to make sure it does not happen will be extremely useful. If I can encourage anyone in this House to take no deal off the table, let me use this opportunity to do so.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I feel the need to start with my standard speech about how much I object to being here processing statutory instruments for a no-deal situation. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in her dislike of such a situation and the chaos that will prevail. Having said that, I am forced to say nice things about the Government and, indeed, about the Lib Dem Front Bench in this whole affair. The Treasury SIs we have passed so far have, to a large extent, despite some of the speeches, been fairly non-controversial. What I have been looking for all the way through are attempts by the Treasury or the Government to smuggle through policy changes, which they promised not to do in the original legislation, and I must say that, broadly speaking, I think the Treasury has not sought to smuggle through any of significance. However, the result of that is that our debates have been rather dry.
This SI was quite shocking on initial reading. Part 7 has such sweeping powers, with no formal parliamentary involvement, that I thought—and we spoke to our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench about this—that we really had to take it very seriously. I once again repeat my thanks to the Liberal Democrats for coming along on this and to the Government for the positive way in which they have reacted. For the record, I will briefly run over our concerns and note that they have been largely covered in the speech made by the Minister. We were first concerned about the limitations in the power in Part 7; there is a time limit of two years, and it is important to emphasise that that limitation is not just for making directions—rather, directions must cease within two years of exit day. That is fairly clear from reading the document.
It is more difficult to grasp the scope. One of the useful things we discussed at our meeting with John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, was scope. Scope is difficult to get into words, and we thank the Minister for the detailed examples in his speech, which will, we hope, be useful for practitioners in understanding it. In particular, we had some concerns over whether it might be used in crisis circumstances, and received a very strong assurance that separate legislation would be used in such circumstances.
I come finally to the lack of any parliamentary involvement in the process. This was clearly also the concern of the Treasury Select Committee; being a big, powerful committee, using its own mechanisms, it can rapidly draw Ministers to account. It did that with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and got assurances from him, as I understand it, that whenever the power was used to create a direction it would be advised. Clearly, it was then able to summon a Minister to hold the Government to account on its use. We did not have such a parallel situation, so we asked, and then got this assurance in the speech, that whenever such a notification went to the Treasury Select Committee, a copy would come to representatives on both our Front Bench and the Liberal Democrats’. The second part of that, in a sense, was an assurance that we would get access. I do not mean to suggest the Minister is not an important person, but at the end of the day his interest is in DfID. He simply speaks for the Treasury here. It was good that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that he would make himself available to answer any of our questions about how the power had been used. That was very reassuring.
Embedded deep in the SI and the Explanatory Memorandum is the fact that certain directions may have to be secret. We were concerned that when any organisation has the option of making something secret it tends to do so. We would like to know when and for what reasons that is used. That was also acknowledged in the speech. Clearly this has to be post facto—obviously it has to be when it is no longer embarrassing—but it is important that the use of this power is fully understood.
Lastly, we felt that 12-monthly reports on a power that was going to last for only two years would be insufficient. Assuming it is for the previous 12 months, the report takes a couple of months to write and so on, and then you are half way through the second year. The acceptance of six-monthly reports is extremely welcome. I repeat my thanks to the Government for co-operating in the way they did; it has allowed us to create a mechanism for an involvement of this House in the use of this power and, with those conditions attached, we accept the logic that says it is necessary.
Lord Bates
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their contributions and engagement through this whole process. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for participating in the debate and for opening it up with some perspectives on this. She said it was unclear what the post-exit requirements for derivatives were. We have made several onshoring SIs relevant to trading and issuing of derivatives already. I think we are currently up to SI number 40. Within that batch of 40, there were some specifically on that. I will certainly write to my noble friend to explain exactly how this regime will operate post exit.
She also asked about the direction of the transitional power. The power is available to regulators for two years from exit. It is then for the regulators to propose appropriate delay or phasing in of requirements within the two-year period. She also asked about the impact assessment—I applaud her for her scrutiny in getting to that level of detail in the specific tables. Let me populate some of the information from them. As outlined in the impact assessment, while the overall familiarisation costs were estimated at £110 million, the cost per firm was estimated at £1,900. The number of firms affected was based on the fact that FiSMA applies to all firms regulated by the PRA and FCA, which amounts to approximately 58,000 firms. It is also estimated that there will be an additional 1,200 firms entering into the temporary permissions regime, which then brings the total to 59,200. While FiSMA applies to all firms regulated by the PRA and FCA, many of the effects of this SI result from the loss of passporting rights at exit. I note that the remarks she made were drawn from considerable experience of how hard-fought those rights were. Of course, that is a consequence of decisions taken ultimately by the British people. This means that changes made by the SI will, in terms of the number of firms affected, predominantly affect those 1,200 firms entering the temporary permissions regime.
