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, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)
We do not hold the specific information requested by the hon. Gentleman. I fully appreciate that the pressures on prison officers can be considerable. However, we are committed to ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of our staff, and have systems in place where if people are struggling, for whatever reason, including outside-work pressures, they will get the support they need.
Luke Pollard
Right across the public sector, the Government do not keep enough statistics on people in uniform who are taking their own lives due to physical and mental pressures at work. Will the Minister agree to meet me and members of the Prison Officers Association to discuss how we can record those statistics and, most importantly, how we can prevent prison officers from taking their own lives?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important and sensitive point. I should add that the prison chaplaincy service provides invaluable support for many prison officers who are struggling. I will meet him about this issue. The current figures record deaths in service. Clearly, the issue of mental health and people taking their own lives has to be addressed.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I start by welcoming my hon. and learned Friend to his post? I think this is the first question time that he has taken in his new role.
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that we not only pay the highest tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the men and women of our Prison Service, but recognise that the pressures that they face come in no small measure from the difficulty of establishing secure regimes and stability within our prisons? Will he take on board the recommendations of the Justice Committee—in particular, our suggestion for a workforce strategy across the whole of the Prison Service?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I pay tribute to the work of his Committee. We have seen welcome increases in the number of prison officers, and that will help with stability. Retention rates are very important. I will certainly study very carefully the recommendations of his Committee, and work with him and other Members to make sure that we achieve our common goal.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Prison officers do a very difficult job on behalf of the community, but the loss of thousands of staff, leading to the highest-ever number of assaults in prisons last year, has put them under enormous stress. Does the Minister accept that warm words are not good enough in this situation and there needs to be a serious increase in the number of prison staff to alleviate the pressure on officers?
Robert Buckland
I am pleased to inform the hon. Lady that there has indeed been a significant increase in the number of prison staff. We are now up to over 4,500 extra prison staff from the low point. I take her point that with increasing staff, more constructive work can be done with prisoners. The key worker scheme that we have now rolled out in the majority of adult male closed prisons, where prison officers work with six named prisoners, is already yielding results and making prisons safer places. I very much take on board the point she makes about assaults.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his new appointment.
One of the issues that adds to the emotional stress on prison officers can be a very long commute at the end of a working day, particularly in London and the south-east in very high-cost housing areas. What discussions is the Department having with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make sure that key worker accommodation is available for prison officers, who are often not that well paid, in high-cost housing areas?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend, as a former prisons Minister, knows this issue very well, and I pay tribute to him for his continued commitment to it. Yes, the question of housing is a difficult one. I am glad to say that recruitment rates in London have proved extremely successful. The extra increments that are paid to certain prison officers to recognise the particular pressures that they are under is a welcome part of the system. However, I will be happy to speak further to him about the issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will know that in Northern Ireland prison officers have been subjected to mental and physical pressures above and beyond—post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health issues. The Northern Ireland Assembly and Justice Department have been very active in offering support. Has he had the opportunity to speak to those in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Department to find out what is being done for prison officers in Northern Ireland?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am always willing to speak to and learn from experiences in other parts of our United Kingdom, most particularly Northern Ireland. Various therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, are available to prison officers should they wish to seek them. There is also a fast-track referral system, which is particularly encouraged where staff have experienced trauma.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)
Clearly, participation in the family court is difficult for all those involved, whatever stage of the process they are at. Through our legal support action plan, we are committed to working with the Law Society to improve delivery of family legal aid, be that in the court or through mediation.
Daniel Zeichner
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I was pleased recently to join students and staff at Anglia Ruskin University’s law clinic to celebrate the first year of their Support@Court service, which helps litigants in person to navigate the family courts. It is a great initiative, but Sarah Calder, the director, tells me that provision is patchy, and litigants in person all too frequently feel intimidated by facing a lawyer. Do the Government support the Bach Commission’s proposal that legal aid should be brought back into scope for all cases involving children?
Paul Maynard
I am pleased to hear about that example at Anglia Ruskin University. Our litigants in person strategy is a very important part of what we do. We have been spending £1.5 million a year hitherto. As part of the legal support action plan, we will improve that to £3 million a year and work with judges to ensure that all litigants in person are supported during the court process.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Paul Maynard
I am sure we were all shocked by the example raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). My first decision was to ensure that the inquiry panel was established, and it will look carefully at what the Children’s Commissioner has to say. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that children should always be at the heart of the decision-making process in the courts, and I will look carefully at what the Children’s Commissioner has said.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. The Government are rightly reviewing practices in the family courts, including practice direction 12J, which looks at how the court is protecting children and victims. More than 30 expert lawyers, including the Victims’ Commissioner, have voiced their concerns that the review is not in-depth enough to look at the issues in sufficient detail and makes no mention of consulting family court lawyers. Do the Government acknowledge those concerns, and will they act on them?
Paul Maynard
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s initial support. There is a balance to be struck between speed of action, getting the right decision-making process in place and coming up with the right recommendations. We have lawyers who are experienced in family law on the panel, and we have the victims’ voice through the involvement of Women’s Aid. I think we have the right mix on the panel, and a three-month time limit is right for them to reach their conclusions, which we can then seek to put in place.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
In children’s matters in the family courts, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is treated as an expert witness. Is the Minister aware that CAFCASS has no training for the function it performs, has no guidelines, keeps no record of its recommendations and does not give sworn statements, so cannot be held to account for the recommendations it makes?
Paul Maynard
I am grateful for that interesting perspective in my early days in the job. I will clearly have to go away and look at what CAFCASS says and does, and I look forward to meeting it. It is important to bear in mind that, in these cases, the interests of the child have to be paramount—the Children Act 1989 is very clear about that, and judges are clear in how they interpret that obligation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
If material comes to light that, on the face of it, might cast doubt on the safety of a conviction, the police and prosecuting authorities should disclose it, and where it is alleged that such material may exist, they should co-operate in making further inquiries if there appears to be a real prospect that they will uncover something of real value. Failing that, the function of the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission is to investigate possible miscarriages of justice. Access to information about the cases they investigate is integral to their work, and they have substantial legal powers to secure the disclosure they require.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister will know that I welcome part of what he said warmly, but as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, I know that in order to challenge a conviction, access to pre-conviction material from the police and the prosecution is very valuable. Most advanced countries have a proper system that makes it much more possible to challenge an unsafe conviction. Can we have further movement on that?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights his extensive work in this area. It has been a pleasure to meet him on a number of occasions, and I am due to do so again. As I said, there are considerable statutory powers for the CCRC, but as he knows, the commission can refer only those cases it considers to meet the statutory criteria, and there are no plans currently to review that.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with me that forensic science is a major area where a lack of transparency is inhibiting the review of post-sentencing disclosure?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of forensic science in convictions —increasing the number of cases that go through court and result in convictions—and therefore of the role it plays in reviewing cases post-conviction. If he wishes to write to me with further details of specific issues in that context, I will be very happy to write back to him responding to those points.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Both the Charlie Taylor and the Lammy reviews recommended changes to our criminal disclosure system for young people. On each count, this Government decided that they knew better, leaving us with one of the most punitive approaches to youth justice in the western world. Now that the Government have lost their case in the Supreme Court, will they recognise that our current disclosure system for children is outdated, ineffective and cruel?
Edward Argar
My shadow is dextrous in bringing in youth justice in the context of the post-conviction disclosure regime. She is quite right to highlight the Supreme Court case and the current regime, which is something we are looking at carefully.
Mr Speaker
I think we can agree that dexterity is a very important political quality.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)
Violence against our dedicated staff will not be tolerated. Levels of violence in prison remain too high, but I am pleased to say that the number of assaults from October to December last year decreased by 11% from the previous quarter. We know that positive relationships between staff and prison officers can make a big difference. That is the aim of the new key workers scheme, and 60 of the 92 closed male adult prisons have now completed implementing it.
Mr Cunningham
Prison officers work in what their trade unions call one of the most hostile environments in western Europe, with assaults on staff quadrupling since 2010. Does the Minister not think it is a bit unfair for a prison officer at 68 years of age to be forced to manhandle people and physically control them? Surely he could do something about early retirement for them.
Robert Buckland
It is important to remember that for many years prison officers have daily faced that sort of challenge. It is unacceptable, which is why I am glad to say that numbers of prison officers have increased. With that important work with prisoners, I strongly believe that prisons will become safer places. Let us not forget the roll-out of body-worn cameras as well: 6,000 have now been provided. I believe that that will not only protect prisoners, but protect prison officers from false allegations.
Alex Norris
HMP Nottingham remains a particularly violent place for staff and inmates. The previous prisons Minister made improving this prison a personal priority. Will the new Minister commit to doing the same, and will he meet me to hear some of our local concerns?
Robert Buckland
I know from my previous role that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in criminal justice issues in his city. I share the same commitment as my predecessor to reducing violence at Nottingham. A new violence reduction strategy was launched by that prison. We provided funding for physical alterations to set up a new violence reduction landing, and two safer custody leads are now working in the prison to improve physical security. Of course I will meet him as part of that developing progress.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is quite right to chart the issues at HMP Lewes. I am glad to say that the prison is now fully staffed and performance has begun to improve in the second half of last year, but I accept that things have not recovered to the position that Lewes had been in when the inspectorate made a previous visit. However, the number of assaults has fallen to a level similar to that of three years ago, and work continues to be done. From the centre, both I and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will continue to support the new governor in her work.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is the new prisons Minister prepared to repeat the pledge of his predecessor that he will resign if there is not a significant reduction in violence in prisons within 12 months?
Robert Buckland
As I have said already in this House in an Opposition day debate, I am going to do it my way.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I have been taking part in the Prison Service parliamentary scheme at HMP Swansea, where over only two days I witnessed one dirty protest and two incidents at height. These were handled professionally by prison staff, officers and management alike, but surely the Minister shares my concern that prison officers are now expected to respond to such physically demanding and risky challenges as everyday workplace hazards? Will he meet the POA to discuss the absolute anomaly of our expecting emergency services officers to work until they are 68?
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for taking part in that important and valuable scheme. HMP Swansea was the very first prison I went into, nearly 30 years ago, and I pay tribute to the staff there. I take on board the point she makes. I have already spoken to the POA about that very issue, and I will continue a dialogue on that and many other matters.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
How about this as a deterrent to violence in prisons: a prisoner who assaults a prison officer is simply not eligible for early release?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that that sort of conduct and criminality is dealt with in two ways. The first is by the criminal courts. The recent Act promoted by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) covers prison officers, and I pay tribute to him for that. The second is via an internal process by which prisoners face consequences such as privileges being removed and categorisation changed.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment. By now, he will know that since 2010 our prisons have been driven into a spiral of violence and a state of emergency as a direct result of his Government’s cuts, leaving staff, prisoners and the public less safe. Will he answer one simple question: when will our prisons return to being as safe as they were in 2010?
Robert Buckland
I think the work being done to recruit extra prison officers and the extra finance and resource given to my Department by the Treasury are allowing us to return to a position of greater safety. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but I have to say to him that my experience of prisons stretches back a generation, and I know that many of the issues relating to prisons take a long time to resolve, but that will not stop me having a sense of urgency when it comes to dealing with problems of drugs, violence and safety more generally.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
Participation in sport and physical activity in custody can have benefits for the physical and mental health of prisoners, as well as building confidence, teamwork skills, discipline and improving prospects of successful rehabilitation and resettlement in the community. We have recently published Professor Rosie Meek’s independent review of the role of sport in youth justice, and our own internal review of sport in the adult estate. Sport is an integral part of our approach to rehabilitation in prison.
Douglas Ross
I refer the House to my declaration of interest. The twinning project led by David Dein aims to take football into prisons to improve behaviour and reduce reoffending, and the Football Association referees department is now hoping to run referee courses alongside that, with Lancaster Farms Prison the first to offer the course. I know that the skills referees gain go far beyond officiating at match. Does the Minister agree that that element and the twinning project could have a very positive impact on the prisoners they work with, and will he encourage more prisons to get involved?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I acknowledge his interest as a qualified international referee, with skills that, on occasion, you probably put to good use in this House, Mr Speaker. I completely agree that the football twinning project, brilliantly led by David Dein, is hugely important and can have a positive effect on offenders. We have been working with FA referees to develop a bespoke referee course for prisons. Four pilot prisons have been identified to deliver this groundbreaking intervention, with the first course due to start in late summer at HMP Lancaster Farms, as my hon. Friend said. We all recognise the power of sport and we are determined to harness it.
Mr Speaker
David Dein is inspirational on this matter, and on many others, as I know from hearing from him directly on this important subject. He also has the great merit of being an Arsenal fan and a former vice-chairman of the club, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Last year’s review of sport in prisons shows that reoffending rates were markedly lower among those who had participated in sports-based resettlement programmes than among those who had not, but the report noted a distinct lack of engagement in physical activity among women in prison. What steps will the Minister take to implement Professor Meek’s recommendation of a specific physical activity strategy for women, and what incentives will the Government provide to sports clubs to get involved with rehabilitation schemes?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Our view is that sport can play a crucial role in rehabilitation and resettlement not just for male prisoners but for all prisoners, irrespective of gender. I went to see David Dein in HMP Downview, where we introduced the twinning project in a female prison for the first time, yielding fantastic results. We are very keen on the idea and are continuing to work with Jason Swettenham, the director in the Prison Service with responsibility for the project, to work within the custodial estate and with community organisations focused on engaging women in sport. They are absolutely integral to what we are trying to do.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
If the Minister is not already aware of it, may I encourage him to look at the eight-week programme being run at Feltham young offenders institution by the Saracens Sport Foundation, which is obviously linked to the European club rugby champions? It has helped to reduce reoffending rates among participants by more than half by using classroom sessions and mentoring and by focusing on the values of sport and what they can bring.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know if he is a clairvoyant, but if I recall my diary correctly I am due to visit Saracens at Feltham next week.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister broker arrangements with our primary sporting clubs—rugby, football and cricket—to make sure they have the opportunity to pair up with a prison, so that there is a relationship that can evolve over time? Does he think that is a good idea?
Edward Argar
I do think that is an excellent idea, which is exactly the principle behind the twinning project and exactly what is happening on the ground. The project is expanding to include more and more prisons. I have focused, given the nature of the question, on football, but the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight rugby, and from my perspective cricket is always a winner. He is absolutely right. The model is there with the twinning project and we want it to continue to expand.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The Government remain committed to a role for the private sector in operating custodial services. The sector has an important role to play and currently runs some high-performing prisons as part of a decent and secure prison estate.
Mohammad Yasin
Publicly run HMP Bedford has been deprived of adequate funding, while public investment has been given to the notorious blacklisting construction firm Kier to build a new supersized prison nearby in Wellingborough, which will be handed straight to the private sector to run. Will the Minister explain why the public sector was banned from bidding for the new prison?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Ministers on their appointment.
I am sure everyone across the House was deeply concerned by new research showing that, when comparing like with like, private male local prisons have 42% more assaults than their public equivalents. That is especially worrying given that the Government are planning to build a new generation of prisons run for profit. I am sure the Secretary of State would not wish to be deemed an ideologue who would back private prisons even if they were more dangerous. Before proceeding with those new private prisons, will he back an independent review of safety and overcrowding in private prisons to ensure that corners are not being cut to maximise profits?
Mr Gauke
The reality is that there are many very successful private prisons where the level of violence is lower than average. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. HMP Altcourse in Liverpool has low levels of violence compared with a typical category B local prison, including the public sector category B local prison in the same city where we have faced significant difficulties with violence. It is hard to compare one set of prisons against another on a like-for-like basis. I do not accept the analysis the hon. Gentleman sets out, and I do believe we need to have a mixed sector.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)
The existing process is an internal employment process and is compliant with both employment law and ACAS best practice. It exists to identify where misconduct has occurred and to hold individuals to account. By holding all prison and probation officers to the high standard we expect, we protect the reputation of the entire service.
Laura Pidcock
Napo has called for the scapegoating of probation officers to end, especially with the reviewing of cases that have already been covered by a review. It insists that senior managers are driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something rather than to deal with the root cause, which is the unbearable workload pressures caused by mass vacancies. Does the Minister agree that the probation service should take responsibility for structural failures leading to serious further offences, rather than hanging its workers out to dry?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady makes a very proper point, and I pay tribute to the probation officers I have worked with over many years. They are dedicated public servants who use their professional judgment and skill to help assess risk, which is an onerous task. I do not approve of scapegoating. I expect the service to support probation officers who are under pressure, but for cases where there needs to be an investigation, due process then has to take place.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
It is absolutely vital that prisoners get the support they need after release to turn their lives around. It would be premature to reverse reforms that, for the first time, saw those released on short sentences supervised after release, with a period dedicated solely to rehabilitation. We have already looked at ways of making that process more proportionate, but as my hon. Friend will know, I want to look at the broader question of short sentences and measures that actually serve to reduce reoffending.
Victoria Prentis
If I may trespass for one moment on your good will, Mr Speaker, given the previous question, perhaps you would like to join me in congratulating the Nacro winners, who are in the Public Gallery at the moment and who are about to join me for tea in the Pugin Room—where are they? They are putting their hands up so they can be congratulated by all of us in the House today, who appreciate what probation staff and those who work with prisoners do for us.
Does the Secretary of State agree that we should put real resource into alternatives to custody, so that we can end the cycle of reoffending and stop all our constituents from suffering from further crime?
Mr Gauke
I join in the congratulations to the prize winners in the Gallery and welcome them to the House of Commons.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of alternatives to custody, and I am keen to ensure that we make greater use of curfews, exclusion zones and new ways in which we can restrict offenders in the community in a way that can be more effective in reducing future reoffending.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
We want to strengthen partnership working between probation and local partners, including local authorities and police and crime commissioners, and the future probation model announced on 16 May will better enable this with a new regional structure led by regional directors responsible for the delivery and commissioning of probation services. They will work with local partners to identify shared priorities and co-commission services that will better support the management of offenders in the community.
Alex Burghart
Will the Secretary of State commit to exploring co-commissioning so that probation can leverage in wider funding and serve common needs?
Mr Gauke
The short answer is yes. Our plan is to create a dynamic framework for the commissioning of resettlement and rehabilitative intervention opportunities. To complement this, we will ring-fence £20 million a year in an innovation fund to attract match funding from other Departments and commissioning bodies for innovative cross-cutting approaches.
Craig Tracey
Does the Secretary of State agree that the transforming rehabilitation reforms had the very sensible goal of reducing reoffending by extending supervision to a group of offenders who previously did not have it?
Mr Gauke
Yes, I do think that is a very sensible goal, and sometimes that point has been missed in the debate about the transforming rehabilitation programme. My view is that we need to build on those reforms, and that is why on 16 May I outlined the changes we were making. My hon. Friend is right that we need to be ambitious and provide coverage for as many ex-offenders as possible.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has had a chance yet to see the report published this morning by Crest Advisory on the management of women offenders. It suggests that police and crime commissioners should develop gender-informed alternatives to cautions and thereby keep women out of the criminal justice system. Will he consider that recommendation and the others in the report, and would he or one of his ministerial colleagues be willing to meet me and representatives of Crest to discuss it?
Mr Gauke
I confess I have not had an opportunity yet to read the report published this morning, but from what the hon. Lady says it appears to go in a similar direction to the female offenders strategy I set out last year. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), would be delighted to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I also congratulate the new Ministers on their appointment.
Short sentences target the most vulnerable offenders, especially women, with 75% of all women offenders sentenced to less than a year going on to reoffend. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of the impact of short prison sentences on offenders and communities?
Mr Gauke
Indeed I am concerned about the impact of short sentences, not just on those who receive them but on society as a whole, because if they are ineffective in reducing reoffending, we are not doing society a favour and we are not reducing crime in the way we want to. As I said a moment ago, we set out our approach in the female offenders strategy—there is a case for looking at alternatives to custody for less serious offences. As a whole, I am ambitious to reduce the use of short sentences, which I do not see as being effective in reducing crime.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
There is a strong case for abolishing sentences of six months or less—with some exceptions—and we are working towards having firm proposals by the summer. There is persuasive evidence that short custodial sentences do not work in terms of rehabilitation and helping some offenders to turn their backs on crime, and that community sentences can be more effective in reducing reoffending and therefore keeping the public safe. That said, we must ensure that the public and the judiciary can have confidence in effective community orders that address offenders’ behaviour, meet their mental health and alcohol or drug misuse needs and provide reparation for the benefit of the wider community.
Gavin Newlands
Before his promotion—potentially to Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said:
“We have a lot to learn from Scotland, specifically on community sentences, and indeed we will be looking at what more we can do to emphasise that a custodial sentence in the short term should be a final resort.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 714-15.]
Given the Secretary of State’s answer just now, will he ensure that there is a continuity of approach within the new ministerial team in the MOJ?
Mr Gauke
I am sure that there will be; I would certainly expect that to be the case. One thing that we should learn from Scotland is that we need to ensure that community sentences are not ignored, and that drug treatment orders are completed. I know that that has been an issue in relation to some of the reforms in Scotland, and we need to learn from it, because if we are going to make these reforms we must ensure that community sentences are working properly.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The latest generation of GPS tags can monitor the specific movements of offenders rather than simply enforcing home curfews. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that gives courts a powerful tool to punish offenders in the community while keeping victims safe, as an alternative to short sentences?
Mr Gauke
I very much agree with that. I can tell the House that I wore a GPS tag for a couple of days, and was subsequently able to be informed of all my movements for the period concerned: precisely where I had been, and when. Thankfully I had not been up to no good, but it was a demonstration of how accurate and effective those tags can be. I believe that they have considerable potential for reassuring the public about community sentences, and about our ability to track those who might pose a risk to the community.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State’s moral probity was never in doubt for a moment.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know about the terrible legacy of the imprisonment for public protection sentence, and its negative impact on both reoffending and re-incarceration. Will he meet me, and my constituent whose son received an IPP sentence, to discuss ideas for reform of the licence that applies?
Mr Gauke
The challenge of IPP cases is that the Parole Board must satisfy itself that those who have been sentenced to IPPs no longer pose a risk to society. That can be very difficult, and in many cases there are risks to society, so we must be cautious and ensure that we protect the public. I know that the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is now well recognised that a system that pushes offenders through a revolving door of short prison sentences simply does not work. Notwithstanding the riders expressed by the Secretary of State a moment ago, the fact is that the Justice Committee, as well as his Government, have recognised that the system in Scotland is working. The Committee’s recent report recommended that the UK Government follow Scotland’s approach of a presumption against short sentences. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to introducing such a presumption in England and Wales?
Mr Gauke
I hope to be able to say more about the details of what we want to do in the not too distant future, but in respect of the approach that is being taken in Scotland, it is worth bearing in mind that it is already the case in England that a custodial sentence should be pursued only as a last resort, so there is already something approaching a presumption in the English system. I am interested in seeing whether we could go further than that, but I welcome the hon. and learned Lady’s approach —our shared approach, I think—of scepticism about the effectiveness of short sentences.
Joanna Cherry
As someone who worked in the criminal justice system in Scotland for 20 years before coming to the House, I can assure the Secretary of State that the idea that a custodial sentence should be a last resort existed in Scotland before the presumption against short sentences, so that is an additional presumption.
One of the bodies that gave evidence to the Justice Committee pointed out that diverting those who have been identified as low-risk offenders
“from short custodial sentences to suspended custodial sentences could reduce the prison population”
in England and Wales by about 3,000 places. Does the Secretary of State agree that the presumption against short sentences in Scotland can help to reduce the prison population, and could do so if introduced south of the border?
Mr Gauke
As I have said, I hope to say more about the approach we want to take, but there is a case that an approach on short sentences along the lines that I have discussed may reduce the prison population, but the principal purpose is not reducing the prison population. It will not be massively dramatic, but I believe it will help to reduce reoffending. That is the big prize, rather than what are likely to be relatively marginal changes to the prison population.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)
Access to justice remains a fundamental right and the Government are committed to ensuring everyone can get the support they need to access the justice system. We recently launched our legal support action plan, with a series of changes to enhance the breadth of legal support made available.
Charlie Elphicke
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position and his excellent answer. Many are concerned that reductions in legal aid from 2000 onwards have gone too far, meaning that people struggle to get access to justice. Does he agree that the time has come better to fund legal aid, rethink the abolition of conditional fee agreements and ensure the court system as a whole is funded, to make sure we uphold the rule of law?
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend is clearly easily pleased by my answers. Last year we spent £1.6 billion alone on legal aid, and that will continue. Our legal support action plan includes such measures as reviewing the means test for legal aid and the criminal legal aid fee scheme, so we constantly look to ensure the level of support is correct and appropriate.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The role of families at inquests is one of the most distressing that they come across. In February the Government said they would look into further options for the funding of legal support for families at inquests where the state has state-funded representation. What progress has the Department made that I can report back to my constituents who have suffered?
Paul Maynard
The hon. Lady makes a very fair point, and I am concerned about that myself. There has to be equality of arms in the courtroom and in inquests when the state is represented—when the state has a duty of care towards individuals. We are looking into this topic; I have nothing to report at present but I constantly engage with my officials on it. I am interested in it myself and would be happy to meet the hon. Lady if she wishes to share her ideas.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend alights on the pertinent point that not all legal support needs to come in the form of legal aid at the point at which a case reaches a court. Legal support can take many forms and shapes. Indeed, it might consist of a very early conversation to inform someone that their case has no merit and is best dealt with through mediation or some other means in the community.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Two years ago, Taylor Alice Williams died while she was supposed to be under the care of the state in a secure children’s home. Her bereaved mother, who is unable to work due to a disability, was recently told she would have to contribute thousands of pounds for legal representation at the inquest into her daughter’s death. Families should not be forced to mount press campaigns to get the legal aid they deserve.
There are too many families in this desperate situation. The Government’s own review estimates that 500 families a year lose a loved one in custody or state detention, leading to an inquest. Does the Secretary of State regret his recent decision to refuse those families legal aid, and will he revise the decision?
Paul Maynard
Inquests should always have bereaved families at the heart of the process, and legal aid decisions need to be considered in that light. Our recent review underlined the importance of preserving an inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial, approach, meaning there ought to be less need for lawyers. None the less, as Dame Elish Angiolini’s report stressed, while the state has a duty of care there is a case for reviewing the thresholds and criteria appropriate for legal aid entitlement as part of a wider review into legal aid entitlement.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this question. Protecting children from the scourge of sexual abuse in all its forms is a top priority for the Government. The law is clear: all sexual activity with someone under the age of 16 is illegal and all non-consensual activity is also illegal. However, the Government recognise that there are concerns about those who might abuse their position of power over a 16 or 17-year-old to pressure them into engaging in a sexual relationship. This is why we are working closely with colleagues across Government to take forward a review of the existing law to check that it is working effectively and protecting young people.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but the truth is that there have been some harrowing situations in which young women in particular, although not exclusively, have been groomed by manipulative coaches, sports instructors or driving instructors who are in a position of care. For some time, the Government have said that they will look at this closely, but have tended to fall back on the line that once people are over 16 there is not much they can do. May I urge the Minister to look at this situation closely? The NSPCC campaign is a good place to start. Will he agree to meet me and representatives of the NSPCC to discuss this issue?
Paul Maynard
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and Peter Wanless from the NSPCC. My hon. Friend rightly makes a number of points that need to be borne in mind. We have to give an element of consideration to individuals who are in a position of responsibility in relation to young people with the degree of vulnerability. There is always a balance to be struck so that we do not criminalise behaviour that is currently legal, and the age of consent remains at 16.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
People who prey on children often deliberately get themselves into a position of trust, and they know and exploit this legal loophole, as I believe the Minister is aware. Rather than simply carrying out a review, will he do what the previous sports Minister agreed to do, which is to change the law?
Paul Maynard
This is why we are having a review to ensure that we understand whether the law is working correctly and young people are being protected. I understand the points being made about sports coaches, driving examiners and many others, which is why I am keen to see the results of the review.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)
The Government continue to believe that leaving with a deal is the best outcome for the UK. For my Department, this means seeking a new agreement on civil digital co-operation as well as a future security partnership that protects our shared law enforcement and criminal justice capabilities.
Patrick Grady
The Minister is doing a great job at the Dispatch Box. Does he agree with the Home Affairs Committee that, in the event of no deal, being forced to rely on the 1957 convention on extradition rather than the European arrest warrant would be a “catastrophic outcome”? Does he therefore agree that the next Prime Minister, whoever that might be, should rule out the UK crashing out of Europe without a deal?
Paul Maynard
We have always made it clear that we do not seek a no deal. We have also made it clear that any future security partnership with the EU would have to include protecting our shared law enforcement elements as well as the criminal justice capabilities. If this can technically be done and it is lawful, there is no reason why it should be left out of any future security agreement.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)
Our target to recruit an additional 2,500 officers was successfully achieved in the first quarter of last year, ahead of schedule. From October 2016 to 31 March this year, there was an increase of 4,675 full-time equivalent prison officers.
Eddie Hughes
I welcome that increase in the number of prison officers. What progress has been made with the key worker scheme in prisons?
Robert Buckland
The key worker scheme is an important part of improving support for prisoners, leading to safer prisons. That work has begun in all 92 prisons in the male closed estate, and 66 of them have completed implementation activities and started to deliver key work. Only last week I spoke to prisoners in two of those prisons who are already receiving the benefits of that interaction.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
On 28 May, we announced changes to the release on temporary licence—ROTL—rules, which will allow prisoners to be considered for temporary release earlier. This will provide more opportunities for them to work and train with employers while serving their sentence and increase their chances of securing an immediate job on release. Research shows that time spent on ROTL working in the community or rebuilding family and community ties before release significantly reduces a prisoner’s likelihood of reoffending. ROTL is permitted only after a rigorous risk assessment, and the compliance rate is over 99%. Any non-compliance is dealt with robustly.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the Justice Ministers, but will the Secretary of State explain why there are no women in his ministerial team?
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)
I am grateful for that question, and I am genuinely sympathetic towards those in such situations. Family breakdown always takes a toll on those involved, whether parents or children, but the child’s welfare is paramount in court decisions about their upbringing. The law remains gender-neutral and presumes that a parent’s involvement in a child’s life is beneficial unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I recently met Donna Mooney, the sister of Tommy Nicol, who sadly took his own life in prison while serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence. I am sure that the Secretary of State will also want to meet her soon. It is a cause of regret that IPPs were ever introduced; their Labour author now acknowledges that. They were not reserved for the most serious of offences, too often effectively becoming a life sentence for those who had committed minor crimes. Does the Secretary of State agree that much more needs to be done to provide opportunities for people who are now way over their short IPP tariffs to prove that they no longer pose a risk to the public?
Mr Gauke
It was right that the coalition Government abolished IPPs, which were brought in by the previous Labour Government, and there is consensus that that was the right thing to do. The difficulty is that the Parole Board now assesses in each case whether someone with an IPP sentence would be a risk to society, and the board must obviously ensure that public protection is put first. It is also right that we seek to do everything we can to rehabilitate IPP prisoners so that they can be released into the community.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Paul Maynard
I think it is because that is unfair. We are looking carefully at how we manage demand in the family justice system. We are ensuring that legal support is offered within the family courts, and that can take many forms, not just legal aid. For example, the personal support unit now operates in 23 courts across 18 cities, so we are looking to make sure that the right support is given to those in the family courts at the right point in the legal process.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. SARCs fall under the remit of the Department of Health and Social Care, but NHS England commissioned a report last year to assess the current state and future needs of the SARC workforce. Alongside SARCs and other victim support services, I have increased the funding available to rape and sexual violence support services by 10%, moving the funding from an annual to a three-year cycle.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of technology in rehabilitation, which is why in-cell telephones have now been rolled out to 18 prisons and work is under way to deliver them to a further 30 prisons by March 2020. The introduction of basic computers, with the necessary controls, can allow prisoners to start managing some of their day-to-day tasks ahead of potential release.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Edward Argar
As I mentioned in response to a previous question, I have increased by 10% the funding available to rape and sexual violence support services. The hon. Gentleman highlights a specific case, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Both as a constituency MP and when I look at the media, I am concerned by increasing reports of cases being adjourned, often at the last minute, for the lack of a judge being available, particularly in the Crown and county courts. At the same time, courtrooms sit empty and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is not advertising vacancies for recorders—part-time judges who are willing and able to fill those vacancies. Will the Minister urgently investigate what appears to be a lack of joined-up government by HMCTS?
Paul Maynard
I am very aware of this issue, which I have been discussing with various people at the top end of HMCTS. It is important that we recruit sufficient judges, on which we need to do better. I will happily discuss it with my hon. Friend and provide a fuller answer when I appear before his Select Committee next week.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady raises an important point. She alludes to the fact that this falls more directly within the remit of the Attorney General’s office but, of course, it cuts across a number of Departments. I have already had a number of meetings with my opposite number in the Home Office and with my new colleague, the prisons Minister, when he was Solicitor General. I look forward to further such meetings to get to the bottom of exactly what the hon. Lady highlights.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
HMP Leyhill is a category B prison in south Gloucestershire. The number of abscondees is reducing year on year, but there remains significant concern in the community following an incident last year involving a school just half a mile away. Will the prisons Minister be good enough to visit south Gloucestershire to see this prison and to talk about the emergency mechanisms that need to be put in place?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am more than happy to visit Her Majesty’s Prison Leyhill not just to look at that specific issue but to see the conditions in that category B prison for myself.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In addition to reviewing the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), will the Minister look at families who host international students and who are put in a position of trust over young people?
Paul Maynard
The hon. Lady raises a good example of a position of trust, which is the sort of thing I want to look at. If she wishes to write to me with further details, I will make sure we include it in the review we are conducting.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Patrick Mackay, formerly of my constituency, is one of Britain’s least known but most dangerous serial killers. In 1975, he admitted to three counts of manslaughter, but he is strongly suspected of carrying out a further 10 killings, including that of a four-year-old boy. Mackay is now eligible for parole and may well have already been moved to an open prison. Does the Secretary of State share my deep concern about the potential release of this man, still only in his 60s, and will he enable me to make the fullest possible representations to the Parole Board?
Mr Gauke
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has taken up this issue tirelessly. As he knows, the Parole Board will release a life sentence prisoner only when, in its view, it is no longer necessary on the grounds of public protection for a prisoner to remain in custody. In making its determination, the board will consider reports from those who manage the prisoner and have assessed the risk of harm he presents. The board will also consider all relevant evidence of the prisoner’s risk of harm, and if my hon. Friend has such evidence I am sure it will be listened to closely. We will ensure that it is fully considered for inclusion in the dossier of reports given to the Parole Board.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
My constituency is colossal—the second biggest in the UK—and the cost of travel to courts is a big issue. I plead with the Government to look at legal aid with a view to changing it to reflect the hardship that some of my constituents suffer from in paying the cost of getting to court.
Paul Maynard
I gently advise the hon. Gentleman that in his constituency that would be a matter for the Scottish Government. Beyond that, I recognise that it is an issue across the country. We wish to look at that in our legal services action plan to make sure that, if people are struggling to access justice, we have a new set of guidelines on how we keep open various courts and tribunals that will help to make sure that our courts remain as accessible as possible to as many people as possible.
Petition
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition is from residents of the United Kingdom. The petitioners are concerned that Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council’s decision to restructure the management of Walsall arboretum in Walsall South was made without consultation with the public. The petitioners say that the changes leave the arboretum with no onsite management and no dedicated management team. The petitioners say that these changes return the management of the arboretum to the situation it was in prior to investment by the Heritage Lottery fund. The petitioners note that there is a related petition on this matter started by my constituent, Fiona Macmillan, on change.org with 1,395 signatures.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of Residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that Walsall MBC's decision to restructure the management of Walsall Arboretum in Walsall South constituency was made with no consultation with the public; further that the changes leave the Arboretum with no onsite management and no dedicated management team; further that these changes return the management of the Arboretum to the situation it was in prior to investment by the Heritage Lottery; and further notes a related petition on this matter on change.org with over 1200 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge Walsall MBC to consult the public about the changes and restore the posts of Arboretum Manager and Events Co-ordinator dedicated to ensuring the activities, events, care and maintenance of the Arboretum continue.
[P002457]
EU Parliament Elections: Denial of Votes
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on why non-UK EU citizens were denied their right to vote in the European parliamentary elections.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
The Government took all the legal steps necessary to prepare for the European parliamentary elections and put in place all the necessary legislative and funding elements to enable returning officers to make their preparations. We worked with returning officers, the Electoral Commission and other agencies, such as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers and the Association of Electoral Administrators, to support the smooth running of the polls. The Government are greatly appreciative of electoral administrators’ hard work inside and outside election periods, which resulted in a higher turnout than for previous European parliamentary elections.
Electoral registration officers are under a statutory duty to ensure that people who are eligible to vote in elections have the opportunity to do so. For the recent European Parliament elections—as for all previous such elections—that included making sure that EU citizens who are resident in the UK and registered to vote in local elections were made aware that they needed to complete a voter registration and declaration form, commonly referred to as a UC1 or EC6, so they could vote in the UK. The Electoral Commission supported EROs in this and encouraged them to take additional steps to raise awareness of this requirement locally, through social media channels and other means.
The UC1 form implements a requirement under EU law. EU Council directive 93/109/EC requires all member states to send the details of any EU citizens’ declarations to the state they are a citizen of,
“sufficiently in advance of polling day”,
to ensure that an EU citizen does not vote twice in the same European parliamentary election. That is not a new requirement and has been in place for previous European parliamentary elections. Similar provision applies to UK citizens living in other EU member states. The UC1 form was accessible on the websites of the Electoral Commission, local authorities and Your Vote Matters.
On 5 April, the Electoral Commission published guidance for local returning officers and EROs on the upcoming European parliamentary elections. In it, the Electoral Commission reminded EROs to prepare and issue UC1 forms to EU citizens on the electoral register. On 3 May, the Electoral Commission published guidance advising EU citizens to avoid registering to vote using unofficial registration sites. The guidance further stated:
“Any EU citizen who wants to vote in the European Parliamentary election in the UK must also print, complete and return a declaration form stating that they will only vote in the UK.”
The guidance also included a link to the Your Vote Matters website, where the form could be downloaded.
Cat Smith
The numbers of non-UK EU citizens who were reportedly denied a vote in the European elections should be a source of shame for the Government. We are talking about people who live and work here and who contribute to our communities, yet for the past three years they have been insulted, exploited, asked to apply to stay in their own homes and now denied a voice in an election that has massive implications for their futures. Have the Government learned nothing from the Windrush scandal about the consequences of shutting citizens out of public life?
After the previous set of European elections, the Electoral Commission warned that we needed to streamline the two-step registration process, like other European countries have done. Why did the Government refuse to listen? They buried their head in the sand in respect of the elections, even at the eleventh hour when it was clear that the House was not going to pass their botched Brexit deal. The Opposition repeatedly warned that EU nationals were not given enough time and notice. We put forward reasonable requests that could have been adopted to mitigate the risks, such as ensuring that EU citizens were handed a copy of the form when they voted in local elections and extending the deadline by a week to ensure that the forms could be returned.
What was the Government’s response? It was to tell EU citizens to vote in their own country. Not only did that add to the anger and sense of exclusion that many felt, but it was asking people to register to vote in a country that they may not have lived in for decades and where voting registration may well have closed. Does the Minister acknowledge how insulting that was? Will he apologise to those affected? Campaign groups have already raised more than £40,000 to fund a legal challenge; have the Government assessed whether their actions were compliant with the law? The failure to act made this democratic disaster sadly inevitable. In the light of the overwhelming evidence, will the Government conduct a full and urgent investigation?
Kevin Foster
We have to be clear that the process was exactly the same as what was required back in 2014 and 2009. The legal structure for how the vote takes place has not changed.
On the deadlines referred to, I can remember having a discussion with the shadow Minister about whether it would be possible to change the registration date, but that would have run up against the clear requirement that we have to share the declarations
“sufficiently in advance of polling day”.
That means sharing them in advance of polling day, not just a day or two before, to allow registers to be completed in home nation states. To be clear, this process has been in place for some years.
I accept the point that obviously people did not necessarily expect the EU elections to happen, given the result of the referendum and the fact that 80% of the people who voted in 2017 did so for parties that had pledged to respect the referendum result—something we have not seen much evidence of on the Opposition Benches. The Electoral Commission will review the European elections, as it reviews any other electoral event, and will look into any issues raised. As a responsible Government, we will of course consider carefully what the Electoral Commission says.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
I was contacted by a handful of my constituents about this issue. My local authority has confirmed that the relevant paperwork was sent out entirely in accordance with the rules on 12 April, to be returned by 7 May. Several thousand of those forms were returned, so the process was clearly working, but for a handful of people there seems to have been some confusion. Will the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that he will look carefully at the Electoral Commission’s report on the election, to understand why that group of people found it so difficult to follow the rules in this instance?
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. I am pleased to hear her experience, which is that thousands did return the declaration and were able to take part. We will of course listen very carefully to what the Electoral Commission has to say in its review of the European parliamentary elections. The turnout did go up. In fact it was much, much higher than it was in 1999, which is the last time we had stand-alone European elections, so, again, that gives us some confidence in the system. None the less, we will certainly consider very carefully the points that the Electoral Commission brings forward and look at whether any changes are required.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Whether by accident or design, this Government have presided over the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of our neighbours and friends who wanted to vote in that election but were unable to do so. Frankly, the Minister’s complacency here today is simply compounding the problem. He acts as if this were some sort of surprise. Back in 2014, many people told the Cabinet Office that the system then was inadequate. The Electoral Commission itself called for a review of the UC1 system. Therefore, given the additional dubiety and uncertainty created by this Government about the fact that these elections would take place this year, surely it must have been obvious that something needed to be done in order to improve the situation. At any stage did Ministers approach the European authorities to get a dispensation from the regulations in order to cope with the situation in the United Kingdom? At any stage did Ministers consider bringing forward a statutory instrument to this House in order to truncate the existing system for filling in the UC1 form? Will the Minister promise that there will be a full and public investigation into this debacle?
Kevin Foster
Let me be clear: the Council directive is a piece of EU law. It is not something from which we can seek derogations or exemptions. I know that, normally, those on the Scottish National party Benches are very keen to see European law there and fully complied with. This is about an election across all 28 member states for one Parliament; this is not about a uniquely British election.
With regard to looking at the options open to us, we did briefly ask for official advice, but on whether it would be possible to consider a statutory instrument, I have to say that that rubs up against our need to implement that exact expression of being sufficiently in advance of polling day. Given that our registration deadline was 7 May—roughly two weeks before—it is hard to see how we could move much more beyond that date. As for how we will look at this matter, the Electoral Commission will comply with its statutory duty to conduct a review of how the elections were conducted. It is a body that has solid election knowledge, is appointed independently and is not under the control of Government. We can all think of views that the Electoral Commission has expressed that we have either loved or loathed. That is our best option. We will therefore carefully consider what conclusions it brings back.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Minister does not appear to appreciate the Government’s responsibility for this mess. It was not until Tuesday 7 May that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the UK would definitely be taking part in the European elections. As the Minister has just admitted, Tuesday 7 May was also the closing date for the receipt of UC1 forms. Given that the Government must have known since 11 April, which was the date on which the EU granted us a further extension to 31 October, that we would be taking part in these European elections, why did it take the Government from 11 April to 7 May to confirm that fact? Earlier confirmation would have allowed more EU citizens to get their UC1 forms in in time, and they would therefore not have been denied the right to vote on 23 May.
Kevin Foster
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said in my earlier answer, it was on 5 April that the Electoral Commission published guidance for local returning officers and EROs, and it was on 8 April that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster laid the necessary orders for the poll. There was no restriction on submitting a UC1 application before those dates. There was no need to wait until it was completely confirmed to submit that form. As has been said, a number of EU citizens who are resident in this country made arrangements to vote in this election in the state of which they are a citizen. It is therefore clear that there was no undue delay and that advice was pushed out. By 3 May, there was clear advice published by the Electoral Commission, which has the primary role in promoting how citizens use their electoral rights in this country.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
We see shocking complacency from the Minister and a complete denial of any Government responsibility for this shambles. A number of MPs—me included—raised these concerns in advance of the election, saying that EU citizens were going to be disenfranchised. And sure enough they were, as they were in the EU referendum. Is the Minister aware of legal advice that says that the use of the UC1 form is discriminatory, and will he—he has not yet answered this question—support calls for an inquiry into this shambles and the Government’s role in it?
Kevin Foster
The suggestion that the UC1 form, which has been used in a number of European elections, is now discriminatory is absolutely for the birds. It is a process that we have used for other elections and it is part of implementing a requirement under European law. The Liberal Democrats cannot say that they like the European Union’s laws one day and then demand that we should just ignore them the next, when it suits them. It is clear that the Council directive requires us to complete declarations and to send them sufficiently in advance of polling day.
Kevin Foster
The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head and dislike what I am saying, but that is the wording of the legislation. The Electoral Commission will conduct a full review, and I look forward to reading and receiving its conclusions.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister said—once again, erroneously—that 80% of voters in the referendum voted for parties that supported a Tory Brexit. He knows that to be completely wrong. What he omitted to say was that the majority of voters who voted in the European elections voted for parties who want another referendum and want to remain in the European Union. The Minister was warned repeatedly about this issue in this House and outside it, yet we all have examples of constituents who came up to us in desperation on election day, having done all the right things but having had their names crossed out when they arrived at the polling station. It is an absolute scandal. Does this not reveal a Government who did not investigate properly the proven subversion and lawbreaking in the referendum, and who have absolutely no interest in the integrity of our democratic process? The Minister should resign.
Kevin Foster
Oh dear; well, I will not thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. The reality is that we have an independent Electoral Commission and an independent police force which does not—and should not—operate under political guidance. Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s obvious disagreements with the referendum result, the relevant bodies have obviously looked at the evidence and come to their conclusions. It will be a dark day when Ministers at the Dispatch Box instruct the police and the Electoral Commission how to behave.
As I say, the UC1 form implements a requirement under European Union law. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s figures regarding the vote itself, they are not figures that I recognise because they normally imply that my party is somehow supporting remain.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Seven weeks ago, Mr Speaker kindly granted me an urgent question on this exact topic, but the warnings were not heeded. Scores of EU voters were in touch with my busy office and with the electoral registration officer on Haringey Council on the day, just as predicted by many Members in this House on 25 April. Will the Minister lay out exactly what investigations his team will undertake now to put this situation right once and for all?
Kevin Foster
The Electoral Commission will do a report and present its conclusions—as it does with all major electoral events in this country—and it will do so independently, not under the direction of a Minister. We will then consider its conclusions carefully. To resolve the issue completely, we will look to implement the 2016 referendum result, as we have pledged to do.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I think the Minister has misunderstood his job. He seems to think it is about disenfranchising people who are going to vote the wrong way. After the 2014 European elections, the Electoral Commission warned that the current practice of requiring citizens to complete an additional form needed to be more streamlined, moving to a near automatic system of inclusion as is the case in most other European countries, yet the Minister and his Department did precisely nothing about it. [Interruption.] Perhaps he could get the smirk off his face. We are actually talking about democratic involvement; even though the Minister does not seem to rate it, Labour Members think that it is an important principle.
Kevin Foster
This is a process that has been used before in elections that actually happened under a Labour Government as well—let us be clear about that. It is a process where we followed the law. We had to comply with the European Council directive in how we held these elections, and that means having a declaration that we send over. If we wanted to talk about disenfranchising people, we could talk about what happened when an arbitrary limit of 15 years was imposed on overseas elections.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Dozens and dozens of my EU national voters were disenfranchised at this election. Given that the election has now gone, would it not be prudent for the Government to re-enfranchise them by holding a public vote on how we leave the European Union, allowing people who live, work and pay their taxes here, and who have done so for decades, to be involved in the future running of this country?
Kevin Foster
Let us be clear: Britain’s membership of the European Union was first decided by the parliamentary franchise in the form of the elections to this House back in 1972. It was therefore the parliamentary franchise that was used, with the addition of Gibraltar and Members of the other place. That is the one that the House chose for the referendum in 2016, and hopefully this House will actually finally listen to what was said in 2016 and implement that referendum vote.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On 23 May, a significant number of my constituents who are EU nationals were denied their basic human right to vote, despite me and others having repeatedly raised on the Floor of the House the risk that that would happen, including my making a direct appeal to the Prime Minister at PMQs on the day before the elections to use the power of her office to do something about it. Does the Minister appreciate how this scandal has exacerbated the fears of EU citizens that their rights are not taken seriously by this Government? Does he therefore understand why there must be an inquiry into the Government’s failure to act, and will he answer the question posed by so many other hon. Members and commit to that inquiry?
Kevin Foster
I recall that the hon. and learned Lady’s suggestion at Prime Minister’s questions was about having forms at the polling station. However, that would directly conflict with the requirements of the Council directive, which says:
“sufficiently in advance of polling day.”
We could not have complied with that in having forms at the polling station. In terms of a review of what happened, as I have now said several times, the Electoral Commission, as it always does, will review the conduct of the poll and bring forward recommendations, and it is completely independent in doing so.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Can I say to the junior Minister that I feel sorry for him? Here he is, like the last boy left on the burning deck of the ship. He has no colleagues behind him. There is an absence of Government—where is his boss? The fact is that this is an important issue for democratic responsibility and accountability, and for parliamentary democracy, and we want to know the answer. Yet here we have—I hope it can be seen all over the world—an empty Chamber where this country has no Government and no Back Benchers: it has nothing. When are we going to get a general election to get rid of this ghastly regime?
Kevin Foster
I think that one is probably slightly beyond the scope of this urgent question. I would always say that it is good to have quality of support, if not necessarily quantity, on the Benches with me. The key issue in elections is that we comply with the law, and the law is as it has been set down for previous European elections. A key part of that is making sure that we comply with European law, given that this is not purely a vote in the UK about UK delegation members—it is ultimately an election of the entire European Parliament.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Listening to the Minister’s initial answer, I wondered, if this was all so good, why did it turn out so badly? The Government claim to have been preparing for “all Brexit eventualities”, yet despite the billions of pounds being set aside, we have still had this blundering democratic deficit. Is there not a real danger that this Government’s reputation for Brexit splits and betrayals will be excelled by an equally deserved reputation for incompetence?
Kevin Foster
The thing I look at is that the turnout rose for the European elections this time. There may be criticisms about how things are handled, but I always look at how many people turned out and engaged, and it was the highest turnout for 20 years.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Minister does not seem to have accepted the fact that this vote happened as a result of something that was entirely predictable. The Department for Exiting the European Union has a Minister for no-deal Brexit. Why has it not considered that the third of the possibilities outlined by the Prime Minister might happen, and it should therefore have a Minister for no Brexit?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The reality is that this Government are absolutely committed to implementing the democratic will of the British people expressed in the referendum in 2016, and it is a pity that other parties are not.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I wrote to every single one of my EU national constituents at my own personal cost to inform them of this voter suppression. I wonder whether the Minister will repay me the cost of the postage, and whether he will also reflect on article 9(4) of the directive he cites, which says that Community voters “shall remain” on the register until they are removed. Getting them all to re-sign the form was therefore a breach of Community rules, and he should learn his law better.
Kevin Foster
I am afraid that this is exactly the same procedure that was adopted in 2014 and in 2009—
Kevin Foster
I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman’s comments were about the then Labour Government.
Mr Speaker
Mr Russell-Moyle, you are a person of passionate convictions. You are in some danger of rivalling your hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who I am inclined to inform audiences across the country and round the world is the noisiest Member of the House. That is a questionable accolade.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Many EU nationals in my constituency were also denied their vote. It is simply unacceptable that registered voters who have turned out to vote were turned away without explanation. As decreed in article 39 of the EU charter of fundamental rights, the right to vote is universal and equal. Does the Minister agree that this fiasco is something that a modern democracy should not tolerate?
Kevin Foster
As I said, the Government took all legal steps necessary in conducting the European parliamentary elections. That included complying with European law, including the Council directive, which requires details of these declarations to be sent “sufficiently in advance” of polling day. We cannot just assume that people wish to vote in this country, rather than the country where they are a citizen.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is actually right about two things. He is right that this process has been used before, and he is right that the Electoral Commission makes independent recommendations. But ridiculously, he refuses to acknowledge that Conservative Ministers ignored those recommendations about this process right back in July 2014. Does he acknowledge that the Electoral Commission made recommendations about this process back in July 2014—yes or no?
Kevin Foster
As I have said in numerous answers, we complied with the legal steps necessary to conduct these polls, following the House’s refusal to back an exit from the European Union which many Members elected to this place had pledged to do. We will of course listen with interest to the Electoral Commission’s review of these elections, but it is our intention that the UK will no longer participate in European parliamentary elections, having implemented the result of the referendum.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
If there had been 1 million Conservative voters—yes, I know—threatened with disenfranchisement by uncertainty about whether the elections would take place, the Government would have moved heaven and earth to ensure that they were registered and enfranchised before the vote took place. Is it not a fact that anyone who wants to know about his party’s and his Government’s contempt for the rights of EU nationals does not need to listen to his complacent answers today—they simply need to look at the Benches behind him?
Kevin Foster
EU citizens can be reassured that there is a huge amount of work going on to ensure that their rights are protected after Brexit, including their democratic rights in this country. Let us be clear: UC1 forms and declarations of their nature are not unusual for UK citizens living in the EU. We have used them before, and we will hopefully not use them again, because we believe in respecting referendums, although I accept that for the Scottish National party, that is a rather unusual concept.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Paloma Luna has lived in my constituency since 1992, and she has voted in every single local and European election until this year. Because of the impossible timetable set by the Government for our electoral services, Paloma never received the UC1 form. Electoral services normally have three months for such things, and this time they had three weeks. What does the Minister have to say to all of those who were denied their fundamental, basic human right to vote? And please do remember that these are human beings.
Kevin Foster
Starting with local elections and Assembly elections, there is absolutely no need to complete a UC1 form, because there is no requirement to make a declaration to another member state, so those electoral rights are protected and clear, and many used their vote in the local elections three weeks prior. To be clear, this is a process where we did what we could to make sure people were available. The Electoral Commission put out guidance and encouraged local returning officers well before the election—about a month before the actual deadline for registration. Plus, we have moved on in recent years in allowing registration online, something that was not available in the past.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is disappointing that some areas seemed to accept UC1s on the day of the election, but not those in Scotland, which said they were instructed to do that. The Minister has said that he took “all legal steps”, so can he confirm the percentage of UC1 forms that were forwarded to countries overseas between 7 May and the election?
Kevin Foster
To be clear, UC1s should not be being accepted on polling day, given that the Council directive is very clear that the information needs to be exchanged sufficiently in advance of polling day. Once information was collated after 7 May, it was then communicated to member states, just as other member states communicated those details to us. That process has existed for many years.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
A number of my EU-national constituents were prevented from voting on 23 May, and they are exceptionally angry about it. The issues on polling day were a direct and deliberate result of the failure by the Government—the coalition Government and then the Conservative Government—to address the concerns raised by the Electoral Commission after the 2014 elections. At the very least, my constituents are owed an apology. Are they going to get one?