Moving to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I again thank her for her input on this. She asked whether we could map all the onshoring changes. She made that request at the meeting with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Although we recognised that there were some challenges in doing just that, we felt that it was a very reasonable request when we met last week. I can confirm that we are working on this and will be in touch, I hope with a positive mapping exercise to share with her.
Lord Bates
I am very happy to do that. I should also say that all these changes are being made because of the quite brilliant Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Glen. He is an outstanding Economic Secretary, and takes his duties very seriously. As a more senior person, I find it encouraging to see young Ministers who are so diligent in the way they engage with Parliament and the department. He is an example to others in how he does it. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, found a polite way of saying that he found it refreshing to be talking to the butcher, not the block. I absolutely get the point, and he could not be engaging with a better metaphorical butcher in this regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me to comment on the significance of the Bank of England exemptions regarding the FSCS rules. The regulators have judged that bringing in these requirements immediately is important for the financial stability. The Treasury was consulted and agrees with this. We do not anticipate that this will change.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on the use of unpublished directions, on which again, we had a substantial and useful discussion, it should be stressed that the Treasury and the regulators would want to avoid unpublished directions as the power is to be used broadly across a large range of firms. Unpublished directions would not be effective—as I read that out I thought that the noble Lord was ahead of us in that he was not asking for the unpublished directions but was rather seeking an engagement on matters after the fact. I certainly know that the Economic Secretary is taking that seriously.
I thank noble Lords again for their engagement on this, particularly my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I also thank the Opposition and Lib Dem Benches for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Government on this, as a result producing a better outcome for regulation.
Financial Services (Gibraltar) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 January be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, as this instrument is grouped, I will speak also to the draft Gibraltar (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. As with the previous instruments we have just debated, these SIs are part of the same legislative programme under the EU (Withdrawal) Act that aims to ensure that, if the UK were to leave the EU with neither a deal nor an implementation period, there would continue to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK.
Gibraltar holds a special place within the British family, not only because of our shared history, which stretches back over 300 years, but also because of the priorities and values we share today. The UK Government are committed to maintaining our close relationship, and this will remain unchanged following the UK and Gibraltar’s parallel withdrawal from the EU. In March 2018, at the joint ministerial council with the government of Gibraltar, the UK Government guaranteed that Gibraltar financial services firms’ access to UK markets will continue as it currently is until 2020, in any scenario. These instruments deliver on the commitment made at that council.
In a no-deal scenario, both the UK and Gibraltar would be outside the EEA and outside the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework. Since the current market access arrangements between UK and Gibraltar are, in part, underpinned by the EU framework, without these SIs the UK-Gibraltar framework would also be disrupted. These SIs update existing UK legislation and make amendments to other EU exit legislation to make special provision for Gibraltar and to ensure that UK legislation relating to Gibraltar works properly in a no-deal scenario.
The first SI, the draft Financial Services (Gibraltar) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, deals primarily with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Gibraltar) Order 2001, known as the Gibraltar order. This legislation, along with Section 409 of FiSMA, modifies EU passporting rights to allow market access for authorised financial services firms between the UK and Gibraltar. This applies to a range of authorised firms and, importantly for Gibraltar, includes those in the insurance industry. As a result, since this domestic legislation is derived from EU law, in a no-deal scenario, passporting arrangements between the UK and Gibraltar will become deficient.
The draft regulations amend domestic legislation, including the Gibraltar order and Section 409 of FiSMA, to retain the existing passporting framework between the UK and Gibraltar after we leave the EU until at least 2020, in line with the Government’s previous commitment. These provisions are therefore sunsetted and will cease to have effect on 31 December 2020. Currently, EEA firms passporting into Gibraltar can also onward passport into the UK, and vice versa. Consistent with the general removal of EEA passporting provisions in the event of leaving without a deal, the SI also removes provisions enabling this level of access. This will have no impact on UK or Gibraltarian firms.
At the joint ministerial council in March 2018 that I mentioned earlier, the UK Government announced that they will work closely with the Government of Gibraltar to design a long-term permanent framework for market access beyond 2020. This will similarly be based on shared high standards of regulation, enforcement, and regulatory co-operation. While the duration of market access in the SI is contingent on the introduction of a replacement framework, the UK Government are committed to preventing a potential cliff edge in Gibraltar-based firms’ access in 2020 and to providing clarity to Gibraltar’s market. Accordingly, the SI includes a power to extend existing market access arrangements by one year at a time from the end of 2020. This will be supported by a ministerial Statement on progress towards the replacement framework between the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar.
The second SI, the draft Gibraltar (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, relates to other, non-passporting arrangements between the UK and Gibraltar in financial services that support market access arrangements. Various references across legislation in retained EU and UK law treat Gibraltar as if it were an EEA state in relation to such arrangements. For instance, Gibraltar, like other EEA states, has home state responsibility in the event of a Gibraltar-based firm becoming insolvent in the UK. Gibraltar-based firms are also included within existing treatments for policyholder and deposit protections, as well as in the EU payments regime for euro transactions.
Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the arrangements between UK and EEA states will change to reflect the new relationship, but we need to ensure that existing arrangements with Gibraltar are not affected by this but maintained.
Lord Beith (LD)
With regard to these regulations and the previous ones, as they are quite complicated and relates to the transitional period, if there is one, can the Minister clarify what would happen to these two SIs if there were an agreement under the rapid withdrawal Bill that would have to be passed if there is an agreement? Would these SIs remain as they are now, if carried tonight, or would they have to be wholly or partially suspended?
Lord Bates
As regards the other SIs we have been dealing with, we have been saying that in the event of no deal, there would not be an implementation period. If there were a deal—we all hope there will be—there would be an implementation period, and at the end of that period, potentially some of the SIs could come into effect if they were still relevant. However, the point I was making was on the specific commitment that the Government have given to Gibraltar to work up a special arrangement which we hope will be in place before that period, and if it is not in place before that period, there would be the potential to extend these provisions for one year at a time. That is where we are at the moment. Perhaps I will say some more about that, if it would be helpful to the noble Lord, in winding up in response to the debate.
Specifically, these provisions ensure that UK-based firms, Gibraltar-based firms, Gibraltar trading venues and provisions related to arrangements between the UK and Gibraltarian regulators continue to be treated in UK law as they were before exit day. These broad savings provisions also allow the rights or obligations that are dependent on the function of an EU body to instead be performed by the appropriate UK regulator or the Treasury.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief because, again, this falls into the category of necessary changes to regulation in order to keep a reasonable consistency in the relationship between the Gibraltarian and UK financial markets. I accept that but I have to say: poor Gibraltar.
There is a three-way relationship between Britain, Gibraltar and Spain. A recent tax treaty between the UK and Spain requires Gibraltarians sourcing their business primarily in Spain to pay Spanish taxes. I suspect that some in Gibraltar are slightly stunned by it but realise they have to accept it. The complexity of the relationship outside the EU is far from being resolved.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said earlier, unfortunately impact statements only test the actual cost of a particular regulation and then compare it with what would happen if there was no regulation. They never compare the cost between implementing no deal and remaining in the EU. This is where the big number lies, not only for the UK, but very much for Gibraltar. So it is crucial to do anything we can at this point to try to minimise the impact. This regulation is a small part of it. I cannot see how the whole Brexit strategy—deal or no deal—can ever benefit Gibraltar or give it a future which is anything like as prosperous as the one it had in a remain context.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask a question which follows on from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Beith. First, I am still a little at a loss as to how these years work, compared with other SIs. I do not quite understand what would happen if we had a deal and a transitional period. The noble Lord raised something which needs to be explained.