Kevin Foster
Again, I can make it clear that the Government took all legal steps necessary to conduct this poll, as we were legally obliged to do. As I say, we will look with interest at what the Electoral Commission’s review of this election states. However, we are clear that we have no intention of taking part in the EU parliamentary elections in 2024, because we intend to leave the European Union and honour the referendum result.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister seriously trying to say that nothing went wrong here, and that is why he will not apologise? I, too, have constituents who sent all the forms off in time and who went on the day with an extra form just in case, and they were denied the right to vote. They were disenfranchised by this Government. Surely they are owed an apology. Will the Minister take that opportunity now?
Kevin Foster
Again, what I would say is that we will ask the Electoral Commission to review that for anyone who did comply with the requirements, although clearly we would need to look at what happened in that particular instance with that particular ERO. Ultimately, at the end of the day the UC1 is not an optional process; we have to comply with the Council directive. That is not something we have an ability just to vary.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
First, I would like to thank David Miller and his team at Glasgow City Council for doing their very best in the circumstances this shambolic Government have thrown at them. Those circumstances resulted in one of my constituents, who had registered in time when they moved into their property in Dalmarnock, not having enough time to get the UC1 form back and therefore losing their democratic rights. Will the Minister issue an instruction to returning officers to ask them how many people lost their votes in similar circumstances, and to ask for their advice on what the Government should do in response?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Clearly, it is the Electoral Commission that will be conducting the review of how the election went, and I am almost certain it will be in contact with local returning officers to discuss any issues that were raised. Likewise, at that point it would certainly more than welcome and would probably be quite interested in hearing the experiences of how the process operated in reality.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that the Government were tearing themselves apart on whether or not to participate in these EU elections until 7 May, but what steps did his Department take to talk to other EU countries about extending the deadline? In the age of electronic communication, surely fewer than 16 days is necessary.
Kevin Foster
The Government were never tearing themselves apart over whether to hold the elections. We were clear that we would fulfil our legal obligation to hold them if necessary as a member of the European Union, and we did. Regarding the exchange of information that already takes place electronically, there is a clear need to finalise registers at a certain point, and to ensure that information is collated and then exchanged with other member states. The timescales now are similar to those put in place in the past, and the UK is one of the first countries to vote, on the Thursday, along with Holland. Even though some countries vote later, we have to be ready for the start of the European elections, not halfway through.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The empty Government Benches will send a powerful message to EU nationals across the country. Many of them in my constituency contacted me to say that they had registered to vote online, after it became clear on 11 April that the elections would be taking place; they told me that the system did not alert them to the need to complete a UC1 form, nor was it available online. Does the Minister accept that the Cabinet Office’s failure to ensure that proper processes were in place denied them their vote?
Kevin Foster
To be clear, the Electoral Commission website had guidance on registering to vote; the UC1 form was available; and there were links to the Your Vote Matters website, where the form could be downloaded and returned. It was available online. There were some issues with those who mistakenly used unofficial registration sites, and perhaps the Electoral Commission will consider how we can make clearer the differences between unofficial websites purporting to be for electoral registration and Your Vote Matters, the official Electoral Commission site.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My constituent, a Spanish national, had a similar experience: he believed he had returned his UC1 form digitally, but the local authority said it could find no trace of it, and advising him on 3 May on a website that he should have downloaded it, printed it out and posted it back is not reasonable when he had an expectation that his digital form was acceptable. Is it not time there was a proper Government-sponsored inquiry into every stage of the process, so that we can understand exactly what went wrong with both the system and the information available to voters?
Kevin Foster
I think it right that the Electoral Commission independently looks at the process for the European parliamentary elections and draws its conclusions independent of Government. That seems to me to be a process that builds more confidence in the recommendations that emerge.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister says the legislation is in place, but the processes clearly are not, despite the recommendations from the 2014 investigation, which have not been implemented. Many of my constituents have contacted me to say they were refused the vote on election day, despite their having voted in London and council elections, and even the 2014 European parliamentary elections. Does the Minister not acknowledge that this debacle only adds to the anger and sense of exclusion felt by so many of the 3 million EU citizens in this country since the 2016 referendum? Is it not worried that it will exacerbate the rate at which EU citizens leave our country and so no longer contribute to our society?
Kevin Foster
One of the handy things of having my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration on the Bench beside me is that I know that there are still more EU citizens coming to this country than leaving. We very much welcome that, given the skills and talents they bring to this country.
The process we follow is similar to the one used in other EU states for UK citizens living abroad. I understand that people have concerns. My big concern would be if turnout had gone down, but in fact turnout went up. One of the biggest threats to European parliamentary elections was the absolutely dismal turnout 20 years ago.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It really does seem that sorry is the hardest word. My constituents have faced all the problems outlined by my hon. Friends, including the situation where the form has been properly filled in but they are still denied the vote—and, of course, denied their vote in their home country, so they are doubly disenfranchised. At the end of these exchanges, could the Minister show some grace on behalf of the Government and apologise not to Opposition Members, but to the people who have been disenfranchised?
Kevin Foster
As I touched on earlier, we would expect the Electoral Commission’s review to look at issues with local councils where the form was returned in compliance with the law and then not complied with. The Government would not have dealt with that directly. Election turnout rose compared with previous similar elections, and we hope that this election will not take place again following the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
“This feels like one big scam”—that is what one citizen I represent told me about his experience of this process. I say to my fellow Devon MP that I think he has got this one wrong. When the Electoral Commission publishes its report, will he now commit to publishing it and bringing it back to this House with a statement, so that he can say sorry, from the Dispatch Box, to all the EU citizens who have been denied a vote, and set out how it will be corrected in future?
Kevin Foster
I always respect the passion of the hon. Gentleman, my friend from Devon, when it comes to raising issues and campaigning on behalf of his constituents. We will of course see what the Electoral Commission report brings back. It will be a public report, so it will be published. We will certainly then consider what next steps would need to be taken if we were ever to have European parliamentary elections again, although, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my view is that we should implement the referendum result so that we will not be an EU member the next time they take place.
Illegal Seaborne Migration
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if he will prevent illegal seaborne migration across the short straits of the English channel.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The English channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Every crossing attempted by migrants, often in unsuitable and very small boats, is life-threatening for those on board. These attempts not only represent a hazard to other vessels but threaten the safety of the Border Force, coastguard and lifeboat crews who come to their rescue. The Government are committed to preventing migrant crossings in small boats. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary declared a major incident in December last year, and our heightened response remains in place.
In January, the Home Secretary met his counterpart Monsieur Castaner and agreed a joint action plan to tackle seaborne arrivals. He will be speaking to him again later this week. The joint action plan builds on the extensive work we have undertaken in partnership with France over the past few years, including under the 2018 Sandhurst treaty. It demonstrates the strength and depth of our bilateral relationship and both countries’ enduring determination to secure our shared border and prevent illegal migration through France. Through measures such as increased surveillance and co-ordination of our joint response via the joint information centre, the plan enhances our robust border security.
The solution is not all about increased surveillance in the UK but also about preventing vessels from leaving France in the first place. We have recently delivered drones and other surveillance equipment to France, enabling its law enforcement officers to intercept and disrupt attempted crossings. We continue to look at a range of tactical options that work on both land and sea. Those attempting to cross should be aware that their efforts will be in vain. Since January, more than 30 people who arrived illegally in the UK in small boats have been returned to France and other member states under the Dublin regulation. We have many more in the pipeline for return.
Finally, we are tackling the organised crime gangs who are exploiting vulnerable and desperate individuals. Only yesterday, a French court sentenced two men to prison for helping migrants to make the treacherous journey across the channel. The summer months and settled weather will present us with further challenges, but we will continue to work co-operatively with France to secure our borders and seek to prevent further crossings from taking place.
Mr Hollobone
Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this urgent question and the Minister for her response.
In December 2018, the Home Secretary declared a major incident and said that countering this illegal migration would be an operational priority for the Home Office. That was in response to 40 illegal migrants who were picked up on Christmas day crossing the short straits. The Home Secretary had to rush back from his Christmas holiday to try to deal with the crisis. Despite what the Minister says, the problem is getting not better, but worse. At the end of May, 74 people—a record number—were intercepted on one day in a record number of boats. Some 140 migrants were picked up in the month of May, the highest number since December. I have no doubt that the Government say that this is an important issue and that they want to tackle it. In a Westminster Hall debate that I held on 30 January, the Minister responded that
“we have an absolute duty to protect the border and stop organised crime gangs exploiting vulnerable individuals who want to come here by sending them through the busiest shipping lane in the world. That is why we must stop this incredibly dangerous route becoming the new normal for those wanting to enter the UK illegally.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 424WH.]
The police have said that trying to cross the short straits is like trying to
“cross the M25 at rush-hour on foot”.
It is incredibly dangerous for the families and children involved. We must be able to defend our coastline from this illegal immigration.
We are spending some €50 million—we are giving that amount to the French Government—to try to stamp out this migration flow, but it is not working. In 2018, 543 illegal migrants attempted to cross to this country from France. There were 438 in the three months from October to December. Eighty per cent. of them are Iranian, and apart from Germany, we are the biggest recipient of asylum claims from Iran of any EU country. The way to solve the problem is not to throw money at the French, but simply to take these people back to France when they are intercepted at sea. That will stop them attempting the crossing in the first place. If they know that they cannot come here and that they will be taken back to French ports, it will put an end to the horrible trade of human trafficking, which is driving this illegal activity.
The Government have, I am afraid, introduced largely cosmetic measures to show that we are trying to tackle this problem. We have had the Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel, HMS Mersey, bobbing around in the channel while Border Force cutters were being returned from the Mediterranean. Not one asylum seeker was intercepted by the Royal Navy, despite the best efforts of all the sailors. I have huge praise for all the men and women in the Border Force, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the coastguard and the Royal Navy, who have been doing their best, but the way to solve the problem is for the Government to take a strategic decision that once these people are intercepted at sea they are returned to France. If they make it to our coast, they should be returned under the Dublin regulations. Returning 30 of these poor individuals is simply not enough when over 500 are coming here during any one-year period. Indeed, 35,000 people claim asylum each year and we have returned only 1,186 since 2015. Will the Minister assure the House that we will have not just warm words, but effective action and a change of policy to send these people back to France?
Caroline Nokes
I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but this might be a somewhat lengthy response. I reassure my hon. Friend that gold command still meets on a weekly basis and continues to do so, because we have always been conscious that the summer months may well bring better weather that would further incentivise people to make what is an incredibly risky journey.
My hon. Friend talked about Dublin returns, but I am very conscious that in many cases, these people have fallen prey to organised crime gangs. Their journey through Europe is incredibly rapid. There is very little evidence of them being in any camps around the Calais area before they seek to make a crossing, and there is simply no hit on the Eurodac system to demonstrate that they have been in another EU country before they arrive here. Under those circumstances, one cannot use the Dublin regulation to return them because they have simply not been recorded in another EU member state. More returns are in the pipeline—there have been 30 so far. We continue to work with not just EU member states but countries of origin to make sure that we can make progress in returning people to their home country.
My hon. Friend said that surveillance equipment and resources provided to the French were not doing the job and were cosmetic, but far from it. We have provided significant surveillance equipment, including drones, night vision goggles and high-powered wharf lights, to enable the French to redouble their efforts on the beaches. It is important to reflect that the coastline is very long—120 km—and has many sandy beaches and small tracks that enable vehicular access.
The French disrupt about 40% of attempted crossings before they leave the beaches, which is absolutely where the disruption should be taking place; it should not be taking place in the middle of the channel, which is incredibly hazardous for the lifeboat crews, the Border Force cutters, the coastguard and the migrants themselves, who put themselves at incredible risk. We will continue to use our best endeavours to deny the crossings the opportunity to launch, because once they are mid-channel, it must be about preserving life. I do not want to see in the English channel repeats of the scenes in the Aegean, where people have lost their lives in significant numbers, so I make no apologies for making sure that the efforts in the channel are about rescue.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I query the framing of the urgent question, which talks about “illegal seaborne migration”. We cannot know whether these people are genuine refugees until we have had the opportunity to examine their cases. I am glad the Minister mentioned the risk to life in the busiest sea lane in the world. We all agree that it is tragic that these men and women are the victims of organised crime and people traffickers. I have visited Calais, and although many of these people do not come directly from there, the people one meets in and around Calais are hugely exploited and vulnerable, and Members should show a bit more concern for the risk to life and the vulnerability of these persons.
We need to be careful not to be unduly alarmist. We are not being invaded. There is no comparison to D-day, or whatever flights of imagination some of our media resort to. When the issue of asylum seekers crossing the channel last arose, back in February, the Home Secretary was roundly criticised for his comments. He questioned whether the people apprehended were genuine refugees, and he added:
“If you somehow do make it to the UK, we will do everything we can to make sure you are ultimately not successful because we need to break the link”.
That is not correct. It does not conform to international law. As I said, no one can possibly know whether every one of these cases is not a genuine claim for asylum. That decision must await the application itself and its examination. What the Home Secretary should have said is that we will do everything to uphold the law, and that means not making assumptions about the people crossing the channel but examining all applications impartially, granting asylum where it is justified and denying it where it is not. Each application must be judged on its individual merit, irrespective of how that person reached this country. That is the law. As I said, I query the framing of the urgent question. The Minister seemed to accept it. Does she accept that she cannot be sure—that no one in the Chamber can be sure—whether the people arriving here are doing so illegally until their cases have been examined?
On the wider issue of migration and asylum seekers, commentators and some Members appear to believe that more naval patrols can resolve the issue. That has been tried and has failed spectacularly and tragically. The mere existence of a naval patrol will not deter desperate people. According to the Missing Migrants Project, there have been 543 deaths in the Mediterranean this year alone. A maritime policing approach—let alone just turning back people who might be in British waters—does not work. It is a stain on our humanity and is shameful.
I am sure that the majority of Members understand that these deaths are terrible and unacceptable and that we should do everything we can to reduce their number. The Opposition support the right policies—the legal policies: policies that work, preserve our humanity and uphold human dignity, wherever people are from and however they came to this country. We have long supported the policy that works: the establishment of legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees. This is what all responsible stakeholders propose and meets our obligations under international law. We cannot assume that because of the way in which someone enters the country, that person is necessarily an illegal migrant. We should not dismiss the risk to the lives of people who, as I have said, are crossing one of the busiest sea channels in the world. We want to arrive at a sustainable solution that does not involve suspicion of people because of the way in which they cross the channel, and that means each case is dealt with on its merits.
This is a difficult situation, not least for the people who are so frightened, so desperate and so exploited that they seek to make the crossing in unseaworthy craft. However, we do not want to hear more reactionary grandstanding.
Caroline Nokes
I hope the right hon. Lady is content that she has not heard reactionary grandstanding from me this afternoon, and that I have sought to focus on the efforts that are being made to save the lives of—she used this term herself—exceptionally vulnerable people, who are vulnerable before they take to the water in small and unsuitable craft, and much more vulnerable once they are in the midst of a very busy shipping lane. I hope I can reassure her that members of this cohort are treated no differently from others on receipt of their asylum claims. We study them in relation to our convention obligations under the human rights charter and, of course, EU regulations and directives.
When we have ascertained that Eurodac hits show that people have previously claimed asylum in another country, we will, of course, seek to return them under the Dublin regulation. As I have said, there have been 30 such cases so far, and there are many more in the pipeline. But the important point, which the right hon. Lady also emphasised, is that these are people in a vulnerable position, and it is absolutely our duty under maritime law to ensure that they are safe at sea.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My constituents on the Dover frontline are seeing what was a crisis at Christmas turn into a surge through the summer. We cannot have a summer of chaos on the English channel. May I call on the Minister, and all Home Office Ministers, not simply to pick up the phone to the French and Mr Castaner, but to have a meeting with their counterparts in France and enter into a new compact that will establish the measures we need to ensure the security of the border on both sides of the English channel, and to bring this crisis to an end?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Secretary met Mr Castaner earlier this year. Indeed, I accompanied him back to Calais to visit the joint co-ordination centre. There are ongoing weekly meetings between Border Force officials and the police aux frontières, and with the regional préfet and sous-préfet, to discuss precisely this issue. However, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is about the border on both sides of the channel. It is much more effective to prevent a small craft from leaving the beach and thereby not risking life and limb than to seek to turn anything around in mid-channel. It is crucial for us to understand the implications of rescue operations in the middle of the channel. There are often children in those boats, and tactics are often deployed to ensure that the migrants are vulnerable. How despicable is it that they are being exploited by organised crime gangs who deliberately put children in those boats? It is far safer and much more desirable for us to prevent the launch of those boats than to take action at sea.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It has been good to hear the Minister acknowledge the vulnerability of many of the people who are making this dangerous crossing, and separate the victims of the traffickers from the traffickers themselves. Many of the people who make the dangerous journey across the channel have survived war, conflict and persecution in countries such as Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Eritrea, so we are dealing with vulnerable adults as well as vulnerable children.
However, it is also important to acknowledge that the number of people trying to reach the United Kingdom by boat is lower than the numbers in 2015 and 2016. To describe this as a crisis, or a major incident, risks creating the perception that the UK is overflowing with people claiming asylum, when the figures show that in the year ending September 2018, Germany, Italy and France all received twice as many asylum applications as the UK.
I echo the shadow Home Secretary’s comments: asylum and claiming asylum is a right, and asylum claims should not be prejudged. The 1951 refugee convention states that neither how people arrive in the country in which they claim asylum nor how many safe countries they have passed through should affect the outcome of their claim, so I look to the Minister for assurance that everyone who arrives, even by these reprehensible methods, is given the proper opportunity to claim asylum if that is appropriate and that due process has been followed.
The best way to address the risk of people making these dangerous journeys is to expand safe and legal routes such as family reunion and to bolster existing resettlement programmes. The resettlement programme introduced after the Syrian refugee crisis saved thousands of lives. I commend the UK Government for that, but we need to see it continue. Will the Minister commit to expanding the programme after 2020?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. and learned Lady is right to point out that many of these people are the victims of organised crime gangs, but I would like to expand on one point, because they are not simply fleeing war. In many cases they are, as we know from the figures, Iranian nationals, who may have paid many thousands of pounds to make that journey and have done so putting themselves, and in some cases their families, at risk of falling prey to the very reprehensible tactics, as the hon. and learned Lady described them, of the organised crime gangs who make them vulnerable by choosing this route.
The hon. and learned Lady is right to point out that the figures are lower than at the height of the migrant crisis in 2015, but that does not mean I am complacent in any way, because we do not wish to see the numbers go back to those levels. It is imperative that we seek to ensure our action with the French prevents people from making these perilous journeys.
I reassure the hon. and learned Lady that due process is followed in every case, but, as she will have heard me say, in those cases where there is a previous asylum claim in another EU member state we will seek to return people to those countries.
On the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, the hon. and learned Lady will know that we are on course to meet the 20,000 commitment by the end of 2020 and indeed have so far resettled over 15,000 individuals from the MENA—middle east and north Africa—region.
The hon. and learned Lady speaks about an issue that is a particular passion of mine, and having put in place the processes and structures that have enabled us to take part in the VPRS, working with local authorities and NGOs and various other agencies, I believe it is important that we maintain that commitment. It is wrong in my view to be a world leader in resettlement and to seek to pull back from that, but I am afraid the hon. and learned Lady will have to wait for an announcement, which I am sure will not be too distant.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The safety and security of the Kent coast is of tremendous concern to my constituents as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). The Minister is absolutely right: co-operation with the French authorities, which has been carrying on for years, is the key to minimising the terrible trade. Will she reassure me and my constituents that the British Government’s efforts to fight the organised crime gangs that facilitate this terrible trade are being ever-increased, because that is the most effective thing the British Government can do to minimise this dangerous traffic?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question, and I have indeed noticed that there is much interest from Kent MPs this afternoon. He is absolutely right to talk about the levels of investigation and shared intelligence with the French. To date, 14 French investigations have been instigated directly in response to National Crime Agency intelligence, and we have sought to enhance existing French intelligence.
Between them, Immigration Enforcement and the NCA have made 24 arrests in relation to the small boats threat, and there are ongoing inquiries into five persons of interest from the incidents on Saturday. As I mentioned earlier, there was one conviction and imprisonment yesterday in France and we absolutely must make sure we keep up our intelligence-sharing and criminal investigations to see off these crime gangs at the outset.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome what I think the Minister was saying about wanting to continue the resettlement programmes. The Home Office is right to want to prevent dangerous journeys across the channel, where lives can be at risk. The Home Office made a big announcement about the deployment of HMS Mersey and HMS Enterprise to the channel, but can the Minister confirm that neither of those vessels was involved in leading any interceptions while they were deployed? Is it correct that the deployment cost the Home Office nearly £1 million? Does she agree that it is important that these measures should be evidence-based and not simply about being able to make big announcements?
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we should not seek just to make big announcements, which is why I am not making a big announcement on resettlement today, although I could have been tempted to do so by the previous question. I have always made my position clear, and I have worked closely with non-governmental organisations and Ministers across Government on resettlement. I am conscious that we should be proud of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, on which we have done, and continue to do, some fantastic work. It is important that we keep our commitment to resettling the most vulnerable individuals from very difficult parts of the world.
On the deployment in the channel, it is a matter of record that we had to bring cutters back from the Aegean. It was important to have a presence in the channel during the intervening period offering coverage in case there was an horrendous incident in which lives were in peril. It was better to have capacity in the shape of a Royal Navy ship than to have nothing. The Home Secretary made it clear that we should make the preservation of life and limb our priority and have the resources in place to rescue people if needed. We should be incredibly thankful that there was no such requirement while the Royal Navy was there in the channel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
It is very good of you to notice that, Mr Speaker. I look forward to watching Tottenham on Wednesday nights next season, whereas you, Sir, will have to watch Arsenal on Thursday nights because, as the chant goes, you’re not very good.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the involvement of the Kent lifeboats, especially the Dover lifeboat, in responding to illegal migration crossings. The crews are mainly made up of volunteers and have been called out on many occasions. Our lifeboats are funded almost exclusively by donations, so these crossings will have impacted on vital funding within the charity. Will she consider requesting extra funding from the Treasury to compensate the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for this particular aspect of its important work of saving lives at sea?
Caroline Nokes
As my hon. Friend knows, I had a really informative visit to the Dover lifeboat over the Christmas period, and it was absolutely at the forefront of understanding the channel, the risks and the crossing patterns that were emerging at the time. I was very impressed by the commitment shown by the brave men and women who crew the Dover lifeboat. She makes a valid point, and I would be absolutely delighted to put that request to the Chancellor, although of course I cannot make any commitments. It is important that we not only thank our lifeboat crews, and I would be happy to make that request to the Chancellor.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Can the Minister categorically confirm that no one who could make a claim for asylum is being sent back to France under the so-called gentleman’s agreement that allows for migrants to be returned within a 24-hour period?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure the hon. Lady that this cohort is being treated no differently from any other.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I cannot be expected to call two Tottenham fans in a row, so I call Huw Merriman.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is always better to go for the Arsenal fan on that basis, Mr Speaker.
It is very much with the vulnerable people in mind that I ask this question of the Minister. Will she ensure that she continues to apply the full force of the law? If we send out the wrong signal to people that they can make this perilous journey, I am afraid that more and more of them will lose their lives and be taken advantage of by despicable people. I say that because I represent an East Sussex English channel constituency, and I am afraid that we will be left to deal with the aftermath.
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As I mentioned earlier, Immigration Enforcement and the National Crime Agency have made a total of 24 arrests in relation to the small boats threat. It is imperative that we continue to keep up the pressure on organised crime gangs, but he is right to point out that the individuals who make the perilous crossings are, in many cases, both vulnerable and the victims of those gangs. It is important to treat them properly and to ensure that they are safe, but this has to be about disrupting organised crime, because that is where the real threat lies.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for her emphasis on safety and preventing harm and loss of life and to hear that an announcement is imminent about the expansion, or something, of resettlement. However, returning to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), although the Minister said that people are being treated exactly the same, that is not quite the full answer that I and, I think, my hon. Friend were hoping for, so I will give her one more chance: is she absolutely sure that everyone who was entitled to apply for asylum was offered that chance?
Caroline Nokes
We will seek to return those who have registered on Eurodac because they have previously claimed asylum in a safe country. However, it is my understanding that everybody else who seeks to make an asylum claim will be treated absolutely the same as anyone else who applies for asylum in the UK. I am unaware of anybody who wanted to make a claim being prevented from doing so and returned, but it is right that if someone has previously made an asylum claim in a safe country we will seek to return them.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As the Minister responsible for deploying the Royal Navy off the Libyan coast during Operation Sophia, I am surprised that the crews of HMS Enterprise and HMS Mersey were not able to pick up these people. They may not have been drowning, but the crews have great expertise in dealing with such situations from previous operations. Were they instructed not to intercept unless there was a crisis? What operational orders were given to the Royal Navy?
Caroline Nokes
While Royal Navy vessels were in the channel, it is important to state that Border Force’s coastal patrol vessels and our cutters were also deployed. Although I cannot comment on the operational instructions given to Royal Navy vessels, we should be grateful that there was no loss of life or limb and that they were not needed to rescue people. Several coastal patrol vessels were in the vicinity while the Royal Navy vessels were there, and several are there now.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the development of a hostile environment in Britain pushes people towards criminals, meaning that they cannot get access to services here? The same is true across the channel in France. If we do not provide people with legal means of coming here through managed migration, that pushes them towards criminals. We need to open up better routes for people, so that they are not forced into the hands of criminals.
Caroline Nokes
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed me talking about the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which has so far resettled in excess of 15,000 people from the middle east and north Africa region. However, he is right to point out that managed routes such as that are far better than making perilous journeys across the channel.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Why has the number of criminal deportations collapsed?
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend will know that we always seek to deport foreign national offenders when possible. Our emphasis continues to be on returns and on ensuring that those who have served criminal sentences in the UK are deported when possible. That is not always the case, so this is about having returns agreements with other countries and ensuring that travel documents are available. However, it is our ambition, under the UK Borders Act 2007, to ensure that foreign national offenders are deported to their country of origin upon the completion of their sentence.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I certainly give a provisional welcome to what the Minister said about the possibility of extending the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, but we will wait to see exactly what is proposed. This is about safe, legal routes, so that people do not have to resort to smugglers if they are coming to the UK for legitimate reasons. Why are so many children having to wait many months in Calais to be transferred under the Dublin III scheme? Why is the Dubs scheme being wound down despite the fact that local authorities are saying that many places are still available for such vulnerable children?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Dubs scheme is not being wound down and that transfers continue. He will be aware that we have removed the date criteria, and we continue to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the best interest test to make sure that we can fulfil our commitment under the Dubs scheme.
The hon. Gentleman might also be aware that, at the end of May—I apologise for not having the precise date —we increased unaccompanied asylum-seeking children funding to £114 per child per night. We have worked tirelessly with the Local Government Association to encourage those who are not taking part in the national transfer scheme to do so, so that we can continue to make progress and fulfil our Dubs commitment.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is good to hear the Minister accept that the best way to prevent refugees from taking these dangerous crossings is to provide safe, legal routes to sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. Going back to the Dubs amendment, the Government promised two years ago to provide a scheme for 480 unaccompanied refugee children. When will that promise be delivered?
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at the beginning of last year, we changed the qualifying date for Dubs children in an endeavour to make sure that we could meet the 480 commitment. We have now removed the qualifying date altogether so that any child who qualifies and meets the UNHCR best interest test can be transferred under the Dubs agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman will have just heard me say that we have increased funding to local authorities, and I continue to encourage individual Members to contact their local authorities to encourage them to work under the NTS to take additional unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
We have 4,500 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in this country, and it is important that we continue to work with our colleagues both in local government and in the wider community to make sure that we meet that commitment. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to talk to his local council to see whether it can add to the UAS children it already takes.