Secondly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that it would be wrong to allow these two SIs to pass without reminding the House of the serious effects of Brexit on this particular connection of the United Kingdom. The more we talk about these and the more you unwind it, the more it becomes quite clear how ridiculous the whole process is. I know it is not suitable for my noble friend to comment on this, but I wish only that our Benches were filled with those who think that Brexit is good idea so that they could listen to the realities of what happens if you leave the European Union—let alone without a deal. As usual, none of them is present to listen to the serious effects of Brexit. It is rather like trying to talk about climate change. You never have the climate change deniers present to see what the science is actually about. The House might like to note the non-existence of those who think that Brexit is just a matter of getting there and doing it at once. The people who stand outside with little notices about the WTO clearly have never worked out what becoming dependent on WTO rules means.
Thirdly, of course we have to pass these two SIs. Without them, were we to leave the European Union without a deal, things would be even worse than they need be, but we must not do it thinking that this is going to make things easier. Gibraltar is a sharp instance of the damage that could be done. Will my noble friend explain a little more about the discussions that have been held with the Gibraltar Government and particularly his reference to the Gibraltar Government making their own arrangements should there be Brexit without a deal? What are these arrangements and how do they interrelate with this SI? I do not think that many Members of this House have detailed knowledge of the kinds of things which Gibraltar would have to do were we—and they—to leave the European Union without a deal. It would be helpful to the House if my noble friend would delineate what exactly it is that they have to do and what their powers and responsibilities are in parallel with the two SIs with which we are concerned this evening.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we have no objection to these two SIs, but I have two or three brief questions. The position is summed up in the Explanatory Memorandum to the first set of regulations, paragraph 7.21 of which surprised me. It states:
“The UK government will work closely with the government of Gibraltar to design a long-term permanent framework”.
My impression until I got to that sentence was that the provisions here would change the situation into a stable framework. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a feel for the extent of difference between the UK system and the system in Gibraltar that means that this bespoke framework is needed, and particularly what will happen if it is not agreed by the end of 2020.
The Minister can respond in writing to my second comment if he would like to do so. I refer to the first bullet point in paragraph 7.15 on the second set of regulations. This is really a cry of anguish because one has slogged through so many of these SIs and has to read every one, and then one reads this final sentence:
“This framework will not apply to the automatic recognition procedure of resolution actions between the UK and Gibraltar”.
I do not have the faintest idea of what that means and not the faintest idea of how to find out what it means. I ask the Minister as a matter of sheer curiosity what it means, and I will accept a letter.
Lord Bates
I thank all those who have participated in the debate. Let me try to put a little more flesh on the bones of this process for the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and my noble friend Lord Deben. In the event of no deal we will be left without the necessary legislative framework because the European Communities Act will have been revoked and therefore the body of law will not apply in the UK. We need to make sure that we onshore the current law so that we get a measure of continuity. If that applies to the UK, of course it also applies to Gibraltar. The Gibraltar Parliament has therefore also had to pass its own version of the EU withdrawal Act and is having to go through the process of the onshoring regime, which is what we are doing here. We are in a sense being treated as two sovereign entities.
Let me put a little more structure on to my initial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beith. As set out in the White Paper on the EU withdrawal agreement Bill, the Bill will amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that the conversion of EU law into retained EU law will take place at the end of the implementation period instead of on exit day. While the UK remains subject to EU law and before the conversion of EU law into UK retained EU law, there is no requirement for most instruments relating to our exit from the EU to be in force. The intention is therefore that the EU withdrawal agreement Bill will contain provision to delay all relevant SIs that enter into force on exit day until the end of the implementation period. The Bill will also ensure that Ministers can revoke or amend SIs as appropriate so that they effectively deal with any deficiencies arising from the end of the implementation period.
Lord Beith
My Lords, that is helpful and it is in the language that we have heard used for other statutory instruments. What it does not tell us is whether these two instruments are among those which can be wholly dispensed with or set aside during the transition period, or whether they will be partly in force even if there is a deal.
Lord Bates
To give the level of clarity that the noble Lord seeks, I may have to write to him on that point and copy the letter to others. As I stated earlier, that is our intention. I was at the Joint Ministerial Council as the representative of DfID on that body when those discussions took place. The agreement was that we would have a bespoke piece of legislation dealing with respective access to financial services firms from Gibraltar to the UK market in place by then. That is why the provision was introduced. It says that in the event of it not being in place, there will be the potential to extend the period. However, I will put that in writing.
My noble friend Lord Deben asked how the Government of Gibraltar are preparing for the deal. They passed their own EU withdrawal Act in January 2019 and they are preparing to pass their own programme of EU exit SIs through Parliament to ensure that UK firms currently operating in Gibraltar will retain their market access. The Government will adopt a similar approach to their own EU exit SIs to ensure that Gibraltar has a functioning regulatory framework in a no-deal scenario with mirroring rights and obligations.
Lord Deben
How can we make sure that the measures we take here in this House and in the other place and the measures taken in Gibraltar are in fact congruent? That is really quite important. Who is responsible for that connection so that we make sure that no part of it falls out of line? As my noble friend has said, mistakes do happen. Perhaps I could be told exactly how this is done.
Lord Bates
This happens predominantly through the Treasury. It is engaging with the Government of Gibraltar and of course with the Executive there to ensure that the process goes through. It is run through the Treasury at present, but obviously in careful consultation with the relevant regulators in both entities.
My noble friend asked whether we had consulted Gibraltar on the SIs, which is in part relevant to the previous point. Throughout the EU exit process the UK Government have been committed to engaging with the Government of Gibraltar. On the ministerial level that engagement has been largely structured through the Joint Ministerial Council on Gibraltar-EU negotiations. On contingency preparations, the Government of Gibraltar have indeed received both SIs very positively. There have been discussions at both the ministerial and the official level on the onshoring approach taken in the two SIs.
Lord Deben
I have one final point. What would happen if the Gibraltarians did not like what we are doing? Is it really that we are deciding it, they are doing it, and that is it? Alternatively, could they say, “Frankly, we would like it done in a different way”? I think it is quite important to know what the relationship with Gibraltar actually is.
Lord Bates
It is a very close relationship. How would Gibraltar react to the deliberations in this House? I hope that it would respect them as being the work of Parliament. However, we also realise the crucial importance of financial services to both entities and therefore we want to ensure that Gibraltarian firms can continue to access UK financial services and that UK firms—
Lord Deben
I am so sorry, but I should have declared my interest as the chairman of PIMFA.
Lord Bates
I thank my noble friend. Similarly, we want to ensure that UK financial services have access to the Gibraltar market as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, commented on the recently signed tax treaty. The UK, Spain and Gibraltar have concluded a treaty to improve tax co-operation between them and secure the protection of their financial interests. The treaty provides rules for resolving tax residency conflicts and administrative co-operation. The UK signed the agreement as the state responsible for Gibraltar’s international relations. Whereas this means that the UK will ratify it in due course, the Government of Gibraltar will take forward all domestic legislation required for it to have effect in Gibraltar.
On the follow-up question the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked, on the status of the SIs in the event of a deal, I say that the two SIs will not be needed during an implementation period. He also asked about automatic recognition of resolution actions. The framework referred to relates to the jurisdiction controls in relation to winding-up proceedings. This will not apply to the recognition of the actions taken to resolve a failing bank without winding it up. No firms will qualify for automatic recognition. I hope that is clearer.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked why we needed the long-term replacement framework. I think we dealt with that. Will the replacement framework be ready for 2020 and what will happen if it is not? Again, I think I dealt with that. The Treasury is working with the UK regulators and the Government of Gibraltar to design a replacement framework for 2020. Its implementation will depend on progress between both Governments on this framework. Crucially, we do not want to create a cliff edge in Gibraltar’s access to the UK in 2020. The Treasury has therefore included a temporary extension framework in the Financial Services (Gibraltar) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This will extend market access through a new negative SI by one year at a time from the end of 2020.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked what would happen if the Gibraltarians did not like what we are doing. Gibraltar is content with our onshoring approach to the two SIs. To ensure a mirrored and functioning financial services regime, Gibraltar is onshoring its own financial services legislation in the event of no deal.
With those explanations, I again thank noble Lords who have taken part in this and beg to move these two SIs.
Gibraltar (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Financial Services (Distance Marketing) (Amendment and Savings Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 January be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, as this instrument is grouped, I will also speak to the draft Mortgage Credit (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft Financial Regulators’ Powers (Technical Standards etc.) and Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The three SIs are part of the same legislative programme under the EU withdrawal Act to ensure a functioning legislative and regulatory financial services regime in a no-deal scenario. These instruments fix deficiencies in UK law relating to the regulation of distance marketing of consumer financial services and the regulation of consumer buy-to-let mortgages. The final instrument ensures that recently adopted binding technical standards continue to operate effectively and that the markets in financial instruments SI effectively addresses deficiencies in retained EU law if the UK were to leave the EU without a deal or implementation period.