National Minimum Wage Naming Scheme
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on the suspension of the national minimum wage naming scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
Enforcement of the national minimum wage and the national living wage is a priority for the Government, and we take tough action against the minority of employers who underpay. Last year, employers were ordered to repay over 220,000 UK workers a record £24.4 million of arrears. We have more than doubled the budget for minimum wage compliance and enforcement since 2015, and it is now at a record high of £27.4 million.
As part of our enforcement approach, we name employers who have breached the legislation, which raises awareness of national minimum wage enforcement and deters others who may be tempted to break the law. To date, the Government have named almost 2,000 employers who have underpaid the national minimum wage. The Government are reviewing the naming scheme to ensure that it continues effectively to support minimum wage compliance. This is in response to a recommendation made by the director of labour market enforcement, Professor Sir David Metcalf, last year.
In December 2018 we accepted both of the director’s recommendations relating to the naming scheme, specifically to review the scheme’s effectiveness and to consider how to provide further information under the scheme in future. The Government have sought to learn from other naming schemes and other regulatory approaches. We have also discussed the evidence with the director of labour market enforcement and have conducted further analysis to understand the impact that any changes to the scheme would have on the number of employers named.
Naming and shaming remains an important part of our enforcement toolkit, and the review will be concluded in the coming weeks. Any changes to the scheme will be communicated through the national minimum wage enforcement policy documents.
Stephanie Peacock
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which finally forces a Minister to admit to the House that the Government have quietly dropped one of the few policies they had to protect vulnerable workers. The naming scheme had exposed nearly 2,000 employers who illegally underpaid nearly 100,000 workers by millions of pounds, including household names from TGI Fridays to Marriott hotels, but the last such list was almost a year ago.
As we now know, the Government have privately decided to suspend the scheme, despite the Department’s official guidelines maintaining that the scheme still operates. The Minister claims this was based on a recommendation of the director of labour market enforcement, made over a year ago, yet the director made no such recommendation to suspend the scheme; he simply called for an evaluation and specific improvements. The Government accepted those recommendations, so why have they not simply implemented them and continued with the scheme in the meantime? Can the Minister confirm that as this review has “no set completion date”, this policy has been effectively halted? Can she tell us what progress the review has made in the last year? What evidence has it taken, what research has been commissioned, what work has her Department done, and what proposals will come to the House and when? Or is the so-called review in reality just an excuse to let bad employers off the hook?
This is the latest in a long list of policies that would help working people, from fair tips to equality for agency workers, that have been delayed or dropped by the Government. Time and again, they crack down on the vulnerable and back down before the powerful. When will this capitulation to rogue employers over working people finally end?
Kelly Tolhurst
I have to say that the hon. Lady is incorrect: the scheme has not been dropped. Given the impact that being named can have on a business, it is right that we properly consider the effectiveness of the naming scheme. We want to make sure that our enforcement approach balances the need to crack down on the most terrible employers, who purposely and persistently break the law, with the need to be fair to and educate employers who try to do the right thing.
We are in no way going soft on employers. Last year, we issued record financial penalties to more than 1,000 non-compliant employers to the value of £17 million. That was part of our commitment to support workers’ rights. Our good work plan sets out a vision for the future of the UK labour market and includes an ambitious programme of work to implement 51 of the 53 recommendations Matthew Taylor made in his review of modern working practice.
I must point out, however, that it was this Government who gave the lowest paid workers the biggest increase in the national living wage in 20 years.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I was reading the report from the Resolution Foundation, an independent organisation, and it says that the proportion of low-paid workers in Britain has dropped to its lowest level since the 1980s, thanks to the national living wage. Why on earth would we not name and shame employers if they were not complying with such an important part of the Government’s policy?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for outlining that piece of work. It is right that naming and shaming rogue employers is a key part of our enforcement. We have doubled the budget since 2015 for enforcement of the national minimum wage, and one of the key things that I am particularly interested in is making sure that we go after those individual employers or big organisations that are deliberately trying not to pay workers the minimum wage.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for securing this important urgent question. One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government was the introduction of the national minimum wage, safeguarding workers from exploitative pay practices. Sadly, from the Trade Union Act 2016 to their failure to address exploitation through zero-hours contracts or bogus self-employment, this Conservative Government cannot be proud of their record on workers’ rights. The admission today that the naming and shaming scheme has been effectively shelved only adds to that woeful record.
The national minimum wage is effective only if it is adequately enforced. The Government have stated that the naming and shaming element of minimum wage enforcement is vital, alongside other measures such as fines. Has the Minister made any assessment of the impact of the scheme’s suspension on minimum wage avoidance in the last year? Has the Department continued to identify those employers underpaying during that period, and what action has been taken?
The Minister will also be aware that the director of labour market enforcement also criticised the Government not so long ago in respect of their utilisation of the enforcement mechanisms available to them. The director also asked about additional resource, so it would be helpful if the Minister could identify what funding has been made available to enhance enforcement capacity at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Not only is enforcement of the minimum wage important, but the level at which it is set is crucial. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that poverty is a figment of our imagination, but the fact is that in 2017 more than 1.5 million people had less than £10 a day to live on, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Labour is committed to ending the scourge of low pay. We will introduce a real living wage of £10 an hour and end the unfairness of lower rates for those under 18. Will the Minister take this opportunity to improve her Government’s record on poverty and workers’ rights and commit to doing the same?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady says that the Government have nothing to be proud of, but I am absolutely proud to serve in a Government who have put so much focus on enforcing the national minimum wage. As I have already mentioned, this year we increased the national minimum wage by the biggest amount in 20 years, up 4.9%.
It is simply not true to say that we have shelved the naming and shaming scheme. It is absolutely right for me, as the Minister responsible, to evaluate the scheme and make sure that any naming and shaming scheme is meaningful, adds value, acts as a tool to aid employers to make sure that they are able to comply with the national minimum wage legislation, and enables us effectively to communicate exactly what the breaches are and why, and the detriment to the individual worker. We remain absolutely determined to stamp out low pay.
We currently have larger numbers of people in work than ever before, and it is absolutely right that those individuals should get the hourly rates to which they are entitled. As I said in my opening remarks, we doubled the enforcement budget to £27.4 million in 2019-20. That was up from £13.2 million in 2015-16. We are committed to continuing that enforcement. I will not make excuses for reviewing the naming and shaming scheme, because we want to add value and make it more effective, and we want to make sure that we aid employers, help workers to understand their rights and offer routes to recourse.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I entirely agree with the Minister: I, too, am proud of the record that has meant £2,750 more has been put into the pockets of my Redditch constituents since the introduction of the living wage. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards having a single organisation that looks after workers’ rights, which will be valuable in the seeking of redress?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is absolutely correct that in our good work plan we announced our intention to consult on a single labour market enforcement body. Our good work plan was a major step forward for the Government. I should point out to Opposition Members that the good work plan is the biggest reformation of workers’ rights for 20 years. It is this Government who are doing it and I am proud to be part of it.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Government’s wage policy simply is not delivering for those who need it. Under the Tories, FTSE 100 chief executive pay has gone up by two thirds; when will the Minister finally deliver for those who are not rich and match the Scottish living wage? Incidentally, the Scottish living wage is now paid by 1,300 employers in Scotland—more than a quarter of all the living wage employers in the UK. Outside London, that means a wage of £9.55 an hour paid to all workers, including those aged under 25 whom the Tories have left behind. If the Minister cannot commit to that, she should devolve powers so that the SNP Scottish Government can. Given that nearly 370,000 workers on national minimum wage contracts are being underpaid, will she commit to implementing in full the recommendations in the Low Pay Commission’s report on non-compliance and enforcement, including on naming rounds for those who do not comply?
Kelly Tolhurst
First, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are not dropping the naming and shaming scheme. He was right to mention corporate governance and the issues around executive pay, which this Government take seriously and we are taking steps to address. He will know that the Low Pay Commission recommends national minimum wage levels to the Government. He mentioned the under-25s, but let me point out to him that almost nine in every 10 18 to 24-year-olds are paid above their wage bracket.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
My constituency is one of the top 10 constituencies with the highest proportion of workers on the national living wage, so I welcome the fact that we have increased that wage by another £600 thanks to our excellent Chancellor and his Budget. I know that the Minister has come here to help the lowest paid make something of themselves, but may I say to her that it is essential that we make sure that employers do not get away with non-compliance, because it is unfair to other employers and to the employees who will not be protected. She is right to review the scheme, and she is taking great steps, but I urge her to keep the name and shame policy because there is no better way of shaming people into compliance.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will investigate any complaint that it receives about underpayment of the national minimum wage. We also have ACAS, which provides a helpline for individuals who feel that they are not being paid the national minimum wage. Naming and shaming is part of our toolkit of enforcement, but, as I have said, it is only one tool. I want to make sure that when we name and shame organisations, we understand what the detriment is and how much the detriment is. We need to make sure that, when we report these companies, we are reporting not just big names to grab a headline, but meaningful information that helps to advise and educate employers and, really importantly, educates workers so that they understand that, where there is a detriment, they can take action.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
With record numbers of people struggling with in-work poverty, this Government should be doing everything they can to reverse this shameful record. Instead, they are removing schemes that expose exploitative employers. Will the Minister think again and not only reinstate the national minimum wage naming scheme, but use the scheme to enforce the law? Will she also provide a date by which she intends to complete the review?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady knows that I have a great deal of respect for her, but she has not listened to what I have said. We have not dropped the naming and shaming scheme. I want a scheme that is valuable and meaningful, that aids compliance and enables workers to get their entitlement, and that makes sure that employers follow the law. I want to focus on enforcement, absolutely making sure that we penalise and reprimand any employer that is underpaying workers who are entitled to the minimum wage. Since the start of the scheme, we have seen 12 prosecutions. Last year alone, there were seven labour market enforcement undertakings and orders where the national minimum wage had been breached. I am committed to this scheme; this Government are committed to this scheme. We have a record number of people in work, and, this year, this Government have overseen the largest increase in the national minimum wage.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that it remains Government policy to increase the national living wage to 60% of median earnings by 2020? If that does remain the case, will that not mean an extra pay rise for millions of workers?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We remain on target to reach our ambition of 60% of median earnings by 2020. That is something that this Government are looking forward to achieving. We are not stopping there. We are looking forward to seeing where we can continue to increase the wages for our lowest paid workers past 2020.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Naming and shaming employers who fail to pay even the basic minimum is one of the strongest ways that society can send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable. The Minister talks about the impact on employers of being named, but I am more concerned about the impact on workers who are underpaid—some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Whether it is deliberate or otherwise, they feel that impact. I recall the opposition that I had to face from the Minister’s Conservative colleagues when I was in her role and introduced this scheme. Will she give the House an assurance today that the review will include no watering down of the scheme to let employers off the hook, and will she name the date when the next round of naming will happen?
Kelly Tolhurst
Given the hon. Lady’s previous role, I know that she understands well the portfolio, and the naming and shaming system. I reiterate that we have not dropped the naming and shaming scheme. I have tried to be extremely clear that I want the naming and shaming scheme to be meaningful, add value and give us proper information so that we can understand where there is detriment to workers and why. We will still name individuals, but I want employers to comply with the law and workers to get what they are owed. That is not just about naming and shaming; it is also about ensuring that the information that we are publish aids education and helps to stop any detriment to employees. Not all employers are wilfully paying under the national minimum wage, and we have a duty to educate businesses so that they are easily able to comply with the law.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Why was it necessary for the Minister to suspend the scheme while she reviewed it to make it more meaningful and useful?
Kelly Tolhurst
I decided to do that because I wanted to ensure that I was naming and shaming with meaningful information. I will not make excuses for making sure that we are delivering and reviewing a policy, or for carrying out what the director of labour market enforcement asked us to do.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
So can the Minister confirm that those sleazebag employers who rip off the lowest paid in our country are actually going to be named and shamed for the last 12 months?
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Naming and shaming is one tool, but does the Minister agree that one of the most powerful tools to increase incomes is to reduce the amount of tax paid by people on low pay? Like me, does she take pride in the fact that instead of people having to pay tax on earnings of above around £6,000, as was the case in 2010, the figure is now closer to £12,000—adding hundreds of pounds to people’s incomes?
Kelly Tolhurst
Absolutely, and this Government have made great ground in that regard. This is not about grabbing headlines. It is about ensuring that workers get the pay to which they are entitled, which is why we have doubled the enforcement budget and are collecting more arrears than ever before. There were more than 3,000 successful investigations by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the last year alone. I want that budget to be spent effectively on catching more employers who are underpaying the minimum wage.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is all well and fine for the Minister to say that some under-25s are paid more than they are legally entitled to receive, but that gives no reassurance to those who are not. May I suggest that she adds to her naming and shaming scheme employers who employ young people on short-term, temporary contracts and then dismiss them when they cost more money?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady raises an issue regarding the incorrect practice of employers. As I have said, HMRC will investigate every complaint and ACAS is available to receive those complaints. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to undertake a review of the structure of the national minimum wage, and it will report back later in the year. We encourage employers always to pay above the minimum wage brackets if they are able to do so.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the Government are taking tough enforcement action against employers who fail to pay the minimum wage, but between 2010 and 2018 in Wales there has not been a single successful prosecution resulting in a fine against employers for underpaying. This is not tough enforcement; it is impunity.
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady raises prosecutions as the only way of action or enforcement, but that is not true. I have said that since 1999 over £118 million has been paid back—to over 200,000 workers in 2019, so in just one year. It is true that there have been only 14 prosecutions. However, organisations are required to pay back the arrears, and pay a penalty, wherever a breach is found. I would like to highlight the fact that the Government have recently been consulting on salary sacrifice schemes. There have been examples in the media of workers being found to have a detriment through salary sacrifice schemes. This has been a key area in employers being caught under the national minimum wage legislation.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the pay discrepancy among cleaners in Whitehall? The Department for International Development pays the London living wage but the Ministry of Justice, which should be seeking justice, pays the national minimum wage. What does she intend to do about it?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point about the differences between Departments. I do not personally have the details of that and I have not looked into it, but I will happily do so, and I am more than happy to write to her with a fuller answer.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Last time I spoke to the Minister about the use of unpaid work trials and the minimum wage, there had not been a single tribunal case anywhere in the UK in this regard that had been successful. Since that time, there has, but it was in Jersey, where a Polish woman took on her employer and won back the £30 that the tribunal said she was entitled to for the trial. What impact will that have on UK employment law? In the 20-odd years of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 we have only just this year had one successful tribunal. Does that not tell her that the law is deficient and needs amending, and that unpaid work trials should be outlawed in their entirety?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman is a keen campaigner in the area of unpaid work trials. As I have said on many occasions, in most cases, unpaid work trials, if they are not a small trial that is conducive to the work environment, are illegal. On the back of his campaign and work that had been done before, we issued new guidance in December 2018. As I have said, where a worker feels that they have had a detriment, they are to report it to HMRC or ACAS. HMRC will investigate every complaint. We cannot just judge this issue on prosecutions. We need to judge it on where the detriment to the worker is, and then ensure that they get what is owed to them and that the employer is penalised.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the response that she has given. What discussion has taken place with the Chancellor with regard to help for small businesses who struggle to make the payroll, and have a presence on the high street, in order to provide tax relief or other help so that the local economy is helped and that small businesses can survive and pay a correct and fair wage?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of small businesses. It is absolutely true that small businesses are the backbone of our economy—99.6% of all UK businesses are small businesses, and is absolutely right that we are able to help them. A key part of that is making sure that, as the small business Minister, I make representations to the Chancellor and across Government on what small businesses need. The work that is being done on the review of naming and shaming is to make sure that when small employers find themselves in breach of the national minimum wage legislation, we are able to give them the right guidance and advice to enable them to meet their obligations. Many small employers want to make sure that they pay the national minimum wage, and above the national minimum wage. It is our duty not only to penalise but to aid and enable small businesses to meet their obligations.
Post-18 Education and Funding
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s review of post-18 education and its funding—the first review since the Robbins report in 1963 to look at the totality of post-18 education. The Government will carefully consider the independent panel’s recommendations before finalising our approach at the spending review.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the independent panel, led by Philip Augar, for their exceptional work. Alongside Dr Augar were Professor Sir Ivor Crewe, Jacqueline de Rojas CBE, Professor Edward Peck, Beverley Robinson OBE and Professor the Baroness Alison Wolf. The panel consulted a wide spectrum of experts, leaders and senior figures and received almost 400 responses to its call for evidence. I would like to thank all the stakeholders, including colleagues from across the House, who contributed to the review. We will continue to engage with stakeholders now that the independent panel phase is complete, as we work towards the completion of the review.
A lot of the attention will be on what this report says about higher education, but the majority of students in post-18 education are not at university. The report identifies the importance of both further and higher education in creating a system that unlocks everyone’s talents. As the Prime Minister said last week, further education and technical colleges are not just places of learning; they are vital engines of both social mobility and economic prosperity. Colleges play an essential part in delivering the modern industrial strategy and equipping young people with knowledge and skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow. We are conscious of the need for reskilling and upskilling at a time when we are all more likely to have multiple careers during our working lives.
We are already carrying out a major upgrade to technical and vocational education by introducing T-levels for young people and developing proposals to introduce employer-focused higher technical qualifications, at levels 4 and 5, which will provide high-quality technical qualifications to rival traditional academic options. We have also overhauled apprenticeships, to provide people with the skills and career paths they need for great jobs and great careers. But appropriate attention to our college sector—the backbone of technical education in this country—is required to ensure that technical education is an equally valid path for a young person as a degree route. The principles set out in this report will help lay the foundation for a sector that is stronger and more robust and will help cement its reputation as being among the best in the world.
Our higher education system transforms lives and is a great contributor to both our industrial success and the cultural life of the nation. It can open up a whole world of opportunities and broaden horizons. Whatever decisions we make about how best to take forward the recommendations in the report, it is vital that we support these institutions to continue to offer world-leading higher education to students in future.
The opportunity to study at university should be open to anyone with the talent and potential to benefit from the experience. Gaining a university degree has benefits for both individuals and society—or, in the jargon, both a private return and a social return. On average, doing a degree has strong earning returns, equating to more than £100,000 of extra lifetime earnings per graduate after tax, so we believe it is right that contributions to the cost of higher education need to be shared between the student and the taxpayer.
The scale of the Government subsidy today is in fact much larger than most people imagine—close to half of the total—and it is a progressive system, whereby those on the highest income contribute the most and those on incomes lower than £25,725 make no contribution. We believe it is essential that we provide the right support, to enable people from all backgrounds to access and, most importantly, succeed at university and other higher-level courses.
In 2018, we had record rates of 18-year-olds accepted to full-time university, up 0.4 percentage points to 33.7%. Students from the lowest-income households have access to the largest ever amount of cash support for their living costs. Already this year, we have increased living costs support for the 2019-20 academic year to a record amount.
However, although 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds are now 52% more likely to go to university than 10 years ago, there is more progress that we need to make. Disadvantaged students are still less likely than their more advantaged peers to attend the most selective universities, or to have the support they need to successfully complete their degree and to achieve a 2:1 or a first. The panel’s proposals on support for disadvantaged groups are an important contribution to the debate in this area.
I very much welcome the focus that the panel has placed on making sure that all higher education is of high quality and delivers well for both students and the taxpayer. There are very high-quality courses across the full range of subjects—from creative arts to medicine—but there are also courses where students are less well served. I have also spoken in recent months of bad practices not in the student interest, such as artificial grade inflation and so-called conditional unconditional offers.
The panel’s recommendations on student finance are detailed and interrelated, and cannot be considered each in isolation. We will need to look carefully at each recommendation in turn and in the round to reach a view on what will best support students and the institutions they study at, and what will ensure value for taxpayers. In considering these recommendations, we will also have regard to students currently in the system or about to enter it to ensure that any changes are fair to current and new cohorts of students.
I am sure the House will recognise that this comprehensive report, with detailed analysis and no fewer than 53 recommendations, gives the Government a lot to consider. We will continue to engage with stakeholders on the findings and recommendations in the panel report, and we will conclude the review at the spending review. However, I am clear that whatever route a student chooses and whatever their background, post-18 education should set them on a successful path for their future. With this vision, I strongly believe that both the higher education and further education sectors can and should continue to thrive together. I commend this statement to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement.
“Augar is the epitaph for Theresa May’s government…slow, wrong-headed, indecisive and, above all, failing in its central objective, to help level up Britain.”
This is not my verdict, but that of the Secretary of State’s Conservative predecessor; nor is it a reflection on the panel and all the recommendations it has put forward; it is a reflection on the Government on this Government.
Let us start with the obvious point: the Prime Minister has welcomed the report, but is powerless to implement it. Never have I seen a sight so pitiful as the Prime Minister lobbying her own Government. Are there any recommendations in the report that the Secretary of State has the power to adopt now or ever, or will every decision be deferred until the spending review or, perhaps more accurately, until the Conservative party has a new leader and presumably a new Chancellor?
As it stands, the Government have now wasted two years on a review to reach the blindingly obvious conclusion that, as the Prime Minister now admits, abolishing maintenance grants was a huge mistake. If only she could have done something about it. Can the Secretary of State at least assure the House that he wants them restored, and guarantee a decision in time for the next cohort of students? The review also proposes extending more maintenance support to lifelong learning across the board—a point that we would echo. Can he guarantee to consider that, and can he tell us whether it would apply to part-time students?
Decisions need to be made on funding. The outgoing Prime Minister promised that austerity is over, but there is every danger it will continue in tertiary education. Presumably, the Secretary of State accepts that a cash freeze in funding for universities means a real-terms cut. Is the tokenistic fee cut pushed by the Prime Minister not the worst of both worlds, as institutions will have their hands tied on funding while students will still be graduating with tens of thousands of pounds of debt? Is there any guarantee that universities will not simply be left to bear the burden of a cut to fees that mostly helps higher-earning, mostly male graduates at the expense of middle earners? Can he assure us that any such proposal will have an equality impact assessment?
Does the Secretary of State really want graduates to spend 40 years—almost all their working life—paying off their student debt? Is that what we want for our young people? What is the Secretary of State doing about interest rates that have increased, under his Government’s watch, to over 6% a year?
What are the implications for the devolved nations? How have they been considered? The Secretary of State spoke about the value of degrees. How will that value be assessed? How does he value, for example, courses that lead to vital public sector jobs that are, frankly, underpaid? Does our society as a whole not benefit from all of us having access to learning? Adult education is vital to our economy and society. Who will decide which courses qualify, and how far will the new funding go given the terrible toll of cuts to adult education since 2010?
The review, rightly, acknowledges as a central point the need to reinvest in further education and to integrate the whole system. Does the Secretary of State accept that the base rate funding cut to further education and funding 18-year-olds at a lower rate than 17-year-olds were both crucial mistakes? Underlying all those issues is the threat that instead of investing in the whole system, the Government will play universities and colleges off against each other—the very opposite of the collaboration and integration that is needed. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that he would not rob Peter to pay Paul by transferring resources, but would instead secure proper investment in both sectors? The report is a missed opportunity to re-examine the failures of the past decade’s free market experiment in education. Can the Secretary of State give us any reassurance that yet more college closures are not on the way?
There is much in the Augar review that is welcome, but its shortcomings go back to the limits that the Government placed upon it. The aspirations that both the panel and the Secretary of State expressed for our education system will always come up against the cold hard limits of the austerity that the Prime Minister once promised was over. Instead, it is the Prime Minister who is over.
Damian Hinds
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She asked a number of times whether I would guarantee to consider x, y or z, and I do absolutely guarantee to consider everything in the report. We will come forward with the conclusion of the review at the end of the year, at the spending review. That has always been the plan.
The hon. Lady asked about timing. If she cares to compare the timing of this review of post-18 education and its financing with that of the Diamond review in Wales, under the Labour Government there, she will find that it compares favourably. Regarding the devolved nations, I confirm that if there are any spending implications in the proposals we make at the conclusion of the review, and given that education is a devolved matter, funding for the devolved nations would apply in the normal way, including through the Barnett formula.
The hon. Lady asked me to commit to not playing off further education and higher education. I give her that absolute commitment. That principle is at the heart of the independent panel’s report: both routes of higher learning are essential for widening social mobility, for letting young people fulfil their full potential, and indeed for enabling our economy and our society to fulfil theirs.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we have a successful system in place, particularly for the financing of higher education. The hon. Lady and her Front-Bench colleagues constantly complain about it, but since the 2012 reforms, resource per student has increased dramatically, the living costs support available to disadvantaged students has risen to its highest ever level, more young people are going to university than ever before, and more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are going to university than ever before.
Look at the record of the Opposition. Labour vowed to cancel student debt and to make university free, sometimes appearing to forget that there is no such thing as free. We want a well funded higher education and further education sector in this country, and there are only two types of people who can pay for that: the people who benefit from it and the people who do not. Having made that vow, Labour backtracked on its pledge on student debt. No one will ever trust the Leader of the Opposition again on student fees. People know that talk is cheap, but paying the price of broken promises is not.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I welcome much of the report, particularly its strong emphasis on further education and technical education. Our Education Committee report talked about value for money in higher education and universities, focusing on skills, employability and social justice. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the real engine of those three things is using funds to boost and put more emphasis on degree apprenticeships? They help people from disadvantaged backgrounds to gain the skills they need, they help us to meet our skills needs and they ensure that people are employed in properly skilled jobs.
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend has been a consistent champion of apprenticeships—specifically, degree-level apprenticeships. I thank him and the Committee for their work on that, including the wider work he mentions on higher education. I confirm that I think degree-level apprenticeships play a very important role in our system.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Elements of the review should be welcomed. It is encouraging that the UK Government finally recognise the barrier that tuition fees can place in the way of a young person’s decision to go to university, but I suggest that the recommended reduction in fees is the bare minimum, rather than a meaningful reduction, for the young people who are considering this pathway. The Scottish Government will study the review’s recommendations carefully to examine the impact on the college and university sectors in Scotland.
UCAS figures currently show that the number of Scots winning a place at university, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is at a record high. That is a testament to the Scottish Government’s commitment to free education. I therefore welcome the recommendation that students from a low-income background in England will have maintenance grants reinstated, following the example set by the Scottish Government for low-income students.
The reduction in earnings threshold for repayment will hit those on a low income hardest. That, in addition to increasing the repayment time from 30 years to 40 years, will have far greater impact on low earners, who will have little hope of repaying early and will therefore accrue additional loan interest. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on lower earners of the earnings threshold reduction and longer loan repayments?
Universities have raised concerns that unless the income shortfall is made up by Government funding they will pay the financial penalty for these proposals. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will make up the funding shortfall?
Finally, the review was carried out at the request of a Prime Minister now serving her last week in power. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the proposals are to be considered now as firm Government policy, and that they will not be shelved once the Prime Minister departs and a new Tory leader takes over?
Damian Hinds
No, that is not correct. This is an independent panel report that feeds into the wider process of the Government’s review into post-18 education and its financing. As I said to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who speaks for the Opposition, we will of course consider very fully all the recommendations.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) asked about repayment thresholds. I might ask her why Scottish students are still waiting—and, I gather, will still be waiting until 2021—for the recommendation made by her independent review into repayment thresholds to be put in place. She talked about barriers to young people going into higher education. I am afraid that the reality is: in England, we have record numbers of people going into higher education. In Scotland, as a direct result of her policy, the number of university places remains capped, which limits the number of young people who can benefit from the opportunity of going to university. The impact of that is that the disadvantage gap, if we look at England, Scotland and Wales, is biggest of all in Scotland.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
The Augar review does not mention the teaching excellence framework. What use does the Secretary of State think the TEF will have in assessing which courses offer value for money for students and the general taxpayer?
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to pay tribute to all the work he did as universities Minister. The TEF is a very important reform and is part of the framework from HERA—the Higher Education and Research Act 2017—and the OFS that enables a much more holistic view of quality in higher education. It remains a central part of that architecture.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
A Government who abolished maintenance grants for our poorest students commission a review that concludes that we need maintenance grants for our poorest students. That same Government welcome the idea, led by a Prime Minister in her end of days as PM before it is all change for this Cabinet, so how will the Secretary of State make amends for this mess in time and see grants brought back and the best of Augar brought in? This is a ghost ship Government—if it ain’t Brexit, don’t fix it. They do not have a hope for themselves. How can they possibly be the hope for higher education colleges and our students?
Damian Hinds
I gently mention to the hon. Gentleman that in his work on the Education Committee he has had an opportunity to look at the variety of what is available in our higher education system, much of which is of the very highest quality and competes with the best in the world. We also need to make sure that everybody is getting good access to that very high quality, that participation in university is widely spread through our society and that we concentrate not just on access to higher education, but on access and successful participation. We need to work more on all those things, but it remains the case that under this Government more young people than ever before have had the opportunity to benefit from a university degree.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Thanks to tuition fees, the unit of funding in real terms per student is now twice what it was when I went to university, despite universities having many more students. A student from a deprived background is now twice as likely to go to university if they are in England rather than in Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be attractive to reduce the cost of going to university by cutting the number of low-value courses and not by making the general taxpayer pay, because that creates an unfairness, is regressive, moves money from poor to rich, and it means that those who have already been get nothing and have been ripped off by a promise made on the front of the NME but burned just days after the general election?
Damian Hinds
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done and the thought leadership he has shown in some of his writings on these subjects. He is absolutely right to identify the increase in resource available to universities, but total HE financing has risen by £6 billion or so over the period through a combination of more students and higher resourcing. One thing that the report analyses in fine detail is exactly how we make sure that we properly reflect both the value and cost to serve of these courses. What he says is very apt.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is good, I am sure, that we have agreement across the Chamber that more money should go into lifelong learning and further education, but we want to hear a guarantee from the Minister that those resources will not come from higher education. We also want a guarantee that if tuition fees are reduced, any shortfall of money going to universities will be made up by teaching grant from the Government not just for science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, but for arts and humanities subjects, because they are also very important for our economy. If these proposals will eventually see their way into legislation—it is not clear to any of us how that would happen—is the Minister going to consult the sector widely so that he does not destabilise it further? We need those guarantees so that universities have certainty if they are to compete globally.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady will shortly meet the universities Minister in her all-party group on universities and will have an opportunity to discuss some of these things further. She mentioned teaching grants. The Augar report recommends precisely that—that there should be top-ups, although not exactly the same for all subjects. Few people realise the extent of the teaching grant. It is £1.3 billion, with some 40%—two in five—of courses attracting some sort of teaching grant. What the report talks about is how we balance that correctly properly to reflect not only value but cost to serve, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien).
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
One way to reduce the cost burden of achieving a degree is to conclude the studies over two years rather than three. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those who argue for greater availability of two-year degrees?
Mr Speaker
Pioneered by the University of Buckingham, the only independent university in the country and housed in my constituency. [Interruption.]
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) says, “Bring it on!”. Your intervention, Mr Speaker, also gives me an opportunity to say nice things about Buckingham, which is always welcome.
We have legislated on this exact point to make two-year degrees more prevalent and available. Having different models of learning—models that are more flexible and which fit in with people’s lives—and greater diversity of choice is a very good thing.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Like others, I warmly welcome the thrust of the Augar report, which is that we desperately need more funding for further and lifelong learning, not least because, as the report states, adult education under this Government has been slashed by a whopping 45%. We have not heard the Secretary of State give a commitment yet on robbing Peter to pay Paul. Whether he likes it or not, the idea that the Treasury will make up the shortfall from a cut in tuition fees is as credible as the claim that austerity is over. In reality is he not proposing the worst of all worlds for universities and students—graduates paying more for longer for degrees that are worse funded?
Damian Hinds
The short answer is of course no. This is not my set of recommendations; it is a set of recommendations from an independent panel feeding into a Government review of post-18 education and its financing to make sure we have a vibrant and sustainable education system in higher education and further education. We are committed to that and will respond at the spending review.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. The Augar report identifies the strategic imperative of a transformation in adult education in this country. I represent a constituency in the west midlands where further education is of central importance to the future of young people. Does he agree that we need to focus our attention and resources on transforming the further education offer to adults and on high-quality vocational skills that serve the needs of economies such as the one I represent in the Black Country and the west midlands?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right that we need to evolve the way we do further, continuing and adult education so that it fits with the realities of the economy today and—perhaps more importantly—with the unpredictable change that we know is coming, and part of that is about the national retraining scheme, for the development of which we have already committed significant resources.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As I learned from the 10 years I chaired the Select Committee, we make most progress in higher education when we find a cross-party consensus, as anyone who looks at the Robbins report or subsequent reports, such as the Dearing report, will know. There is some good stuff in this report. Some of the people on it were special advisers to my Committee when I was Chair. We have to build a consensus. There are good things in the report and some things I really would not like. Our universities and colleges are the most important institutions for most towns and cities in the country, and we endanger their existence at our peril, so let us build a cross-party consensus. I love the part about a new fund for lifelong learning. Tony Blair introduced one in 1997. It failed, but everybody knew we should bring it back to secure the future of further and higher education. So I say well done in part, but if the Secretary of State could keep a higher education Minister for more than a few months we would do a lot better.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman’s long-term aspiration should be to ensure universal public awareness of the length and distinction of his tenure as Chair of the Select Committee.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman was right about more than one thing—let us say several. He spoke of the local importance of universities not only to the cultural life of our towns and cities but to, for instance, local economies, business development, innovation, and research and development. He was absolutely right about that, but he was also right to speak of the importance of securing a degree of consensus about these matters. The last two major reports, the Browne and Dearing reports, straddled a change of Government. I hope that that will not happen on this occasion, but I think it right for us to have an opportunity, between now and the conclusion of the spending review, to engage in a good discussion with, among others, representatives of the sector and politicians on both sides of the House and elsewhere, because I think that such discussions help policy making to evolve.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Reduced fees mean reduced university income—that is why the University of St Andrews caps its Scottish students’ fees at 20%, isn’t it?
Damian Hinds
I think the economists say “ceteris paribus”. Universities have a number of income streams, of which fee income is one. As I said earlier, a teaching grant already exists for two in five courses, and the report recommends a rebalancing between fees and teaching grants.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Successive Governments have neglected the importance of lifelong learning. This change of emphasis is welcome, but the proposed lifelong learning loan allowance is restricted to a limited range of courses, and mature students may not want to take up a loan late in their careers and lives. Will the Secretary of State consider expanding the allowance to cover a wider range of education and training and to provide grants rather than loans, so that no one is unable to afford the education that they need, even in later life?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is right: these are important proposals, and the question of how we provide learning for people later in their life is also important. I am not sure that what is being proposed is quite as narrow as she has suggested, but the current system is rather difficult for people to pick their way through. That applies particularly to the equivalent or lower-level qualification rules—the so-called ELQ rules. They can be a little hard to understand, and that is one of the aspects to which we need to pay close attention.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Earlier this year, I met recent graduates in Cheltenham who indicated to me that, while the degrees they had received were enormously valuable to their life chances, they felt that those degrees could have been provided within a shorter timescale. I know that the Government have legislated for this, but can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of any review, he will do everything possible to accelerate the provision of cheaper and more effective degrees?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend does great work on behalf of students in Cheltenham, and I know that he takes a close interest in these subjects. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), I want there to be more diversity and more options. In some instances, it is possible to accelerate degrees. That will work for some people but not others, and in certain courses and subjects but not others. However, I think we should try to stimulate as diverse and as tailored a market as possible.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has given us warm words about further education colleges, describing them as
“vital engines of both social mobility and economic prosperity.”
That does not match what we have seen in the report. It highlights the scandalous drop in study at levels 2 and 3 in recent years, which the panel believed was due to funding changes. Will the Government support calls for the restoration of funding at those levels, to remove the barrier to social mobility and help young people and adult learners to improve productivity?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is right about the gap between level 3 attainment in our country and the attainment in countries such as Germany. That is a long-standing issue, rather than one that has just arisen. There is also a significant gap at the so-called levels 4 and 5—higher-level technical qualifications, above the A-level or T-level equivalent but below the degree-level equivalent. Our deficit in relation to other countries is particularly striking in that regard. Those are some of the issues that were considered by the independent panel, and we will, of course, consider its recommendations very carefully.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Most fair-minded Members will regret the tripling of tuition fees and what has happened to student support since 2010. We fought a huge battle over higher education here after I became a Member of Parliament in 2001, and it has been dreadful to see how the system crafted back then has been so comprehensively dismantled. It is now living costs that are often so crippling for students and their families. As a matter of priority, may I ask the Secretary of State what the review’s recommendations will do for families whose incomes are above the limit for all but the basic maintenance loan, and who are by no means wealthy but have two or three children who aspire to go to university?
Damian Hinds
The changes that we made in the move to maintenance loans increased the cash support available to young people starting at university by some 10%. There have been subsequent increases of 2.8% and 3.2%, and we have announced a 2.8% increase for 2019-20, as well as making maintenance loans available on a part-time basis. However, we must continue to keep these matters under review, and I welcome the report’s contribution in that regard.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State meet me or, preferably, come to Dudley, so that he can see how we are making education and skills the No. 1 priority for the borough? We are aiming to strengthen our economy, building on the brilliant work at Dudley College of Technology, the best college in the country, not just through the new institute of technology—for which we have just received £32 million, and we are very grateful—but through a new high-tech skills centre which will provide university-level qualifications in new high-tech industries? That will enable us to attract new jobs and new investment in exciting areas of the economy for the future, and to replace the jobs that we have lost in traditional industries.
Damian Hinds
I am well aware of the high reputation of Dudley College, and of some of the collaborative work that is being done. It is always a delight to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to doing so again soon.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has given us warm words about technical education, but does he accept that the reality is frequently a postcode lottery in which towns such Barnsley have too often lost out? When I met representatives of Barnsley College recently, they told me that many of the first-wave T-levels were simply unavailable. What will change for people in Barnsley as a consequence of the review if there is no funding to follow?
Damian Hinds
We are starting in a relatively small way in 2020 with three T-level subjects in a selection of colleges, but that will grow over time. The T-level programme is a national programme, but I think it is right for us to introduce it in a measured way in order to ensure that we get it right as we go along, for the benefit of those young people.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurance—which I believe he gave in response to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—that Welsh higher education institutions would be compensated for any spending implications that arose from the review, but does he envisage that being done through the Barnett formula or through full compensation for Welsh institutions? If he inclines towards the former, may I ask him to consider doing the latter instead?
Damian Hinds
There are no spending implications today. This is an independent panel review report which feeds into a wider Government review, and—as I have mentioned a couple of times now—we will finalise it later in the year. The funding for the devolved Administrations, including funding through the Barnett formula, will apply in the normal way, as per the statement of funding policy. It will then be up to the Government and the devolved Administrations to decide on the allocation of that money in the light of competing demands.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning, I can welcome and celebrate many parts of the report. However, as someone who went to the University of Sussex as a mature student, experienced for the first time in my life an institution that saw potential in me, and worked hard to fulfil that potential—whether it has been successful or not is up for debate—I am worried about the possibility that we will enter a world in which further and higher education will be pitted against each other in a zero-sum competition. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that whatever the recommendations are, he will never allow that to happen?
Damian Hinds
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and the work of his all-party parliamentary group. We must not allow different parts of our education system to be pitted against each other, and I can give him an absolute commitment not to do so. In fact, as he will know through his work, there is already a great deal of cross-over between what higher education institutions do and what further education institutions do, but they are both incredibly important parts of the overall system.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State not agree with me that ensuring that free or low-cost high-quality childcare was available on demand for parents who need it to go to college or university would be transformative for women’s lives? If he does agree, will he commit to properly fund early years education and high-quality childcare for children of all ages, and to do so properly on the supply side, so that women can get training or qualifications and develop their potential and we can make progress in closing the gender earnings gap?
Damian Hinds
I was worried when I saw the hon. Lady pick up what looked like a novel, but it turned out only to be a question in a notebook, albeit a very important question about childcare. Of course this Government are investing more than ever before in early years and childcare. I will have to write to the hon. Lady on the specifics of support for students, but I absolutely agree that childcare is a very important consideration for many people.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I wonder if I can give the Secretary of State the opportunity to answer a question he has sidestepped so far. He said in his opening remarks:
“The panel’s recommendations on student finance are detailed and interrelated, and cannot be considered each in isolation.”
If the Government accept the recommendation to reduce the fee cap, will the Secretary of State commit to the Augar recommendation to
“replace in full the lost fee income by increasing the teaching grant, leaving the average unit of funding unchanged”?
Damian Hinds
I believe that Ministers used often to stand at this Dispatch Box and say, “I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago,” but the Gentleman has just been good enough to repeat it so I do not have to. All these things—the various terms of repayment, the level of the fee, the T-grant top-up and so on—are interrelated; of course they have to be considered in the round and we will do so when we come back with our response.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
There is much to welcome in this review, not least the proposals to tackle the neglect of those who do not go to university, but the universities are right to worry about the proposals for differential funding for different courses, which the Secretary of State appeared to speak quite warmly of a few moments ago. Universities are different; they are not all the same—they have different strengths and different roles—and they are best placed to determine how to allocate resources, so can the Secretary of State reassure us that he respects and understands university autonomy?
Damian Hinds
I not only respect and understand but celebrate university autonomy. I think the hon. Gentleman represents a university city so I am slightly surprised at his question, because of course different subjects attract different amounts of money right now, and quite markedly different amounts of money. For example, a great deal more teaching grant goes into medicine than other subjects. The independent panel review report suggests there should be a different balance in the cap on overall fees and therefore how much variability there would be in the T-grant, but it is not introducing that principle for the first time.
Political Process in Northern Ireland
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
With permission, I wish to make a statement about the political process in Northern Ireland.
As the House is aware, on 26 April we announced a new phase of political talks aimed at restoring the institutions set out in the Belfast agreement on a sustainable basis.We said then that we would review progress at the end of May. I wish to confirm to the House that we have done so and have concluded that talks should continue and intensify.
Since the talks process started on 7 May, I have held a number of roundtable meetings involving party leaders and, as appropriate, the Irish Government in accordance with the well established three-stranded approach. In addition, working groups have been meeting regularly over the past four weeks led by current and former senior officials from the Northern Ireland civil service. These working groups have covered issues in five areas: the programme for government; transparency, accountability and the operation of the Executive; reform of the petition of concern; rights, language and identity issues; and improving the sustainability, stability and operation of the Belfast Good Friday agreement institutions as a whole. The process has made good progress thus far, and there is now a genuine but narrow window to reach agreement.
First, let me say that it is my belief that there is a genuine will among the parties to reach an agreement and to return to devolved government. I am grateful for the constructive manner in which they have engaged with this process, and with each other, to date, and I am hopeful that that collective leadership will continue through the next phase of talks.
Secondly, on the substance of the talks, it is clear that there are a number of areas in which a consensus can be found across a range of issues, but there remain real and substantial areas of disagreement. The issues that the parties are grappling with are complex and sensitive. They have approached them in a spirit of engagement and with a willingness to find solutions. I have said from the outset of this process that it is important that the parties have the space to discuss these issues, to build trust and relationships and to find common ground and compromise, and that continues to be the case.
However, I am under no illusions. The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve to see functioning political institutions up and running and to have decisions taken by locally accountable, democratically elected representatives. So while the prospects for agreement are real, the window for agreement is narrow. The Government remain willing to do what is necessary to make this talks process a success. It will, however, take continued good will, engagement and leadership across the parties to reach agreement.
Northern Ireland is a part of our United Kingdom with tremendous strengths and even greater opportunities. Today, unemployment in Northern Ireland is at record lows while employment is at record highs. The economy is growing, tourism is booming. Northern Ireland is a great place to live, work, do business and invest. But it could be doing even better. Central to that is political stability and the restoration of all the institutions in the Belfast agreement.
The appalling killing of Lyra McKee in April was a stark reminder of the importance of ensuring that the hard-won peace and stability in Northern Ireland is not put in jeopardy. There is a responsibility on us all—the Government and those of us in this House and the other place, and the Northern Ireland parties themselves —to ensure that that does not happen. That requires renewed faith in the ability of the institutions of the Belfast agreement to deliver for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland. This process presents an opportunity to build that renewed faith, and I commend this statement to the House.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for prior notice of her statement. Like her, I think it is right and proper to mention, these weeks on, the murder of Lyra McKee. I say that partly because I also want to mention the targeted and malign attempt to murder a Police Service of Northern Ireland officer in Belfast in recent days. This House, this country of ours and these two islands have to recognise that tensions are rising as we speak, and those tensions must be dealt with and a constitutional means of challenging those who would do us harm is the right and proper way to proceed.
The Secretary of State spoke with some optimism about the situation and that reflects the conversations I have had with those closely involved in the talks process. People say to me that there is a credible mood that all parties are searching for solutions, and I applaud that and commend those who engage in those endeavours. However, the Secretary of State also said that there is only a very narrow window in the political calendar. She is right, and that narrow window will close in the not too distant future.
In the meantime, many things in Northern Ireland are simply not going in the right direction. Decisions are not being made that would be being made in any other part of this country of ours. We have discussed education and health in this Chamber before, and I want to mention the Derry and Strabane city deal; making it come into operation with the match funding depends on having a functioning Executive. These things really do require an Executive and the people of Northern Ireland are paying a high price for the fact that that does not exist.
So there is pressure; there is pressure on local politicians, but frankly there is pressure on the Secretary of State and on the Tánaiste Simon Coveney, who I know has, along with the Secretary of State, been attentive in making sure that he was present at those talks. However, the Secretary of State did not mention the Prime Minister or the Taoiseach. I appreciate that the Prime Minister will be in office for only a limited time, but it is still an office of profound importance and her capacity to influence the talks process is real. I hope that she will engage with this in her last few days in office, and that her successor, whoever that might be, will also commit to the talks process. It would be more than a shame to miss that opportunity.
The Secretary of State said that there would be no running commentary on the talks process, and that is right and proper, but we know that there are substantive issues that still divide the parties. Are those issues being addressed in the working group? I am not asking whether they exist in the working group; I am asking whether we are moving towards tangible solutions to the questions that divide the parties. I will not go through a whole list of the issues, but the petition of concern has been recognised by most of the parties as an area in need of reform. I say to the Secretary of State in good faith that there is a possibility that some of those issues would be better dealt with in Westminster if they cannot be dealt with through the Stormont process, and she knows that the Opposition will assist the Government in that process if she takes that route. Will she tell us whether there are areas in which it might now be appropriate to consider Westminster legislation?
Finally, I know that the Secretary of State had consultations last week on the results of the inquiry into historic institutional abuse. Will she update the House on that today? We have said before that the victims of that abuse deserve recognition, resolution and justice, and it would be unconscionable if, in the middle of an optimistic talks process, their plea and their plight were lost.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his offer of support for the process that we are going through. I know that he speaks regularly to the parties in Northern Ireland, and that he has offered his support and that of his party to enable those parties to find the space they need. We have to be clear that these are difficult issues, and there will need to be give and take on all sides in order to reach an accommodation. That will require difficult decisions to be taken, but they will be taken for the right reasons and I am grateful for any support that he can give.
The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the attempt on the life of the PSNI officer over the weekend, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the operational details. This once again reflects the real threat faced by police officers, prison officers and others in Northern Ireland. We should be clear that there is no excuse for the behaviour of the dissident terrorists who carry out these activities. They cannot hide behind a lack of devolved government or any other issue to excuse their behaviour. They are the only ones responsible for it, and there is no excuse for it. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that those issues exist in a way that they simply do not exist in his constituency or in mine.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the optimism and positive mood of the talks. There is no doubt that all the parties have approached the talks in the right frame of mind and with the right determination. He was also right to say that there is a narrow window in which we can deliver. He will know that the issues being discussed in the programme for government working group are issues of concern to people in Northern Ireland that devolved government can deliver for them in a way that no other governance arrangements can deliver.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the city deals. The Derry and Strabane city deal has just been announced, and the heads of terms for the Belfast city deal were signed in April this year. Of course the Government will do everything they can to deliver those city deals. They rightly include initiatives by the councils themselves, as is the case across the whole of the United Kingdom, but he is right to say that certain powers will need to be divested by Stormont to the councils to enable them to deliver, and that match funding will be required.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a role for the Heads of Government. It was the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach who carried out the review on the progress of the talks this weekend, and who issued a statement asking for the talks to continue and intensify. I want to assure him that the Prime Minister is very much engaged in this matter. She receives regular updates and is willing to do whatever she can; she is determined to ensure that devolved government is restored, because that is what the people of Northern Ireland need.
The hon. Gentleman talked about addressing the issues, and about the petition of concern. As I have said, a working group has been working on the reform of the petition of concern in a 90-Member Assembly, in order to deal with concerns about how the petition of concern has operated in the past. Of course we in Westminster stand ready to take forward any legislative changes that are needed. Some of the things that are being discussed would require amendment of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 itself, and of course this Government are ready to legislate where necessary. However, these are devolved matters that need the agreement of the parties and cross-community agreement, and that is what we are working to achieve.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the historic institutional abuse inquiry, and I want to assure him that I am working relentlessly to make progress on that matter. As he knows, the problem was that Sir Anthony Hart reported to the Executive after the Executive had collapsed. Despite all the efforts to restore the Executive since January 2017, that simply has not been possible, and in the absence of ministerial direction on the approach to Sir Anthony’s recommendations, it is difficult to bring forward any legislation that would be robust and that would deliver for the victims. I have met those victims, and I want to deliver for them as quickly as we possibly can. The hon. Gentleman will know that David Sterling carried out a consultation in the absence of Ministers to enable us to get the evidence we need for whatever the robust legislation that will deliver would look like, and that process has led to a number of questions being raised that need a ministerial direction. I am grateful that the parties are working with me to come up with a unified, all-party approach to questions on the make-up and powers of the redress board, for example, and on whether further top-ups are required for those people who have already received civil pay-outs. These are fundamental questions that need answers, and I am grateful that the parties are helping me to develop final legislation on this matter so that we can take it through in whatever place is most appropriate to ensure that it is delivered as quickly as possible for those victims.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a matter of the utmost importance and I want to accommodate everybody, but I gently point out to the House that there are several hours of debate on subsequent business to follow, so economy is of the essence.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the brave and fantastic work of the PSNI and the prison service, and the risks that their members run. May I remind her that there are also British Army battalions based in Northern Ireland, and that we need to ensure that they are being looked after as well? She also mentioned the five points. If there is agreement on only four of those points, surely we cannot hold out forever and a day to get a guaranteed agreement on all five of them. There must be a backstop. There must be a situation in which those in the negotiations know that if they do not sort this out, there will be direct rule.
Karen Bradley
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is disappointed that there are only five points. There are five areas in which discussions are taking place, within which there will be areas of consensus in all the working groups as well as areas that do not yet have consensus. We are working hard to achieve that consensus. I want to see us reach a point at which all the parties in Northern Ireland can confidently go into an Executive that they know is sustainable and will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, and at which all the institutions of Northern Ireland established under the Belfast agreement are properly constituted.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State not only for giving me advance sight of her statement but for meeting me earlier to provide a briefing on the situation in person. That was definitely appreciated. I agree with what she said about the appalling killing of Lyra McKee. That has been a stark reminder of the importance of ensuring that the hard-won peace in Northern Ireland is not jeopardised. We have only to look at the attempt on the life of a PSNI officer at the weekend to be reminded of the fragility of that peace. She is right to say that there is a responsibility on us all—the Government, the parties in this place and the Northern Ireland parties themselves —to ensure that the peace is not jeopardised, and the tone and manner in which we debate these issues is of the utmost importance. The SNP and I wish her well in delivering the hopes of all in Northern Ireland in the coming weeks.
Given the narrow window of which the Secretary of State speaks and the criticism of the level of intensification of the talks yesterday, with previous talks in Northern Ireland involving round-the-clock discussions, when will the Government seek to ramp up the intensity? Have the Governments outlined to the parties what actions they will take if the current talks are unsuccessful? What progress has been made on the reform of the petition of concern, which has the potential to unlock various other areas of disagreement?
Reports in the Belfast Telegraph this morning suggest that the backstop will form a key part of the negotiations between the DUP and the UK Government over a new confidence and supply agreement. Given what I will call the “divergent” views of the Northern Ireland parties on the backstop and Brexit itself, is the Secretary of State concerned that the anticipated confidence and supply negotiations may undermine and overshadow any progress made during the current talks?
Karen Bradley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I was pleased to be able to sit down with him to discuss the role that he can play. He is quite right to talk about the tone and manner in which we discuss such matters. Speculation about what may or may not be matters of consensus or disagreement—this is not directed at the hon. Gentleman—does not help in this situation. If what we all want is the restoration of devolution, it is important that we do not speculate or try to second-guess, and that we allow the parties the space they need.
As for the intensity of the talks, we have already changed our approach following the statement from the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach over the weekend. The working groups have done great work, but we are now elevating the issues to leadership level, and this week is about airing those matters and intensifying the talks. I do not want to consider what might happen if the talks fail, because we cannot give anyone an excuse for failure. This is about how to succeed and get government restored.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government’s confidence and supply arrangements and Brexit, and I want to be clear that Brexit is not a part of the discussions. The talks are about how we re-establish government to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland on the issues that are Stormont’s responsibility. The confidence and supply arrangement is something for the usual channels.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Civic society in Northern Ireland wants somebody to bang people’s heads together to ensure that the talks do not fail and that devolution is put back on its feet. In thanking my right hon. Friend for her statement, may I ask her what scope may exist to identify a George Mitchell-like character who could fulfil that role, act as an honest broker and ensure that the flame of hope that was lit with the sad and tragic murder of a journalist is not extinguished on the altar of intransigence?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is right to talk about civic society, which has played a role in the talks so far. We have had engagement with Church leaders, who have had their own initiative to get the party leaders together with civic society. Representatives of civic society have also had the opportunity to meet the party leaders to discuss their issues with them. The point of that meeting was that, yes, it is important that civic society can make its points to the leaders about what it wants to see government deliver, but it is also important that civic society recognises that everybody will not get what they want on day one. Civic society needs to show the same restraint that we are asking politicians to show.
I am pleased to say that Senator Mitchell visited Northern Ireland a couple of weeks ago, when he was able to come to the talks to add his support for the work that is happening. I want the talks to succeed, and I am prepared to consider anything that will help that. At the moment, however, the mood is right, the atmosphere is right, and we need to keep working hard on that.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. After the outrage expressed following the killing of Lyra McKee, the attack on the PSNI officer shows the depths of depravity of the terrorists who entirely disregard what the communities are saying. Sadly, they will not desist even if the Assembly is up and running, because David Black was murdered when devolution was going on. Such people need to be tackled resolutely. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that everything is being done to ensure proper co-ordination with the Garda Síochána, and that the police are given the resources and everything they need to tackle this scourge in Northern Ireland?
On the talks themselves, may I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the three-stranded approach to which she referred is kept sacrosanct, so that Northern Ireland’s internal affairs are a matter for the Northern Ireland parties and Her Majesty’s Government?
Karen Bradley
On the latter point, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the case. He also talked about the threat from dissident terrorists, and he is right that the threat will exist no matter what, but it flies in the face of what people across the community want. We all stand ready to do whatever is required. I spoke to Deputy Chief Constable Martin yesterday, and I continue to offer whatever support is required by the PSNI, which works closely with the Garda Síochána, to ensure that we are all tackling the threat.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I know that dealing with the legacy of our troubled past is a priority for the Secretary of State. Further to the point just made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), does the Secretary of State agree that those who argue that the PSNI should be required to police the past as well as the present are plain wrong? The police need extra resources, not to devote resources towards things that happened 40 years ago—important though they are for the innocent victims. We need a separate, distinct, focused process to deal with the past, and we must let the PSNI get on with the job of policing the present.
Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman highlights an important point that is one of the reasons why the PSNI is so keen that we make progress in reforming the institutions that deal with the legacy of the past. He will know that we consulted on that, and I will be issuing the summary document of the consultation responses shortly.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows the importance that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I am temporarily chairing, attaches to the historical institutional abuse inquiry. In response to the unanimous letter that the Committee sent to her, she said, “I do not want this urgent issue to be delayed or stalled as part of the talks process—quite the opposite.” Will she give us an absolute assurance that the matter will not get bogged down among all the other issues?
In addition—I say this carefully—could the Secretary of State possibly take some press questions the next time she makes a statement? It looks bad when she does not answer any questions while the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland answers questions for half an hour.
Karen Bradley
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her temporary role as the acting Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. She is doing an excellent job, and I have been following her progress closely.
I assure the hon. Lady that I am working on the matter of historical institutional abuse in parallel. It is not part of the talks progress, but I need the parties to work with me. The parties include the Ministers who will operate the scheme, so we need to know that the redress scheme is operable and works for them and, most importantly, for the victims.
Finally, as for the criticism that I have received for making statements to the press while not answering all their questions at every moment, my priority is to see devolution restored, and I am not prepared to do anything that jeopardises that. While I am happy to speak to the press and answer their questions, I do not think anyone gains anything from speculation or the over-analysis of answers.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me and many people in Northern Ireland that we need all the parties to reach a consensus? There is no point in any single party saying, “Here are our prerequisites and demands. We will not move from them.” That is what Sinn Féin has done up until now, and that is a prerequisite for no agreement, rather than consensus.
Karen Bradley
I do not want to comment on what is going on in the talks, but I agree that we need to reach consensus, which means that all parties will need to come together and agree on a way forward that means we can restore devolution.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State, in reply to the shadow Secretary of State, said that decisions have to be made. She will know that at least five decisions have to be taken before the end of June. She has already covered the issue of historical inquiries, and there is also the issue of contaminated blood and compensation, the fallout from the renewable heat incentive report—the Select Committee will be reporting on that before the end of June—and the jobs initiative retention programme with regard to my constituency. There is also a decision to be taken on a new event for Northern Ireland next year. Will she commit now that those decisions will be taken by the end of June?
Karen Bradley
I am well aware of the decisions that need to be taken. My focus is on restoring government in Northern Ireland so that decisions can be taken by those elected by the people of Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State, when questioned by the press, has talked of the need not to jeopardise the talks, but does she accept that, by refusing to answer questions and giving that role to the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, she is allowing the impression to be given that these talks are driven by the Irish Republic and are not in the hands of the UK Government? That is in breach of the three-stranded approach there should be when it comes to these talks.
Karen Bradley
It is my view that the more speculation there is in the press and elsewhere about these matters, the less chance we have of restoring devolved government. I am not prepared to do anything that jeopardises the possibility of restoring government in Northern Ireland. The approach that other politicians take to dealing with the press is a matter for them. I have the utmost respect for the press—when I was Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I was an absolute advocate of press freedom—and the press are welcome to scrutinise and question me at length, as they regularly do. But on these matters, I am not prepared to do anything that makes it harder for the right hon. Gentleman’s party and others to do what I know they want to do, which is to go back into government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State outline how she intends to secure the sustainability of the institutions to ensure that never again will we be left in a position where someone can misuse the available mechanisms to bring down devolved government, leaving an entire country—Northern Ireland—rudderless for two-plus years?
Karen Bradley
Of course, the sustainability and stability of the Executive working group has been looking very carefully at these issues. It is not about what I will do to ensure that; it is about what the parties agreed to do. Obviously, if changes to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are required, the Government stand ready to take those measures. I urge the parties to recognise the need and the public desire to do the right thing and restore devolution. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nobody wants to see us ever again in this position of two and a half years without devolved government.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and all colleagues who mentioned the outrageous attempted murder of my constituent in my constituency on Saturday.
The Secretary of State is right about the need for constructive engagement, and she has fairly reflected that there has been constructive engagement over the past four weeks of this talks process. Although she recognises that consensus is emerging on some issues, the more difficult issues still need to be addressed and the timescale seems quite short.
The Secretary of State knows that the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 allows a period of five months, which does not expire until August. Without wishing to use all of that time, does she realise that the narrow window may need to be extended to achieve a good result?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point that the Act expires towards the end of August. The Act has enabled decisions to be taken in the absence of Ministers that could not otherwise be taken, but it does not allow for the decisions that we need to be taken—that requires Ministers. I do not think the people of Northern Ireland want to wait any longer than they have to wait to see government restored.
The hon. Gentleman is right that there are difficult issues that will require a lot of accommodation from all sides in order for us to achieve restored government, which is what we want to see, but I do not think that extending time limits or putting in new milestones helps us to achieve that. What we need to do is to get down to business and get the agreements that we so desperately need.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
We welcome the statement but, to follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), an extension will be required to allow permanent secretaries to make decisions should we not have the Assembly up and running by August, and it is highly unlikely that we will have an Assembly by that stage. In the vacuum that has been created, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) highlighted, decisions need to be made, and will have to be made, on a number of strategic issues. Will measures be put in place to ensure that, in August, permanent secretaries can move ahead and make decisions?
Karen Bradley
As I said in response to an earlier question, I do not think we should be talking about what happens in the event of failure. That is not what people want to hear. They do not want to hear about the second or third best option; they want to know that the best option of restored government will be achieved.
I know how hard the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the DUP are working on this, and I am very grateful for the hard work to date and for the very positive attitude that has been displayed by them and by politicians from across all parties in Northern Ireland. I know how tough this is, and I know how difficult it is. I know this will require a big piece of work over the next few days and weeks, and I am determined that we will do everything we can to deliver that. As I say, there is not a second best option. There is only one option that really works. The risks do not get easier; the risks just increase. We need to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
Driving (Persons with Dementia)
Tuesday 4th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Driving (Persons with Dementia) Bill 2017-19 View all Driving (Persons with Dementia) 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
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require doctors to inform the appropriate driver licensing agency of a diagnosis of dementia; to require drivers diagnosed with dementia to undertake a supplementary driving assessment; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is born out of my personal experience, but I know many other people have similar stories to tell. My Bill sets out to better address just one area of daily life that is impacted for the 850,000 people in the UK currently living with dementia. That number is expected to rise to 1 million by 2025 and to 2 million by 2050. Many families and carers are concerned for their loved one’s safety while driving with the condition, and I am pleased to have received support from many of them.
It is important to say from the word go that this Bill does not seek to prevent those diagnosed with dementia from driving if they can do so safely. Indeed, one in three people with earlier-stage dementia still drives, and it is critical for those diagnosed with dementia to maintain their quality of life and dignity. Driving truly is at the heart of a person’s independence, and it can be hugely difficult to come to terms with its loss. Yet, at the same time, carers and families may have serious concerns about the safety of their loved one and of road users in the neighbourhood, particularly if their loved one lives alone or far from the main family member or carer.
This Bill seeks to make the mechanism for assessing fitness to drive with a dementia diagnosis fairer to both the person with dementia and their family, carers and the local community. Of course, driving is dangerous at the best of times and is not without risk, especially when one is diagnosed with a condition that affects cognitive ability. Although, of course, every individual is different, statistics show an increased risk of dementia patients being involved in road traffic accidents. I do not believe that the current system strikes the right balance in mitigating the risk, and at the moment it only adds to the very difficult process for families trying to help their loved ones make the transition. My Bill seeks to start a conversation about how we can support a person with dementia more compassionately as they come to terms with the impact of such a devastating condition.
The status quo is that the licence holder—the person with the diagnosis—is responsible for notifying the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or Driver and Vehicle Agency. But some people diagnosed with dementia do not necessarily want to start a process that might ultimately lead to their licence being revoked. It is common for the person with dementia to lack insight into their own loss of capacity. It is also the case that GPs may not be prepared to notify the DVLA, for the same well-intentioned reasons. A GP does not always see their patient behind the wheel, and if they have known the person for years, it is a difficult and unwelcome conversation for them to have, especially given the pressures that we all know frontline GPs work under. I have heard anecdotal stories from GPs who were not prepared to take steps on the driving issue until a dementia patient actually drove into their car in the surgery car park.
My Bill would recognise that a person with dementia might be safe to drive, and would establish a simple mechanism for an assessment to take place. It would therefore become the norm for the DVLA to be notified and for a supplementary test to take place at an appropriate interval following the diagnosis. That would present the patient with the opportunity to actually demonstrate to their carers and the community that they were in fact safe to drive, which would be a welcome outcome for everyone. Should the person be found unsafe to drive, it would be a natural opportunity to help them access the many excellent local transport options, whether Rural Wheels or other services in their community. An end to driving does not necessarily mean an end to an independent, fulfilled life, and I warmly welcome the work that volunteers and local authorities do to provide vital services.
It is a common misconception that the driving test that dementia patients are required to take is the same as the full driving test and, of course, most of us—even if we have been driving for years—would probably not be able to pass the test, let alone someone who is a little older. The supplementary driving assessment looks at the overall impact that dementia is having. It is done in a supportive way and makes some allowances for the bad habits that drivers might have developed. The outcome of the test might suggest modifications to the vehicle or driving behaviour that could extend the period someone could drive safely following a diagnosis.
Under the simple system proposed in the Bill, the clinician or doctor would be required to notify the DVLA automatically, which would then require the person to take the driving assessment at an appropriate juncture. If that were part of the normal process following a diagnosis, it need not be feared. It is only one small practical step, but it would present a wonderful opportunity to talk about how we, as a society more generally, can not only continue to support vital research work to eventually find a treatment for all forms of dementia, but ensure that services are properly resourced in the future.
As we come to the end of the parliamentary Session, I am delighted to have been able to use this opportunity to raise awareness of dementia. Of course, other conditions can have similar impacts on one’s ability to drive and I do not believe other disabilities should be treated differently from dementia in this regard, but given my personal experience I wanted to raise this specific issue in my Bill. I am pleased to have secured the support of Alzheimer’s Research UK, which has been invaluable in supporting me with the Bill, and I am also delighted that colleagues from across the House are supporting me, including the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia.
I hope the Bill will encourage a conversation about how we can better support those with dementia and address the wider impacts on our society. This is one small part of the jigsaw, but it is a real issue that many families face every day. Such impacts might not necessarily come immediately to mind, but are emotionally just as painful as others. The Bill seeks first and foremost to encourage that conversation, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Rachel Maclean, Antoinette Sandbach, Sir David Amess, Eddie Hughes, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Vicky Ford, Simon Hoare, Jack Brereton, Jack Dromey, Nic Dakin, Jim Fitzpatrick, and Debbie Abrahams present the Bill.
Rachel Maclean accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 394).
Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 4th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 View all Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 June 2019 - (4 Jun 2019)
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Meaning of other key terms—
‘In this Act—
“circus operator”, in relation to a circus, means—
(a) the owner of the circus,
(b) any person, other than the owner, with overall responsibility for the operation of the circus, or
(c) if neither of the persons mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) is present in the United Kingdom, the person in the United Kingdom who is ultimately responsible for the operation of the circus;
“officer”, in relation to a body corporate, means—
(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, and
(b) any person purporting to act in any such capacity;
“travelling circus”—
(a) means a circus which travels, whether regularly or irregularly, from one place to another for the purpose of providing entertainment,
(b) includes—
(i) a circus which travels as mentioned in paragraph (a) for the purpose mentioned there, despite there being periods during which it does not travel from one place to another,
(ii) any place where a wild animal associated with such a circus is kept (including temporarily).
but not a circus which travels in order to relocate to a new fixed base for use only or mainly as a place to give performances.’
New clause 4—Moratorium on the issuing of new licences and adding animals to current licences—
‘On the day on which the Act is passed, the following provisions will apply to circus operators using wild animals in travelling circuses—
(a) there will be a moratorium on the issuing of new licences under the provisions of the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012; and
(b) current licences granted under regulation 4 of the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 will not be extended to include additional licensed animals.
These provisions will apply until the Act comes into force.’
This new clause would prevent the issue of new licences, or the addition of animals to existing licences, from the day the Act is passed.
New clause 5—Powers of seizure: animals—
‘Where an animal is seized under paragraph 7(k), an inspector or a constable may—
(a) remove it, or arrange for it to be removed, to a place of safety;
(b) care for it, or arrange for it to be cared for—
(i) on the premises where it was being kept when it was taken into possession, or
(ii) at such other place as he thinks fit.’
This new clause would enable an animal which has been seized to be removed and cared for appropriately.
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out “2020” and insert “2022”.
This Amendment will enable circuses to have enough time to plan for the Act coming into force.
Amendment 4 to the schedule, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) A police constable shall be considered to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act.”
This amendment would allow a police constable to have the same powers as an appointed inspector with respect to the Act.
Amendment 5, page 4, line 38, leave out “except” and insert “including”.
This amendment would allow animals, held by those who are suspected of committing an offence under the Act, to be seized.
Amendment 2, page 4, line 40, at end insert—
“7A An inspector may require that the owner of a wild animal may not destroy the animal unless with the permission of a qualified veterinarian.”
Philip Davies
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I know that we have three hours allocated for consideration, but I do not intend to detain the House for so long, Members will be relieved to learn. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is one of the most popular things I have ever said in the Chamber. There is some important Back-Bench business to come and I am sure that we want to get on—
Philip Davies
That changes things. We are in business now. I do not, however, intend to detain the House for long, and I do not intend to press any of the new clauses or amendments to a Division as they are probing in nature. One of the points that I always make is that we should properly scrutinise legislation that comes before the House. Even when we have a Bill with a worthy title it is always important that we scrutinise the detail, because these are important matters. They are important for the circuses, and for the animals. They are clearly at the forefront of what the legislation is intended to protect, and therefore it is important to check that we are doing everything right.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) has also tabled some amendments, but I will concentrate on those I have tabled. In passing, I will say that some of the points he makes are worthy of consideration and I hope that the Minister will do so, even if he is not prepared to accept the amendments today. I hope that in the other place some proper scrutiny will be given, so I do not expect that we will have a ding-dong on these issues tonight.
I am a great admirer of the Minister and not just because of his time in Parliament: we used to work together at Asda many moons ago. Obviously, he was much more senior than I was, and far better at his job—that will not come as any surprise to anyone. We worked on projects together in our time at Asda, and he has taken his common-sense approach there into his ministerial responsibilities. It is great to see him in his place, and all I ask of him—he is a reasonable man—is that he goes away after the debate and considers all the new clauses and amendments to see whether the Government want to have another look at them when the Bill reaches the other place.
New clause 1 addresses the meaning of the term “wild animal”, and would add a more detailed definition to the Bill. The wording I have used mirrors that in the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018, and will thereby enable consistency around the UK. Simply falling into line with the law in Scotland has advantages in and of itself—as a Unionist, I think it is good and always a positive when we have the same laws in England and Wales as we have in Scotland—but more importantly it would provide more clarity to what is otherwise a rather vague description of a wild animal.
The Bill currently states simply that a
“‘wild animal’ means an animal of a kind which is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain”,
but the new clause delves deeper into what that actually means. Specifically, it would add an explanation of what a domesticated animal is, by stating that an animal
“is domesticated if the behaviour, life cycle or physiology…has been altered as a result of the breeding or living conditions of multiple generations of animals of that kind being under human control.”
It can reasonably be argued that many of the animals that currently reside in the two circuses to which the Bill will be relevant fit into that definition of a domesticated animal. Given that some of the animals are from the seventh generation of their line to be born into the circus environment, their very nature and general behaviour will be much altered compared with their native wild counterparts. Thus, the term “domesticated” would be made relevant to the specific animals, which should be at the forefront of our minds. That point often seems to be lost in debates on this subject.
For the specific animals we are talking about that are currently in these circuses, it would be more unkind to release them into what many would assume to be their natural habitat, because generations of living under human supervision will have left them without the traditional instincts and abilities necessary to survive in the wild. We describe these animals as wild when they quite clearly could not survive in the wild, and to that extent they are not wild animals. They do not have the traditional instincts and abilities required for them to survive in a habitat that is different from what they are currently accustomed to. They have no knowledge of anything different.
The whole point of new clause 1 is to get into the Bill a more sensible definition that applies to the particular animals involved. It seems to me to be bizarre that on the one hand we are talking about wild animals and on the other hand we are passing legislation for animals that could not be released into the wild. It is crazy. We want to stop genuinely wild animals being used in circuses—I certainly do; I have no objection to that at all—but the specific animals that are currently relevant are not really wild animals any more.
Like new clause 1, new clause 2 mirrors the provisions of the 2018 Act. If the House agrees to new clause 2, that will provide consistency in the law throughout the UK and more clarity on the definitions of relevant key terms. The Bill currently describes the definition of a circus operator and an officer, but new clause 2 would also define a travelling circus, which is a key part of the legislation, and the fact that it is not currently covered in the Bill, despite the title suggesting that it applies specifically to the circus industry, is not only concerning but leads to a lot of potential loopholes. Many forms of entertainment involve animal participation at their heart and I have heard people discussing their wish to use this legislation as a Trojan horse to affect other industries in which animals are trained.
Many forms of entertainment involve at their heart the participation of animals that have been trained and bred for a particular purpose. For example, I am very keen on the horse-racing industry. I am pretty sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that at this point I should refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am not sure whether there is anything relevant in there, but there may well be, so I do so just to be safe rather than sorry. The racing industry has animals that are trained for entertainment and that are bred for that purpose. I might add that they are particularly well looked after, as animal welfare is at the heart of everything that the racing industry does. Throughout the country we have zoos and falconry, and even the more obscure alpaca walking experiences.
My concern is that the Bill does not seem to provide a clear enough definition that separates the circus industry, which the title suggests it is specifically targeted at. As I referred to earlier, this issue has been dealt with in Scotland. New clause 2 would provide the clarity that the Bill needs to ensure that it will not blur any lines and to make sure that the legislation will not be used as a Trojan horse to affect other industries—including those I have mentioned, the greyhound industry and whatever else it might be—because other people might have some of those industries in their sights. I hope the Minister will reflect on these points and go away and look at the merits of the relevant legislation in Scotland to see whether we might wish to mirror it in England and Wales.
Amendment 1 would leave out subsection (5) of clause 1. In effect, it is consequential on new clauses 1 and 2, and would remove the current set of definitions of key terms to replace it with those that I want to introduce in new clause 2. Rather than anything more substantial, it would just tidy up after the other changes.
Amendment 2 states:
“An inspector may require that the owner of a wild animal may not destroy the animal unless with the permission of a qualified veterinarian.”
As I said at the start, as I see it the whole purpose of this Bill—the motivation behind it—is to protect the animals. We must not do anything that will have a negative impact on animals—we often see unforeseen and unintended consequences of legislation—so it is important to make it clear that the owner of the so-called wild animals covered by the legislation may not destroy an animal without a vet’s permission. We cannot have a situation in which the animals cannot be used in a circus and are therefore put down. That would be completely unacceptable. I am not suggesting for a minute that that is the intention of the people who own the animals—absolutely not, and quite the reverse. I am not casting any aspersions on them at all, but it is important to have this safeguard in the Bill to make sure that we nail it down and prevent that from happening.
Amendment 2 would add to the list of powers that the inspector of travelling circuses will have. It would ensure that animals that will no longer be able to participate in any aspect of circus life will not be put down as a result of the legislation coming into force. As I said, that is not to suggest that the owners of the animals are likely to be so callous. The point is that if people suggest, as it seems they have, that what the circus owners do to these animals is cruel, why would those people, who have pressed for the legislation because they think that circus owners are cruel to the animals, then trust the circus owners to look after the animals when they are no longer able to use them in their circuses? Either these circus owners are cruel to the animals and therefore cannot be trusted to care particularly well for them in retirement, or they are not cruel, in which case I am not entirely sure why we are going down this route in the first place.
It seems to me that the argument that the Minister may well have is that, well, these people look after their animals really well. I think he has made it clear in the past—he will correct me if I am wrong—that there has never been any question about the welfare of the animals in these circuses. I am happy to be corrected by anybody, but as far as I am aware no one has suggested at any point that there has been any problem with the welfare of the animals. If there were problems, there are rules to deal with them. This is not about the welfare of these animals; no one has a question about that as far as I can see. It is about the principle of whether the animals should be used for this purpose, even though they have been bred and trained for it—they cannot be untrained obviously. They will not be used for any other purpose, and they will not be released into the wild, so what will be done with them? They will just live a life in retirement. My amendment is about making sure that they are able to enjoy a long and fulfilled retirement.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad that we have found parliamentary time in this otherwise packed parliamentary schedule for this really important Bill—because this is a really important Bill. The focus on it and the attendance in the Chamber today should not be taken as a lack of interest in this important area. There is cross-party support for the Bill. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Minister for the way that he has led this Bill from the Government’s point of view, genuinely listening to the concerns of the Opposition, and particularly the concerns of the stakeholders that we have been giving voice to.
There are currently 19 wild animals in circuses. It has been made clear by the evidence we heard in the Bill Committee that the British public do not want wild animals in circuses any more. They want to see wild animals out of circuses. That means that the six reindeers, four zebras, three camels, three racoons, one fox, which is still not for hunting, one macaw and one zebu need to be freed. In doing so, we send a strong message that our values as a country will be put into legislation. This effort was started 10 years ago by the then Labour Government who tried to bring in a ban on wild animals in circuses. Sadly—sadly for many reasons—the general election got in the way and that was thwarted. It has taken us nine years to get to the point where this legislation is being considered by the House of Commons and I am glad that it is.
Labour will support this Bill in principle today, but there are some aspects that we would like to see strengthened. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised a number of those in his opening remarks for this debate. As soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent, there should be no new wild animals in our circuses in the country. We should send a clear message to circus owners and to the general public that once this Bill has passed, not only will wild animals be banned from 20 January 2020, but no new licences for wild animals will be given by the Government—that is one of the amendments that I will come to in a moment. It is important that we prevent a last hurrah for wild animals in circuses. This is not just about the camels, the zebu and the macaw, but about the risk that we get other wild animals—elephants, tigers, lions and other wild animals that we currently do not have in our circuses—being brought back for a last hurrah. I am talking about a PR stunt by circus operators—those with animals now and perhaps those without—to say that they will give one last push to show a tiger perform tricks, one last push to show a lion stand on its back legs and clap, and one last push for people to see horrendous displays. That is not something that the Opposition want, that the Government want, or that the British public want. That will be one of the amendments that I will come to in just a moment.
In travelling circuses, wild animals are carted from one venue to another, sometimes in cramped cages and barren trailers and are taught to perform wholly unnatural tricks, often through fear of punishment. There is unequivocal evidence that wild animals are not suited to the travelling life where they are denied even their most basic needs. Animal welfare groups and Labour Members are concerned that, without extending the powers of entry to the police and without a power to seize wild animals, the enforcement of this Bill will be much more challenging than it needs to be. While this Bill is being brought forward on ethical grounds, Labour believes that we still must champion the welfare of animals through its implementation. Without the powers of seizure it will not be possible to ensure that the welfare needs of these animals are fully met in the future.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak at the Report stage of this Bill. I apologise to the House that I was not able to speak on Second Reading. That is probably why I was not invited to serve on the Bill Committee. For me, this is, exactly as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, an ethical question. It is not about animal welfare, although there are some real animal welfare issues, as we have seen over the years in fly-on-the-wall documentaries and other reports of animals being abused and kept captive.
There are two major parts of this Bill where the Minister should listen to the proposals in the Opposition amendments as well as in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). As a former Policing Minister, I know that the police will not want an officer to be the sole person with the knowledge to go in and carry out this activity. Let us put that on the record now—they would not want to do that. There is a completely different reaction from members of the public, whether they are running a circus or any other organisation, to an inspector arriving and to an officer of the constabulary arriving, particularly together. That is the sort of reaction that we need to have.
The excellent National Wildlife Crime Unit, which was also under my portfolio, is a small unit, and it might well need some extra resources if it were to take this duty on in general. The principle of that unit means that it is exactly where the power should come from. That should be addressed within the guidance, as it is probably easier for it to be done in that way. This applies to the 43 authorities in England and Wales. Scotland already has legislation just like this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was just telling me that it was actually better, in principle, and we are trying to make this Bill better through some of the lessons that have been learned there.
I absolutely agree that no new animals at all should be allowed into circuses in this interim period. We are trying to go with public opinion, which has changed over the years. My eldest daughter is now 30 years of age.
Sir Mike Penning
She does not look 30 years of age, as my hon. Friend comments. She said to me when she was about 11 years of age, “Daddy, I’m going to be taken to a zoo by the school, and I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to see animals in cages.” We have never gone to a zoo and never gone to a circus that has had live animals. My youngest daughter is 28 and my eldest daughter is 30. My eldest daughter is now a marine biologist, so the House can probably realise where I am coming from on this. If we are going to make a law that says that we are banning live animals in circuses, let us do that for them, and for the public. If there are animal welfare issues, that can be picked up, but actually over the years it has not been, which is why we are going to ban it ethically now.
Should the animals be taken if they are found in this situation? This is a really difficult grey area that the Minister is going to have to address. Why would someone travel with an animal if they have not been training it and using it? Why would they keep it in its winter quarters when perhaps there are better types of quarters that it could be kept in? If it is travelling, why would they do that if they are not using it within a circus production? I hope that there can be an accommodation in this Bill—whether in this House, around guidance, or as it proceeds to the other House, which will also understand that the public are with us on this—whereby we can do what it says on the tin. This Bill says that we are going to ban live animals in circuses—we are going to protect those animals should they be in a circus.
There will be loads of good will out there regarding these animals. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said that he tweeted out about this —yes, but they have to go to the right place. We are talking about myriad different types of animal that are used within circuses. It is really important that these animals go to a place of expertise to be looked after, because a lot of them may well have been through very stressful procedures. They may have been in a circus nearly all their life and then they are taken to a completely different environment. That takes a degree of professionalism and expertise. That has to be addressed in terms of payment, which should come from the circus, as they are the people who are responsible for these animals. They can be passionate about them. I have heard some of the debates in public over the years where they have said, “We love these animals.” I do not doubt that, but we need to say, “If we have a situation where we are going to have to remove animals from you, as an organisation, then it is not right for the taxpayer or a charity to pick up that tab—it is your job.” We need to consider how we can move that forward within the guidance. Perhaps the other House will debate this for a little bit longer.
We are trying, on principle, cross-party and as a nation, to get the animal rights part of this right. My kids—our kids—are driving this forward. It is like the environmental arguments that are going on out there at the moment. They are right, because it is their future, not our future. I have been lucky enough to be in Kenya with the military and have been in most of the safari parks. Seeing an animal in its natural environment coming down to the water hole in the evening because that is what it naturally does is an absolutely moving thing, not like seeing an elephant standing on its back legs in a circus, which is very damaging for the animal.
The House should be very proud of bringing this legislation forward. I would disagree only slightly with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport on one thing. The previous Labour Administration had a huge majority—an absolutely enormous majority. They could have got whatever legislation they wanted through this House at any time during that period, but it is a Conservative Government who have brought this through. I am very proud of that, but it should have been brought in years and years ago.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
It is an honour to participate in the debate, and I welcome the genuine cross-party spirit. We are good friends on these issues, and it is good to hear well-informed, well-thought-through opinions, which will add to what we are taking forward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on setting out his concerns so clearly. We have spoken outside the Chamber, to facilitate further discussions, which shows the cross-party approach we are taking.