I turn to the substance of the first SI, the Financial Services (Distance Marketing) (Amendment and Savings Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This will fix deficiencies in UK law related to the distance marketing of consumer financial services. The UK distance marketing regulations derive from the EU’s distance marketing directive. This requires firms to provide information to consumers prior to the conclusion of a financial services contract at a distance, sets out consumers’ rights of cancellation and provides that consumers who receive unsolicited distance financial services are not subject to any obligation, including to provide payment. The DMD operates on a country-of-origin basis. At present, EEA financial services firms undertaking distance marketing to UK consumers from an establishment in an EEA state are not subject to the UK’s distance marketing regime, on the basis that they are subject to regulation in their home state. Consequently, the distance marketing regulations, as well as relevant FCA rules on distance marketing, currently apply only to firms undertaking activity from a UK establishment. Firms undertaking unregulated activity from an establishment in the UK are subject to the distance marketing regulations, while firms undertaking regulated activity are subject to equivalent FCA rules. However, some distance marketing regulations apply to all activity, whether regulated or unregulated.
In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the single market and the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework. Retained EU and domestic law relating to the regulation of distance marketing of financial services therefore needs to be amended to ensure it continues to operate effectively. This ensures that consumers continue to receive the information they need to make decisions about the financial services products they may seek out.
Broadly, this instrument will maintain the current distance marketing rules set out in the distance marketing directive, but address deficiencies stemming from exit. The draft regulations remove EU references that will no longer have any legal effect following our leaving the EU. More substantively, this SI will expand the current scope, where necessary, of some of the distance marketing regulations. To remedy any potential loss of consumer protection when the UK leaves the EU, the onshored distance marketing regulations will cover certain EEA firms that will operate in the UK post exit under one of the temporary permissions regimes previously debated by this House. The FCA will amend its rules where appropriate to ensure complete coverage of distance marketing requirements to EEA firms operating in the UK post exit. On 12 December 2018, the Treasury published the instrument in draft, along with an explanatory policy note to maximise transparency to Parliament and the industry.
I turn now to the Mortgage Credit (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These concern the regulation of consumer buy-to-let mortgages. Many noble Lords will be familiar with the Mortgage Credit Directive Order 2015, which implemented the mortgage credit directive 2014 in the UK. The order established a national framework regulating consumer buy-to-let mortgage contracts. A consumer buy-to-let mortgage is a loan that can be offered to a borrower letting out their home not for the purpose of business or as an investment. Here, the borrower can be thought of as an accidental landlord. In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the EEA and the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework. The Mortgage Credit Directive Order therefore needs to be updated to ensure the provisions work in a no-deal scenario.
The SI makes three main changes to the regulatory regime for consumer buy-to-let mortgages. First, the responsibility to update the remarks and assumptions that accompany the calculation for the annual percentage rate of charge, the APRC, is transferred from the EU Commission to the Treasury. The APRC is a standardised calculation of cost of credit that provides the borrower with the total cost of mortgage credit over its full term. It is necessary to confer this power on the Treasury to ensure the APRC remains accurate post exit.
Secondly, the SI amends the territorial scope regulated by the current consumer buy-to-let lending so that in future it applies only to lending related to property in the UK and not in the EEA. This will apply to a very small number of loans and will not affect consumer buy-to-let lending relating to land in the EEA that was entered into before exit day, which will continue to be covered by FCA regulation.
Thirdly, the SI amends the rules for consumer buy-to-let foreign currency mortgages. A foreign currency mortgage is a loan denominated in a different currency from that of the borrower’s income or assets.