Animal welfare is a vital issue for everybody in the Chamber. All Members here have played an important role in trying to secure debates and take forward legislation on this issue. It is time to stop the outdated practice of wild animals performing or being exhibited in circuses. I will go into some technical details, but I think we all agree that we need to move in that direction.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
There is concern about using two different bits of legislation to solve one problem. Would it not be clearer to cover this issue in the Bill, rather than relying on the Animal Welfare Act?
David Rutley
That is an interesting point. It is difficult to get the balance right, but the key thing to remember is that we are discussing an outdated practice that we want to see removed on ethical grounds. Seizure is much easier where there are genuine welfare concerns—I will explain why in more detail—and those powers are contained in the 2006 Act.
If the animal is subject to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976—of those animals currently kept in circuses, only camels and zebras are subject—it may be seized if it is being kept without a licence or if a licensing condition is being breached. There is no need to replicate those powers here. In Committee, concern was raised about repeated breaches of the Act. The courts would have the power to impose unlimited fines, which makes it highly unlikely that a circus would continue to reoffend, for economic reasons.
Powers to seize animals interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, which is protected by article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights. Interferences must be justified and proportionate. That may be easy to do if an owner is mistreating an animal and the powers are being exercised under the Animal Welfare Act, which is the point I was trying to make earlier. However, the objective of this legislation is simply, but importantly, to prevent the use of wild animals in circuses on ethical grounds. Preventing someone from using animals for other purposes, which is what the seizure and deprivation powers do, goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Bill.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like some reassurance from the Minister about a circus that operates in my constituency—Circus Mondao—which has a zebra and two camels. I have been campaigning for it to cease the use of these, and I ask that the Bill cover that so that I can happily go to Circus Mondao in the knowledge that, because of this Act, it is not using wild animals.
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman sets things out incredibly clearly, as he has done on others Bills I have been involved in. Absolutely—I can categorically say that, at commencement of this Act, those practices will no longer be able to be taken forward, so his campaign will have come to fruition. I hope that reassures him.
Amendment 4 seeks to extend the enforcement powers in the Bill to police constables. A few points have been made, not the least of which were those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who is passionate about many things, including these issues. I always have a soft spot for Hemel Hempstead because that was where one of my sons was born. We are all talking about our children today.
David Rutley
I do not know how to take that comment. I think I will move on.
Again, we do not feel that the amendment is necessary if an animal is in distress, when the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already provides powers for the police to respond quickly. The offence we are talking about—a ban on use on ethical grounds; let us keep that in the front of our minds—does not require such an urgent response. It does require a response, but it does not have the same immediacy. It can happen only in the context of a public performance, which will of course take place in a public place. If a travelling circus wanted to break the law, it would have to do so in front of an audience. An inspector could be at the circus in sufficient time, and the schedule provides powers to search for evidence. As outlined in the schedule, that includes questioning any person on the premises, taking samples and taking copies of documents. Indeed, inspectors can seize anything, except an animal, found on the premises that they reasonably believe to be evidence of the offence in clause 1.
We do not believe it necessary to extend these powers to the police. DEFRA has approximately 50 circus and zoo licensing inspectors, who are qualified and experienced in identifying and, if need be, handling species of wild animals. In fact, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) made the point that we do have the expertise, and I think it is best to get qualified veterinarians or people with extensive experience of working with captive animals to take care of this work. Few, if any, constables would have that level of knowledge, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead pointed out.
In the rare cases where a police presence is needed, as I explained in Committee, the Bill also provides powers for an inspector to take up to two other people with them on an inspection. These could include a police constable, who would be able to exercise, under the supervision of the inspector, the powers of inspection provided in the Bill. Let me assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and other hon. Members that the guidance DEFRA will issue will also make it clear that police constables are able to accompany inspectors during the inspection, and I have also set that out to him in writing. I hope that gives him and other Members a greater degree of assurance that the police will be able to play a role, as required.
Luke Pollard
Will the Minister go into slightly more detail about where the guidance will land on that point? Will the police constable be one of the two people who can accompany an inspector, or will that be in addition to those two people, since there may be very good reasons why certain specialists are required for certain animals?
David Rutley
That is a good question, and we will take a closer look at that. At this stage, it would be one of the two people, but that is something we can take a closer look at.
I accept the point that has previously been raised that the Scottish Act provides powers for police constables to enforce the legislation. The Scottish guidance states:
“Although constables are provided powers for enforcement, it is expected that it will primarily be Local Authorities that will enforce the Act as part of other responsibilities relevant to travelling circuses.”
Even under the Scottish Act, the police are not seen as the primary inspection force.
Since Committee, DEFRA officials have discussed enforcement of the Bill with the chief constable of Hertfordshire constabulary, Charlie Hall, who is the national policing lead on animal matters. The view of the police is that while they would of course support DEFRA-appointed inspectors, should this be required, they do not want to take on the additional responsibility of being the primary enforcer of what is a very specialist area of business. They see their role as being one of support in keeping the peace when necessary to enable inspectors to conduct the work provided for in the Bill.
Mention has been made of the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and we certainly respect its contributions, but we are concerned here with an offence involving captive wild animals, not wildlife crime, so it is unlikely that that group will have a primary role in inspection. That will be for the other inspectors we have talked about.
Sir Mike Penning
There could be a situation in which a wild animal has been inappropriately brought into a circus. We are not talking about everything coming from Africa or Asia; it could, for instance, be a wild animal from the UK, or one illegally imported. There are people who have that area of experience, and all we are asking for in the guidance is that they should be appropriately contacted and their expertise used, should that be needed.
David Rutley
I think that is a perfectly fair point, but the point I am trying to make, to reassure colleagues, is that we have 50 inspectors who are well trained to take care of this. Of course, we would get the police involved at the right time, and we will put that in guidance. We can anticipate that there may be circumstances in which we need to get the National Wildlife Crime Unit involved, and we will set that out as appropriate. Again, I hope that the points I have made give sufficient reassurances to hon. Members, and that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport feels that he need not press amendment 4.
I turn to amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. He seeks to prevent circus operators from euthanising their wild animals, which is something we all want to be avoided, unless they have permission from a qualified vet. Again, I assure him that these issues were raised directly with the circuses during the evidence session. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but we have not seen any evidence that current circus operators would seek to euthanise their animals. Indeed, the two remaining circuses have assured us that they would not do so. In oral evidence during the Bill’s Committee stages, Peter Jolly senior was clear that:
“I would change my business to something else, but the animals would stop with me.”––[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 42, Q107.]
Carol MacManus suggested that the other circus, Circus Mondao, was considering either rehoming its wild animals or keeping them at winter quarters with people to supervise the animals
“because we would have to look after the animals.”––[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 50, Q152.]
They are concerned about their animals and consider them to be part of their family.
I would also point out that, in practice, the amendment would unfairly target circus operators by requiring them to obtain permission from a veterinarian to have an animal euthanised. No such legal requirement exists for pet owners or other owners of working animals who operate a business. As we have discussed, we do not need to seize an animal under the Bill to prove that an offence of using a wild animal in a travelling circus has been committed. The other thing it is important to set out to my hon. Friend is that retirement plans are in place for these wild animals, and the Animal Welfare Act will of course continue to apply to protect these animals. Once again, I hope that the points I have made will give reassurances to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members.
New clause 4, as set out by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, aims to prevent new animals from being added to existing licences and to prevent new licences from being passed, and amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, seeks to allow the circuses two more years on their existing licences. We do not believe new clause 4 is necessary, although I understand what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is seeking to achieve with his amendment—to mitigate the risk of additional wild animals being brought into travelling circuses between Royal Assent and the Bill coming into force on 20 January 2020. New clause 4 appears to be intended to come into force on Royal Assent; I think that is the intention. By convention, there is a strong presumption against commencing any earlier than two months after Royal Assent, because the public are entitled to be given a reasonable period of time to adapt to a change in the law and to reorganise their affairs in response to it. It would be highly unusual to commence a clause such as this on Royal Assent.
Paragraph (a) of new clause 4 seeks to prevent new licences from being issued after the Bill has passed, so it would apply only to new travelling circuses or existing ones that currently do not use wild animals in their performances. If a travelling circus wished to start using wild animals before the end of the current touring season, typically at the end of October—for those who have not been part of this debate, circuses would not continue until 20 January, because they normally stop performing at the end of October—it could technically have a last hurrah, and the hon. Gentleman has made that point with conviction. However, it would have to apply for a licence as soon as the Bill was published to maximise the revenue it would want to get. I reassure hon. Members that DEFRA has received no inquiries from anyone regarding even the possibility of an application for a new licence.
If, however, a new circus decided to apply for a licence, say, next week, DEFRA’s application takes a minimum of six weeks, and for a new circus unfamiliar with the demands of our licensing regime, it could take considerably longer for an application to be determined. Both current licensed circuses, when they first applied for a licence, needed to be inspected twice before their licence was awarded, and those inspections took place at winter quarters, which is an easier place to conduct an inspection; even then, both applications took two months to be approved. Even if a circus were to submit an application for a licence next week, it would be able to use its wild animals for, at most, 14 weeks or three months before the end of the current touring season.
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman says that is quite a long period. It is long enough to take what he is saying seriously. We understand his arguments, but for the sake of completeness, I want everyone to understand the processes.
Paragraph (b) of the new clause would affect circuses already licensed by DEFRA. The two licensed circuses still using wild animals have not said that they have any plans to add further wild animals. Given that a ban will be in place before the next touring season, it would make little economic sense for them to invest in new trained animals or equipment now, and significant changes to a performance require planning, which would usually happen when the circus is at winter quarters, from late October onward. Also, in the unlikely event that a circus sought to add a wild animal to an existing licence, the proposed moratorium would not prevent that from happening between now and the moratorium coming into effect.
I assure the House that that is a highly unlikely scenario. The current 2012 licensing regime would safeguard the animal’s welfare. Existing licence conditions require circuses to provide DEFRA with at least two weeks’ notice of their intention to add a wild animal to their circus, and inspection would follow as soon as possible after the animal’s arrival in the circus. The Government accept that that leaves open the possibility—albeit a very small one—that new animals could be used in travelling circuses for a maximum of 14 or 16 weeks, or just over three and a half months, if the licence application was submitted and approved, unless the proposed early moratorium comes into effect. Although we have had no indication that any circus in the UK would try to make use of such a gap, I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. I will take the matter away and, ahead of Committee stage in the Lords, consider how best we can ensure that no new wild animals are used in travelling circuses by the time the ban comes into force on 20 January 2020.
On amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, we believe that circuses have had enough time to plan for the ban. He suggested, I think probingly, that the decision has only just been made; in fact, the legislation has been long in gestation, and the general feeling is that it would have been better had it been introduced sooner. I think we all share that view. It has been difficult to get parliamentary time. Circuses have had six and a half years to prepare, ever since the introduction of the licensing regulations, which contain a sunset clause that made it clear that the ban would be in place by January 2020. We do not believe, therefore, that the amendment is necessary.
The Government have always been clear that the licensing regulations were an interim measure only. It is important to highlight that licences must be renewed every year, and in February last year we reaffirmed that any license issued to circuses this year would be the last, because a ban would be in place by the time the interim regulations expired on 20 January 2020. The coming into force date of the Bill aligns with the expiry date of the regulations, which means that the two circuses will be able to update and plan their routines for next year while they are not on tour, as the majority of circuses would do anyway.
It should not be too difficult for the circuses to replace the wild animal elements of their shows. DEFRA has been inspecting these circuses at least three times a year for the last six and a half years. Our inspections show that the animals, where they are used, are used for only about five to ten minutes as part of a two-hour show. As long as the ban comes into force during the winter season, which has always been the Government’s intention, we believe that the two circuses have enough time to adjust their routines. Indeed, there are about 25 circuses in the UK and Ireland that do not use wild animals in their show, and they operate successfully. They show what can be done. To reassure my hon. Friend further, comparisons with ticket prices in other travelling circuses that do not use wild animals do not show a premium for seeing or involving wild animals.
I should add that the amendment does not reflect the fact that the interim licensing regulations expire next January. The amendment would therefore permit wild animals to be used in travelling circuses for two years—that is, to 2022—with a much lower level of scrutiny than they have been subjected to for the last seven years. In those circumstances, I would certainly share the concerns about more wild animals being introduced into travelling circuses. A two-year moratorium, with no DEFRA licence required at all, could well lead to more wild animals being used in travelling circuses. That is not something this Government would agree to.
I hope I have made it clear why the Government believe that next January is an appropriate date for the ban to come into force, and that hon. Members in all parts of the House are reassured by my comments. I hope my hon. Friend feels that it would be best were he not to press his amendment.
Philip Davies
I thank the Minister for an extremely thorough response to the amendments tabled by me and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). People will now see why I speak so highly of my hon. Friend, not just in his time as a Minister but in his time at Asda. His courteous, serious and thorough treatment of all the amendments does him credit and shows why he is such a fantastic Minister, and I am grateful to him. I am pretty sure that he will discuss these matters further with the shadow Minister and me before the Bill goes to the Lords.
As the Scottish National party Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), is present, I should restate my view that the law introduced by the Scottish Government is better than the Bill we are dealing with, but I have heard the Minister’s response and, based on that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Consideration completed. As the Bill has not been amended since its introduction, Standing Order No. 83L does not apply and I do not need to suspend the House to reconsider the Bill.
I remind the House that on Second Reading the Speaker certified that clauses 1 and 2 and the schedule relate exclusively to England on matters within devolved legislative competence. Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are being made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber.
Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
David Rutley
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(3)).
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote. I call the Minister to move the consent motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of, and Schedule to, the Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill—
Clauses and Schedules certified under SO No. 83J(1)(h) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1 and 2 of, and the Schedule to, the Bill (Bill 385).—(David Rutley.)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak very briefly. The SNP is quite happy to support the Bill. As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said in the full House of Commons 30 seconds or so ago, this law has been enacted by the Scottish Parliament and already applies. I am grateful to hear him think that it is more substantial than the proposed legislation we are passing today.
We are currently not in the House of Commons but the English Parliament, the Legislative Grand Committee (England), and only for England because of the consequential disapplication of some of the Bill to Wales by dint of a clause. It has only taken me most of the afternoon to try to read through it to figure out exactly where the different extents apply.
I was keen to make sure I was here in the absence of my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), who usually make sure that the EVEL—English votes for English laws—stages do not go completely unnoticed in Hansard and by the riveted watching public. One day—perhaps today is the day and the hon. Member for Shipley will speak—Members from England and Wales will participate in the Legislative Grand Committee and justify the colossal waste of time and money that has been spent on establishing the EVEL procedure. We wait, perhaps still unfulfilled, for that day to come.
The First Deputy Chairman
I look around expectantly and discover that nobody wishes to catch my eye.
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
David Rutley
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am pleased to move the motion for the Third Reading of this short but very important Bill. It is a Bill with a very simple purpose: to ban the outdated practice of using wild animals for performance or exhibition in travelling circuses. The Bill addresses important ethical concerns about the way we use and perceive wild animals in the 21st century. This country is rightly proud of its place in the world for the protection and care of animals. Our regard and respect for wild animals, and our sense of their intrinsic value, are now much more important to us than allowing them to be used for entertainment.
The Government’s belief, which I hope is widely shared by many in this House, is that travelling circuses are not the right place to experience or learn about wild animals. Frankly, circuses do not need to use wild animals. Most circuses have been thriving without the use of wild animals for a long time now. The continued use of wild animals in travelling circuses, often performing demeaning routines for our amusement, sends completely the wrong message about the value and respect we should accord them. The Government’s view is that the very notion of inducing wild animals to perform tricks in a circus setting is well past its sell-by date and should now stop.
The Bill fulfils a long-term commitment. I once again pay tribute to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have sought to take it forward as a private Member’s Bill, including my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who took this important issue forward initially, for his advocacy and support.
I also wish to thank hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debates and throughout the proceedings in this House, as well as the members of the Public Bill Committee and the expert witnesses, including those who submitted written evidence for their consideration on the Bill. I am grateful for the constructive engagement by representatives from animal welfare non-governmental organisations, especially in their willingness to help to draft the guidance that I have committed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to producing when the Act comes into force.
I extend my thanks to my hard-working and long-suffering Bill team, my private office, the parliamentary private secretaries, the Whips on both sides and, of course, the Clerks for their work and support on this issue. I thank those on the Opposition Front Bench for the constructive way in which they have taken the Bill forward and most of the other proposed legislation we have been working on over previous weeks.
It is an honour to take the Bill forward. It has had such overwhelming support from all parties, the public and animal welfare organisations from Second Reading through to today. We are committed to enhancing our well-deserved worldwide reputation for caring for animals after we leave the EU. This ban is another important measure to protect and improve the lives of animals, from strengthening the protection of service animals through Finn’s law, to ensuring puppies and kittens are no longer sold by unscrupulous third-party sellers—we will have more of that tomorrow—and combating the illegal wildlife trade. We are grateful for the continued support of colleagues across the House for our efforts to protect animals and to ensure a sustainable future for our shared planet. I wish the Bill safe and speedy passage through its remaining stages in the other place.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I thank all those right hon. and hon. Members whose persistence has led to the Bill coming before us today: in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who as Secretary of State at the time promoted the initial consultation; Thomas Docherty, the previous Member for Dunfermline and West Fife; my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick); the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison); my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman); and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who made the very powerful point that it is important for the public perception of the force of law that the police should have at least equal powers to inspectors in the enforcement of the Bill. Of course, we have all been ably assisted by the officers who have prepared the Bill.
There is overwhelming popular support across the country for the Bill, with 94% supporting a total ban on wild animals in circuses in the 2009 consultation. There is almost unanimous cross-party support shown by the hon. Members from across the House, who have not just signalled their support but have pushed over a 10-year period for this Bill to come before us. As a newcomer to this House I do think there is an issue with the length of time it has taken for various uncontentious Bills to make it into law.
We can be pleased that the Bill has now been taken on by the Government and should indeed make it into law, but there is other outstanding legislation that has still not come before us. In this context, I want to mention the need for an animal cruelty sentencing Bill, the absence of which has been a bone of contention for the last three years, despite the best efforts of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, other campaigning organisations, various hon. Members and despite the Secretary of State assuring us that the Government would introduce one as quickly as possible.
We have supported the Bill all along and will obviously support it today. We have had assurances from the Minister that there is no added danger of a “last hurrah” of additional wild animals being introduced to circuses in this country in the remaining time between now and January of next year. In this context, it is sensible that the hon. Member for Shipley withdrew his amendment, as the opportunity for a last hurrah would be enormous in the additional two-year period that that amendment would have afforded. I expect many of us have been lobbied, as I have, by Martin Lacey of Circus Krone and invited to visit his circus in Munich. Mr Lacey also took the trouble to travel to this country to make the case for his big cats circus, and I feel sure that he would want to take advantage of a two-year grace period to bring his lions and tigers to perform in this country if he were able to do so.
The Minister also assured us that the definition of travelling circus, and the protection and welfare of any animals that were found to be in contravention of the Bill, would be adequately covered by guidance. We believe that the Minister is perfectly sincere in these assurances, but we still maintain that it would be preferable to have these things acknowledged on the face of the Bill.
We have the Bill before us because it was made clear that the existing Animal Welfare Act could not be used to ban wild animals in circuses. The test for welfare under that Act would not be clear enough to end the practice of transporting animals to perform for the amusement of the public, but there is a higher test: the respect we have for our fellow creatures. The Bill is but one step in showing that respect, but it is an important one.
Visiting animals in their natural habitat and seeing them living the lives that they would naturally want to live is uplifting and educational. Watching them jump or climb on to bits of furniture, or even on to each other, and contort themselves into unnatural postures is neither educational nor respectful. It is well past time that we should end the use of wild animals in circuses and we are pleased to support the Bill.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I could possibly have tested your patience by making an overlong intervention on the Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, but rather than do that I thought I would make a brief observation now.
I think I am right to say that on Report the Minister said that the Bill had been six and a half years in preparation. In fact, it was in 1997 that, as the then chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, I presented to the incoming Minister of State at the Home Office in Mr Blair’s Government—who, I think I am right in saying, was the now right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth)—the group’s report on performing animals in circuses. It is comforting to know that matters in this place move so swiftly and that it has taken only 22 years for these measures to reach the statute book.
The fact is that the persistence of colleagues on both sides of the House of Commons has driven us to where we are today, in the hope and expectation that the Bill will get a fair wind in the House of Lords and become law and that performing animals in circuses will be consigned to the dustbin of history along with very many other animal abuses that we have managed to deal with.
In the spirit of total co-operation and in gratitude to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) and my hon. Friend the Minister, I say that other things that are not contentious can, and should, be going through the House much more quickly. I am proud that this Government and this Minister are in the process of putting the Bill on to the statute book, and I hope that we shall now see a succession of other animal welfare measures following it.
Sir Mike Penning
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has addressed exactly the memory loss that I had during my speech on Report. I could not remember the dates when the all-party group dealt with this. I was here in a different capacity at that time. All of us would understand the situation in ’97, when there was so much legislation from a new Government. Finding time was difficult, but there was a huge majority on this issue and it was not contentious. I remember the discussions absolutely vividly. People were saying, “Would you do this private Member’s Bill? Would you take this forward? Would you go into the ballot?” It has taken until today to get the Third Reading of a Bill that, frankly, is a no-brainer in this day and age.
I am thrilled that the Minister has taken on this Bill and by the way in which he has done so. I was not invited to go on the Public Bill Committee, and I was genuine when I said that I would have loved to. I was not here on Second Reading, so people obviously thought that I was not interested, and so on—but we are where we are.
I hope that when this very short Bill goes to the Lords they will look at what this House has done—how we have come together—and move the Bill through the other place quite fast so that it can be on the statute book in time for what the Minister is looking at doing.
People out there will say, “We miss this” and “We miss that”, but there is not very many of them. As the Minister said, the country has changed. If we had tried to bring this Bill through in the ’70s and ’80s, we might have struggled, because people were different. I am not saying that they were bad, but what was acceptable then is not acceptable now. Making animals do things that are completely unnatural to them is not acceptable. I vividly remember one of these fly-on-the-wall videos that was taken at one circus—I will not name it, because a lot of circuses were bad. People were abusing and torturing animals to make them do things that were not natural. I hope that the Bill means that that never, ever happens again.
Other legislation needs to come forward, and I am conscious of what the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), was saying. We have legislation on the statute book but we have to be good and strict on this issue. Dogfighting is on the up in this country. Cockfighting, believe it or not, continues to this day. There is badger-baiting.
Sir Mike Penning
To me, a trophy-hunting Bill is the simplest thing in the world. If someone wants to do that sort of thing, do not bring trophies—the animal’s head—to this country. That is so abhorrent to 99.9% of the British public.
We have set a line in the sand and shown that we can bring such Bills through the House—it is a shame that more people are not in the Public Gallery to listen to us when we get things right. I am sure that, tomorrow, in Parliament this will get thruppence, because of President Trump and other things that have been going on, but this indicates what this House can do and is right morally and ethically. We should be very proud of what has happened in this House today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a great pity that when something of importance is achieved in the proceedings of this House, as it is about to be, it is not noted because the commentators prefer drama to care and doing the right thing.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Yes, we will not go on about which circus is really the circus. To bring about what everyone in the Chamber has been aiming towards for a very long time, let me put the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker
For the sake of clarity, I confirm to the House that the Back-Bench motion on the mineworkers’ pension scheme will not be moved today.
Business without Debate
Walsall Arboretum: park organisation
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition is from residents of the United Kingdom. The petitioners are concerned that Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council’s decision to restructure the management of Walsall arboretum in Walsall South was made without consultation with the public. The petitioners say that the changes leave the arboretum with no onsite management and no dedicated management team. The petitioners say that these changes return the management of the arboretum to the situation it was in prior to investment by the Heritage Lottery fund. The petitioners note that there is a related petition on this matter started by my constituent, Fiona Macmillan, on change.org with 1,395 signatures.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of Residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that Walsall MBC's decision to restructure the management of Walsall Arboretum in Walsall South constituency was made with no consultation with the public; further that the changes leave the Arboretum with no onsite management and no dedicated management team; further that these changes return the management of the Arboretum to the situation it was in prior to investment by the Heritage Lottery; and further notes a related petition on this matter on change.org with over 1200 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge Walsall MBC to consult the public about the changes and restore the posts of Arboretum Manager and Events Co-ordinator dedicated to ensuring the activities, events, care and maintenance of the Arboretum continue.
[P002457]
Transport in Hertfordshire
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I rise to discuss transport in Hertfordshire. I am an MP for Hitchin and Harpenden—the MP, not an MP; there is only one, at least at the moment. Transport affects us all—not just Hertfordshire, but all counties and everybody in the House—but it particularly affects my constituency, and today I want to draw the House’s and the Minister’s attention to two specific issues: first, the train system and commuters going in and out of London from the stations of both Hitchin and Harpenden—both main commuter stations into London; and secondly, the looming expansion of Luton airport and the constant disruption faced by many of my constituents and others across Hertfordshire, including the constituents of many of my colleagues.
I will start with trains. When thinking about our transport system in Hertfordshire, we must have a sense of balance. Better public transport is essential. I do not know anybody on either side of the House who would disagree. We recognise that people in Hertfordshire want better public transport. Yes, they want better roads as well, as it so happens, but they want better public transport. They also want to maintain their standard of life. They moved, often from big towns or cities, principally London, because they did not want to be there. Hertfordshire is a much more rural county than many people realise, and the green belt is very precious to many of my constituents. It is important to bear that in mind when thinking about what infrastructure improvements are needed.
In particular, on the subject of Luton airport, I spoke to the Minister earlier today. I know how much he understands and cares about these issues, despite being relatively new to his brief. It is important that infrastructure such as airports is used for the benefit of all and is mindful of the negative externalities and impacts on many people in Hertfordshire and in particular my constituency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the hon. Gentleman says, infrastructure and better funding for transport are important not just in his constituency but across the whole UK. Does he agree that decent infrastructure is necessary to every community and that, although issues such as potholes might not be high on the register for some, for those of us who want investment in our local communities, good infrastructure is the starting point, and that requires good planning and good funding, and these two must go hand in hand?
Bim Afolami
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Good infrastructure matters. It is the difference between being a developed advanced country and not being one. The ability to get into work in a timely manner is critical to the economic and social wellbeing of a country, particularly in constituencies such as mine that rely on commuting. He talks about potholes and roads. I will come to this later. Roads are the essential lifeblood of pretty much every small business, of people taking their kids to school, visiting family, seeing friends or just conducting everyday business. These things may appear small, but they are critical.
That leads me to trains. Many in the House will have heard me talk many times about trains. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) in his place. He has heard me bang on about this many times.
Bim Afolami
Hitchin station in north Hertfordshire serves 3.2 million passengers a year—1.3 million more than nearby Letchworth. Everybody in the House will be aware of the debacle in the rail industry in May last year with the big timetable changes, which did not go well. Like many others, Hitchin suffered severely, although there were some improvements. People going from Hitchin into central London no longer have to change at King’s Cross St Pancras but can run all the way through the core of London to the south of London, which many constituents have told me is a significant improvement that has considerably improved their commute. That should be noted and welcomed.
That said, there are significant problems with the timetabling, particularly with overcrowding. This is a big problem, and not just because it is uncomfortable; it can often be a health problem, especially in the summer—and we are getting into warmer weather now. For anybody who has a disability or is pregnant or feeling ill, it can be a significant problem when commuting to and from work. The overcrowding is basically due to the fact that since the timetable changes there are fewer peak time trains from Hitchin and the trains stop more often going into London. This increases the overcrowding.