This SI provides lenders which lend to UK borrowers with a consumer buy-to-let foreign currency mortgage with the option to meet the requirement to protect borrowers from exchange rate risk by allowing borrowers to convert their loan into pounds sterling. Currently, the 2015 order prescribes that where a lender protects a borrower from exchange rate risk by allowing borrowers to convert the loan into a different currency, that currency must be the currency of the EEA state where the borrower is resident, or the currency in which the borrower holds their main income or assets. Once the UK leaves the EU, pounds sterling will no longer be an EEA currency, and so this provision has been made to ensure that a UK borrower with this type of loan can continue to convert their loan into pounds sterling. On 22 November 2018, the Treasury published the instrument in draft, along with an explanatory policy note to maximise transparency to Parliament and to the industry.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall be exceedingly brief. That the third of these SIs is basically to correct deficiencies in earlier SIs underscores how complex all this is. Obviously we have no objection to correcting errors in earlier SIs. Again, I do not have objections to the first two SIs, on distance marketing—which sounds like cold calling—and buy-to-let credit. My head was spinning when trying to read them but they seem to be logical under the circumstances. But is there something that is not there or that I have misunderstood? In both circumstances, many British people and continental Europeans live their economic lives beyond country borders. They have done so particularly in the context of the EU because we have been part of a single market and a European family.
Many people who think of themselves as not financially sophisticated have economic activities which go beyond the boundaries of the EU; for example, they might have a property in Spain that they let, investments in different countries, or pensions arising from periods of work. There are all kinds of complexities. Do I understand from reading these SIs that the problem that is not resolved is what happens if there is a dispute or an insolvency? Is it that the legal mechanisms that would have been in place with full membership are no longer available and that these SIs have been unable to on-board any mechanism for dealing with disputes, insolvencies and those kinds of issues? If such were to arise, would the UK resident, for example, with a buy-to-let mortgage for a property somewhere in the 27, have to prosecute their case through that country’s national court system, rather than being able to do so as part of the unified ECJ umbrella, and therefore face a series of difficulties which cannot be corrected through SIs?
I say this because we talk constantly of continuity but it seems that there might be partial continuity with discontinuity embedded in it, particularly around the areas of dispute and insolvency. I could be wrong and I stand to be corrected.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we have no objection to any of these SIs. I have read them through as far as I was able, and they seem to be logical.
The distance marketing SI particularly caught my attention, because many citizens are subject to distance marketing that perhaps they do not really want. I note that the Explanatory Memorandum at paragraph 7.30, “Criminal offences”, states that various failures to abide by the rules of the regulation we are creating will be a criminal offence and that those guilty of it will be,
“liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.
I have a dilemma because, on the one hand, I am going to say that that does not sound very threatening, especially if you are a large firm—I think this relates to firms as well as to natural persons—and I would value it if the Minister would write me a letter on that. I also recognise that, if the SI sought to change that, I would argue that it was smuggling through a policy change. I am not suggesting that it should, but can the Minister clarify whether this is genuine consumer protection that firms fear or whether the punishments for offences are too low to be impactful?
Lord Bates
My Lords, having spent the past six months with the noble Lord in Grand Committee and here, I can assure him that the last thing I would ever attempt to do is to try to smuggle through some policy under his astute watch, because I would never succeed—and we would never attempt it, of course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made a good point on this. It gives me an opportunity to put some additional remarks on the record—I know she was talking particularly about buy-to-let properties, but the principle will hold. By extending the scope of the distance marketing regulations to EEA firms in a temporary permissions regime, we are ensuring that UK consumers will continue to be protected by appropriate distance marketing regulations. Firms in the temporary permissions regime will be seeking authorisation, and it is therefore in their interests to comply with the UK’s marketing regime—that is not the answer. I am sorry about that. I will get an answer for her. I absolutely got what she was asking.
Baroness Kramer
Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on direct marketing, illegal cold calling into the UK happens frequently. We know that Nigeria is often the major source of illegal cold calls and illegal contacts through emails and so on. One of the frustrations for UK authorities has always been that they cannot enforce against such illegal calls because they are at a distance and they have no locus. Will an equivalent situation arise after leaving the EU so that, if there are inappropriate or illegal cold calls into the UK from an EU-based entity, there will be no mechanism for enforcement against them? If that is the case, that might be something we need to think about.
Lord Bates
I touched on that in my introductory speech and said how they would be treated. I could do a good follow-up letter on dispute resolution, consumer protection and seeking redress in the context of these SIs, which may have wider applicability. If that is acceptable to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, I will do that.
Motion agreed.
Mortgage Credit (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 December 2018 be approved.
Motion agreed.
Financial Regulators’ Powers (Technical Standards etc.) and Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Motion agreed.