The Minister or any of the millions of people watching might think me just another MP whingeing about his local train service, because that is what local MPs do, and that is partly true, but unless the things that local MPs bring to this House, often after being begged by constituents, get heard, and unless constituents can see they are being heard and that their concerns are being acted on, there will be a crisis of trust not just in the local MP, but in the Government and Parliament as a whole, as a means to resolve the issues that people face. On these sorts of issues, I urge people—I know that the Minister, being a very good champion of his own constituency, understands and cares about this—to think about these things very deeply. Constituents email or write to their MPs, but they have better things to do; they do it because it matters and significantly impacts on their lives.
The Department for Transport does not run all the trains. It is not in charge of every driver of every route. The Transport Secretary does not determine every train timetable in and out of Hitchin or anywhere else. The Department sits atop a structure that includes Network Rail, which is responsible for the infrastructure and stations, principally, and for timetabling, and the operators —in our case, GTR—which are responsible for running services under franchise agreements with the Department. My contention is that GTR has not treated Hitchin as a major station. It has treated it as just another station in north Hertfordshire and not adequately appreciated the fact that it is the main station in that area, and this has had real consequences.
To best illustrate these consequences, rather than use my own words—we have heard enough of those already—I thought I would gather up some emails that I have received in only the last 72 hours about the train service from Hitchin. Constituent 1 told me—I will not name them because then they might appear on Google and it would all be terribly embarrassing, but I will quote them directly:
“I am still to gain an answer from GTR as to why the station of Letchworth has seen such vast improvements in service over the past 12 months whilst the Hitchin service remains relatively unimproved. Letchworth now has the same frequency of peak trains as Hitchin (despite the fact that Hitchin has almost double the annual usage) as well as gaining Direct services”
—to London—
“(which Hitchin commuters had previously lost). As a committed campaigner for a greener future yourself I can see no logic in the fact I can now drive to Letchworth station rather than walk to nearby Hitchin, and still get to London faster?”
Here is another example, from Mandy.
“Please can you explain to me why every time there is a school holiday”
GTR
“are totally unable to run anything approaching an acceptable service?”
Chris writes:
“Hello Bim…Can I ask what can and will be done? The service provided…is abysmal and must be a serious consideration when people of our age are looking to relocate out of London. It must also affect the prosperity of the area as so many of us commute. The costs are enormous yet the service is poor at best.”
Mike says:
“Hi Bim,
The trains are worse than ever, it’s been a complete disgrace since the May timetable changes. Most seem to be around lack of staff? I don’t understand…
Are you able to find out if they’re lying to us? I just want to be able to get to work in the morning and home in the evening.”
I will not continue, but I have received those emails over the last 72 hours, and I have received hundreds more over the last 12 months. This is a real problem with which I believe GTR has manifestly failed to deal. What do we need? The answer is simple. In Hitchin, we need more peak-time trains leaving between 07:30 and 08:30, and more peak-time trains arriving between 18:00 and 18:45. I ask the Minister to deal with that specifically in his response.
Let me now turn to Harpenden, the equally loved station in my constituency. GTR has been pretty unwilling to accept that any changes are necessary, but in the case of Harpenden it has openly admitted that its actions last May caused severe difficulty. It has been quite candid about that, and has engaged with me several times on the subject of the station and the trains. That culminated in a meeting that I arranged in February this year with representatives from St Albans, Luton, Bedford and, obviously, Harpenden: commuter groups, local MPs, officials from GTR, and various people who decided to turn up. That was a big room.
The stated aim of the meeting was to deal with the problem at Harpenden, because everyone in the room recognised that there was a problem. Honest, open views were exchanged, and by the end of the meeting everyone had agreed that Harpenden needed at least two more peak-time services that would otherwise stop at Luton, because the number of commuters between Luton and London was infinitesimal compared with the number at Harpenden. That was agreed by everyone in the room—except the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker). The hon. Gentleman is not here and cannot defend himself, and I do not blame him for what he said. He felt that the issue affected his station, he did not want to be on record as having accepted that any station in his constituency had “lost” services to Harpenden, and he objected.
GTR manifestly failed in its duties. It is no way to run a process to accept that there is a problem—everyone is in a room with all the passenger loading data, the information and the evidence, and everyone agrees that in Harpenden services are needed from Luton rather than Bedford or St Albans—and then to hide behind an effective veto from a local MP. I do not believe that that is the way to run a service.
This afternoon I spoke separately to the Minister and to the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). Will the Minister commit himself, on behalf of the Department, to meeting me, various officials from the Department—if he wishes—and local commuter groups, along with GTR, to establish, finally, how we can broker some sort of agreement or solution to the problems faced at both Hitchin and Harpenden? That would be welcomed not just by me but, most important, by my constituents. Then, finally, we might achieve a resolution and an endgame to the problems that we face.
A connected, although separate, issue is the long-proposed rail freight site at the Radlett aerodrome, on the same line, which may not be advantageous to commuting services. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are no longer seeking to include that in their rail freight plans for the south-east?
I have dealt with the issue of trains. Let me now turn to the issue of Luton airport, which, surprisingly enough, is in Luton. It is in Bedfordshire, which is right next to my constituency. Constituents of mine live less than 200 yards from the runway. It is a rapidly growing airport: it handles more than 16.6 million passengers a year; and passenger numbers over the last 10 years have grown by over 80%.
If the House will indulge me, I will explain why I am particularly concerned about Luton airport beyond the fact that the disruption to my constituents from both noise and air pollution has grown significantly. Luton airport is owned by London Luton Airport Ltd on behalf of Luton Borough Council, which is also the planning authority hitherto responsible for approving increases in the allowed numbers of passengers. In December 2017, Luton Borough Council put forward a plan to expand Luton airport—a huge expansion, going up to 38 million passengers, which was later reduced to 32 million. I think, however, that everybody can appreciate that that is a significant increase from the current limit of 18 million passengers.
I am completely opposed to this proposal for expansion of Luton airport, but that is a subject for another day, because the processes of how it will be submitted are still being gone through and the Government have already accepted that the increase is so great that the application will go to the Planning Inspectorate at central Government rather than be decided by Luton Borough Council. I would make this point about Luton airport: it is not the right place for a major airport the size of Gatwick. Its location on a plateau means that topographically it is closed by fog and bad weather much more frequently than most airports in the south-east. The dense pattern of settlements around Hertfordshire and that part of the country—whether Hemel Hempstead, Harpenden, St Albans or large villages—means that significant numbers of towns and villages face growing amounts of noise and air pollution and traffic on rural roads, and particularly in my constituency.
Returning to Luton Borough Council’s role, to be frank, my constituents—and, I know, many constituents in Hertfordshire generally who are overflown by planes from Luton airport—do not trust the council on this issue, because there is a conflict of interests: Luton Borough Council owns Luton airport. I want to be very clear that I am not alleging any specific illegality or impropriety—I have no evidence of that—but, as all of us here know because we are politicians, the appearance of fairness is often as important as fairness itself and there is a significant trust deficit between my constituents, many people in Hertfordshire and Luton Borough Council and its role vis-à-vis the airport.
In December 2013, Luton Borough Council approved a proposed expansion of 9 million—from a limit of 9 million passengers to 18 million passengers. That proposal was in 2013, so only six years ago, but it was meant to take place over a 15-year period up until 2028, and the project was designed to be a balanced one that matched growth with mitigation measures for traffic, air pollution, noise pollution and the like. On the face of it that seems a broadly acceptable way of proceeding, or at least it seemed so at the time.
Since then I am afraid we have seen a lot of growth; in fact, as I have said, we are already getting up to the limit of 18 million passengers in 2019, despite the fact that we are only meant to get to that point by 2028. There has been lots of growth but no mitigation. In fact it has been worse than no mitigation; things have got worse—things have been going backwards. Noise for my constituents, which blights them every single day—and night, as I will come on to—is getting worse and worse and worse for those who are unlucky enough to live beneath a flight path.
Luton airport is now in breach of a key noise control planning condition known as the night noise contour. Broadly speaking, limits were set on how much night noise there should be and Luton airport has exceeded that limit. Here I come to the problem with Luton Borough Council: guess which body will be making the decision on whether Luton airport will be able to breach its agreed planning condition, which was expressly designed to limit noise that affects Hertfordshire? That body is Luton Borough Council.
People might think that, just because the council owns the airport, it would not necessarily approve any expansion, and that is of course true. I am sure that it will say that there are strict Chinese walls in its organisation, and perhaps there are. However, Luton Borough Council receives more than £20 million from Luton airport from dividends alone, and we can see the direct incentive to make the airport grow as fast as possible so that Luton gets the gain from the growth. I accept that there is significant economic gain for Luton; I do not deny that. However, the pain—in terms of increased traffic on small rural roads, increased noise and air pollution and significant disturbance—will come to my constituents and the people of Hertfordshire. Luton gets the gain and Hertfordshire gets the pain.
Does the Minister agree that planning conditions governing aviation noise and emissions are a key part of maintaining the balance between growth and environmental protection to which the Government’s aviation policy framework aspires? Does he condone the failure of Luton Borough Council to enforce a key planning condition despite the fact that the airport has breached the condition for the past two years and that a further breach of the same condition is predicted for this year? Will he, on behalf of his colleague, the aviation Minister in the other place, agree to the aviation Minister or another Minister from the Department sitting down with me and other local representatives and campaign groups from Hertfordshire to discuss whether the decision should be called in, in the light of the breach of the noise planning contour at Luton airport, such is the disturbance that this is imposing on my constituents?
We spoke about roads and potholes at the beginning of the debate, and I want to put on record that Hertfordshire County Council is doing its level best to improve the state of its roads. It has done well, and I call out Councillor David Williams, the leader of the county council, for working hard on this and making it a focus, but the council needs more money. I urge the Minister and the Department to keep in mind that we are not there yet. The money has increased, but there needs to be significantly more to improve the state of our rural roads in Hertfordshire and across the country.
On the roads we have cars, and we also have buses. Buses are the lifeblood of rural areas for elderly people or those who cannot afford a car. They cannot get anywhere without an adequate bus service, but in many parts of my constituency the local bus services have worsened and are inadequate. The village of Redbourn is an example, and I call out Councillor Victoria Mead for her absolutely fantastic campaigning to improve the bus service from Redbourn. Various villages to the south of Hitchin also have failing bus services that need support and improvement, and I urge the Minister to take a look at this issue in rural areas. How can we help our local bus services? I will work with him on anything that he and the Department wish to do.
I am a realist; I know that there is no magic wand. These issues are structural—whether they involve trains or Luton airport—and they take time. They are complex and difficult, and as I have said, the Government are not the only actor involved. However, I am asking the Government—in addition to answering the precise questions that I have mentioned—to lean in a bit more heavily on the side of the people and against the interests of GTR, which is not taking my constituents’ concerns adequately into account, and against the unbridled, unfettered growth of Luton airport by Luton Borough Council, which is pursuing this reckless growth and profit without taking Hertfordshire residents into consideration. Let us work together to ensure that we improve the lives of the Hertfordshire residents that I and many other colleagues are here to represent.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As a fellow Hertfordshire MP, how could I not be here this evening to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami)? He has not been in the House for long, but he has picked up on some of the crucial issues that have blighted my constituents’ lives for many years. I have lost count of the number of debates and meetings I have had about Luton airport, and every single thing that he said about the airport is accurate.
My hon. Friend talked about pain and gain. Luton Borough Council is the relevant planning authority, owns the airport and gets the money, but none of the take-offs or landings occurs over Luton, or even over Bedfordshire. Depending on the wind, the majority of planes fly over Stevenage, Hitchin and Harpenden and the rural northern part of my constituency of Hemel Hempstead. I have had meetings with the airport’s operators—the previous ones and the current ones—and they say, “We don’t have radio beacons anymore. We’ve got GPS tracking,” and I say, “I hate to say this, gentlemen, but you are the important managers who run this airport. I was standing in the village of Caddington, which is just about in my constituency, and I could have shook hands with the pilot of the plane that flew over. You are telling me that that plane wasn’t there and that it was another 500 yards away.” The residents say to me, “Look, Mike, this is what we have to put up with.”
The airport has been there a long time—it was an RAF airfield during the second world war—but there has been an increase in flights, particularly at night, with low take-offs. I have talked to pilots, many of whom work at Luton airport and live in my constituency or that of my hon. Friend, and have said to them in private, “Come on. Why don’t the planes climb faster when they come off the plateau?” If they climbed faster, the lives of my constituents and my hon. Friend’s would not be blighted so much. The answer, I am afraid, is money. The faster the planes climb, the more fuel they burn. The simple fact is that the operators, particularly the low-cost airlines, are trying to make as much money as they can, and does Luton Borough Council give a monkey’s about our constituents? No, it does not, because it is raking in the money. That is where the problem lies. I am pleased that some of the planning will now be called in and that the Planning Inspectorate will look at it, but it has taken nearly 10 years to get to this situation, and the legal authority for Luton airport is Luton Borough Council.
I will not repeat everything that my hon. Friend said about the airport, but am I a hypocrite—have I flown from Luton airport? Yes, I have on occasion. It is very convenient for my constituents, some of whom work there, so the economic gain is obvious, but we have to balance that against my constituents’ quality of life. If I stand in some of the villages in the rural parts of my constituency, I can smell something that smells like paraffin, and it is aviation fuel. They tell me that they put bits and bobs out there in the woods, but there is no mitigation out there at all, particularly when it comes to noise, yet that was part of the original plan.
I am so pleased that we have some time to talk about more areas of concern in my constituency, which shares many of the issues that affect my hon. Friend’s constituency. Turning to rail, his constituency is served by Thameslink and the east coast main line, but I am on the other side, so I have the west coast main line, and we have a fairly new operator in West Midlands Railway. Until a couple of weeks ago, I just got complaints from people saying, “I couldn’t get a seat. It is not fair,” and I feel for them, because they pay the same money as someone who has a seat. If someone gets on at Berkhamsted, they can get a seat, but someone getting on at Hemel does not get one.
However, I also have two other stations, Apsley and Kings Langley, that are commuter stations for London. Over the past couple of weeks, I have been inundated with letters and emails from constituents saying, “All of a sudden, while I’m waiting at Euston to get the train home, they’ve decided that the train will no longer stop at Apsley, and Hemel will be the first stop, or the train will stop at Watford, but then doesn’t stop until Milton Keynes.” These are people who commute every day and pay a huge amount of money for season tickets. Their cars are often at those stations because they live in more rural parts, so they are trapped. I have written to the rail operator, so it will not be surprised that I am standing here and saying this: it is simply not fair.
The best thing my hon. Friend said to the Minister is that the Government need to lean in on this. The Government represent the British public, and they give out the franchises. This is a relatively new franchise. I had problems with overcrowding under the previous operator, and we had comments about late trains, but now the trains are not even stopping at the stations where they are supposed to stop.
This morning, my member of staff said that the train turned up with six carriages, not eight, so nobody got a seat from Hemel onwards, even though the train stopped. These passengers pay the same money for the service. My Government have given the franchise to an operator that, to me, is in breach of it. Yes, passengers can get compensation, but they do not want that. They just want to go to work. They want to come home on time to see their little ‘uns go to bed, and do all the sorts of things that families want to do—they might even want to go to the pub and have a drink on the way home. They are paying for a service, and it is simply not happening.
I have two issues for the Minister, and I completely agree about Luton. It is not just the east coast main line and Thameslink; it is on our side, too.
I drove down this morning on the M1, which is often the lifeblood of commuters in our constituencies because many of them do not have the confidence to use the railway. The bus service is basically full, even from Hemel. For various different reasons, people need to drive. As I drove on to the M1 at junction 8, I might as well have been driving through a rubbish tip. I do not know what Highways England is doing, but it has a responsibility—and I know the public should not throw litter out of their windows. My local authority is desperate to encourage businesses, new people and new companies to come to Hemel. Even the downgraded M10, which is now the A414 and which Highways England still has responsibility for maintaining and looking after, is strewn with litter as it comes into my constituency. The next thing we know, Highways England comes to cut the grass and all the litter gets chopped up.
That sounds trivial, but Hertfordshire is a beautiful county. I have a new town. I have 45,000 homes in my constituency, of which only about 7,000 are in my villages. I have the Chilterns, which go right up through to the Bedfordshire border. It is stunningly beautiful, only to be blighted by people, organisations and agencies of Government not doing their job. I am sure Highways England will say it has a programme and that it collects the litter every month or two, and I have written to it loads of times over the years, but it has to be named and shamed. It is an absolute mess.
It is not just litter. Street furniture was dumped at junction 8 when Highways England did some kind of maintenance years and years ago. I have written to Highways England over and again, and I am sure it thinks it can just ignore a Member of Parliament. Well, in this case it cannot because I am naming and shaming it from the Floor of the House.
It is not all doom and gloom. In Hemel Hempstead we have the lowest unemployment since the new town was built. The unemployment rate is about 1.5%, which means there are more jobs in my town than there are unemployed people available to take them. That means there is a lot of commuting into Hemel.
Junction 8 was redesigned in about 2005, and we were thrilled when it happened, but I have 5,000 houses being built around the junction—the land is owned by the Crown Estate—and I have 20,000 new homes coming over the next 20 years. Interestingly, my constituency contained Redbourn many years ago but, as we have grown, Redbourn has commuted to another constituency.
We are growing and people are coming into the town, and junction 8 cannot cope. I know there are draft plans on the statute book, as I was a Roads Minister many years ago. Roads Ministers have plans for future road improvements and roadworks put in front of them by their people, and they consider things such as the business case ratio—if we spend £1 million on that, will we get back £5 million or £6 million? Plans are often rejected because the BCR is low. I also know full well that every now and again the Treasury will say, “Hold on a second, we’ve got quite a lot of money. Tell us about projects that are on the stocks.” One project that needs to be on the stocks—and I understand it is being worked on at the moment—is a junction 8 improvement scheme. It is now getting dangerous, because traffic is backing up at the traffic lights as we come into Hemel on to the M1 slip—and what was the M10 slip. That is unacceptable.
The success of the town means that we are growing. One of my biggest bugbears is that if you drive round the M25 or down the M1, you will see signs 20 or 30 miles away for Watford. But Watford is not the largest town in Hertfordshire, Hemel Hempstead is. You have to almost bump into Hemel before you see a road sign for it. There is a fixation in our part of the world with Watford. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and I have argued and campaigned on a new hospital for our constituents, but the news today is that they are going to chuck £350 million into the centre of Watford and the Victorian hospital there.
The Highways Agency shares the fixation. You have to be at the junction with the A41 before you see a signpost saying “Hemel Hempstead”, even though we are the largest town in Hertfordshire. I cannot allow us to continue to be the forgotten town in Hertfordshire. We are the largest, the fastest growing and, at the moment, the most dynamic town, partly because of the terrible explosions that happened in 2005. Most of my town was damaged by the Buncefield explosions, and my council has been dynamic in rebuilding my town and bringing new businesses in. That brings me back to the point that both my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about infrastructure. The public have to have trust in us to deliver the infrastructure so that business can prosper and improve the quality of life in my constituency and Hertfordshire.
We have an interesting problem. Both the east coast main line and the west coast main line have major problems at the moment, with two separate and completely different franchises. Luton airport blights my constituency and my hon. Friend’s, and if the other hon. Members for the area were here, they would be banging on about it, because that is exactly what happened in the debate in Westminster Hall. The problem extends to the small stuff, like the fact that the litter is not picked up off the motorways as often as needed. The grass grows and covers it up, but if we want an environment that we all want to live in it needs to be done.
The Government have to lean in—that is a fantastic way to describe what we expect from the Minister, and it is what I hope I did when I was the Minister at the Dispatch Box in 2010, in an Adjournment debate that should have lasted 15 minutes and was an hour and a half. The reason this matters is that people want to have trust in this place—we were talking about that in the previous debate. People want to know that their views—the emails from Mary, John, Peter or whoever—are heard, and it is not just a letter to the different rail operators or to the Minister: it is the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and saying that he or she will do something about it. That is what we would expect.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Michael Ellis)
As both my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) know, Her Majesty’s Government—this Government—are always on the side of the people, and that of course includes very much the people of Hertfordshire. This is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Minister of State for Transport, and I am privileged to respond to the excellent points that they have made.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden on securing the debate. He is an avid representative of his constituents’ interests: he was when I was Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and I know that he is on transport, too. I welcome the opportunity to speak about Hertfordshire, which is a sizeable county with a number of thriving communities, as my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend have said. Transport is a key factor in ensuring that those communities can work together to secure the local ambitions of a vibrant place to live and work. We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead talk about how incredibly low—record-breakingly low—unemployment is in his constituency. Of course, transport is a key factor in how communities live, work and play, and in how they secure their ambitions.
My hon. Friend and right hon. Friend were wide-ranging in their discussions of modes of transport. I wish to make reference to some of the work that we are doing at the Department for Transport and how we are investing in transport in the county of Hertfordshire. If I may, I shall start by talking about the A120. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden is aware that we recently announced our support for a significant transport scheme in Hertfordshire. The A120 Little Hadham bypass, promoted by Hertfordshire County Council, consists of a 3.9 km single-carriageway bypass to the north of the village of Little Hadham. The A120 is an important east-west link in Hertfordshire’s primary road network, running eastwards from the A10 at Puckeridge to join the M11 near Stansted airport. The scheme is designed to remove the significant congestion and delays that are caused by the one-way working, the signal-controlled junction and the bridge in the centre of the village, as well as to reduce the risk of fluvial flooding in Little Hadham. The total cost of that scheme alone is £39.58 million; via the Department for Transport and the Environment Agency, the Government are providing £30.6 million of that sum.
I shall come to aviation in due course, but let me move on first to local roads. The local highway network is of course one of our most valuable national assets and an essential component of our economy. It is the local roads, not the A roads or the motorways, that form some 98% of our national highway network, and local authorities such as Hertfordshire County Council have an existing legal duty to maintain them. Having a good and well-maintained local highway network has never been more important, and that applies to all the counties of our country. The Government and businesses see good roads, both strategic and local, as vital to commercial success. That of course includes issues such as litter as well as the roads’ structural goodness, if I can put it that way.
It is hugely important to have roads in an acceptable and safe condition, and that is true for us all, whether we are car users, lorry drivers, bus passengers, cyclists or pedestrians. Let us face it: most of us are many of those things at various times. Ministers and Members of Parliament receive plenty of correspondence on potholes, for example. I myself have considerable experience in this policy area: I campaigned on the subject as a Back Bencher and was credited by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne with drawing attention to the issue as it related to Northamptonshire.
The Government are investing more than £6 billion in funding for local highway authorities in England outside London between 2015 and 2021. Indeed, this year alone, the county of Hertfordshire is receiving more than £14 million for local highway maintenance. That funding is not ring-fenced and its use is entirely at the discretion of highway authorities based on their local needs and priorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with local highway authorities on a wide range of initiatives, including ensuring that funding is used for its intended purpose—to improve the condition of our local road network—as well as ensuring that authorities are open and transparent about how the significant funding we are providing is being used, because it is a lot of money.
We are also looking at transport improvements on the strategic road network. The first road investment strategy has one scheme in Hertfordshire—the smart motorway between A1(M) junctions 6 to 8. It is scheduled to start construction this financial year, 2019-20, and it will be “all lane running”, with the hard shoulder converted into a permanent running lane to help reduce congestion. Variable speed limits will also be implemented to smooth traffic flow.
As well as that, £3.5 billion has been allocated for the major road network and the large local major schemes programme. We are working with subnational transport bodies, including England’s Economic Heartland, of which Hertfordshire is a member, to prioritise schemes in their areas to be put forward for funding consideration. A lot of money is going into roads in these areas.
Rail also plays a crucial role in the Hertfordshire economy and transport network. We know that more than 60,000 people commute out of the county by rail every day, with the majority commuting to London. Rail also brings more than 12,000 workers into Hertfordshire, so many are commuting into the county as well as out of it. A number of rail projects are therefore being committed or planned that will transform rail travel in the region over the next 10 to 15 years. I understand that my hon. Friend had a positive meeting with the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), earlier today, and I understand that a further meeting has been scheduled to discuss rail services in Hitchin and Harpenden in more detail.
Major projects will provide significant changes to the capacity available and journey opportunities on key services to and from Hertfordshire. We are planning and delivering investment in key local stations in Hertfordshire, such as the planned second footbridge at St Albans City station and the Stevenage Turnback project.
Govia Thameslink Railway provides most of the services in Hertfordshire. I will focus on that franchise not only for that reason but because it was mentioned by my hon. Friend. GTR runs Thameslink and Great Northern services, which connect Harpenden, St Albans, Hitchin, Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hertford and other Hertfordshire towns to London. Recent overall performance on GTR—I have asked about this—has been strong. Its overall public performance measure figure for the most recent rail period—covering May—was 88%. However, I accept that there have been some major operational incidents in recent weeks, including power and signal failures, which have negatively impacted performance across the GTR network, including at Hitchin and Harpenden stations. My Department continues to monitor performance to ensure that, when these incidents occur, the operator recovers service as quickly as possible.
I was concerned to hear my hon. Friend mention the fact that several of his constituents had written to say that they had not received replies from GTR. Perhaps he will raise these points with me afterwards, or write to me in more detail, and I will see whether we can assist in getting expeditious responses.
In the timetable change last month, GTR introduced an additional train each hour in both directions on the Cambridge to Brighton route. I am advised that Hitchin now has more services in each peak, including more fast services, compared with before the May timetable change last year. Hitchin passengers now have a much wider range of possible destinations, with the option of travelling to King’s Cross or using the Thameslink services for direct access to St Pancras, Farringdon, City Thameslink and Blackfriars. Since last month, this range of destinations has also been available at weekends—which it was not previously—with a direct service each hour now running through central London to Brighton on Saturdays or Gatwick on Sundays.
As my hon. Friend says, GTR undertook a passenger demand review on the Thameslink route between St Pancras, St Albans, Luton and Bedford during the morning and evening peak periods to determine properly the usage of each service, including the newly introduced Thameslink express services, following timetable changes throughout the route in May 2018. GTR has consulted on small-scale changes with stakeholders who represent the interests of passengers on the Harpenden route. While an agreement was not able to be reached in time to allow for these changes from May 2019, GTR has said that this process is ongoing and that it will continue discussions with all affected parties to try to achieve a settlement for future timetable changes.
Once the midland main line upgrade works are completed, the frequency, seat numbers and overall capacity at Harpenden, Flitwick and Leagrave stations will be increased to the level that was originally planned. We have already seen additional weekend services at Harpenden, with two extra trains each hour on Saturdays and Sundays introduced in the timetable change last month. For the first time in 40 years, passengers from Hertfordshire are riding on new trains to London Moorgate, as GTR begins to replace mainland Britain’s oldest electric rail fleet. In addition to the new class 700 trains that have been introduced on Thameslink services, 150 new carriages are being introduced on Great Northern in a £240 million investment to replace trains that first entered service as long ago as 1976. The new trains have capacity for 940 people, providing around 25% more capacity compared with the trains they replace. They have air conditioning and free wi-fi, and are designed to modern standards for safety and accessibility. Those are all positive aspects.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £500 million at the autumn Budget 2018 for the housing infrastructure fund, bringing the total funding available to £5.5 billion to unlock up to 650,000 new homes across England. The fund will: deliver new physical infrastructure to support new and existing communities; make more land available for housing in high-demand areas, resulting in additional homes that otherwise would not have been built; and support ambitious local authorities that want to step up their plans for growth and make a meaningful difference to overall housing supply.
In March 2018, the Government announced the areas that are being taken forward through co-development, where the Government are working with local authorities to further develop their proposals for the housing infrastructure fund. Hertfordshire is one of the places we are working with in co-development. The Department for Transport continues to work closely with other Government Departments and local partners to take forward these proposals. By working together, we can maximise the opportunities that the fund creates. We can create well-connected places with good transport infrastructure, and accelerate the delivery of homes that the county and the country need.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of Luton airport—powerfully so—and the impact of expansion plans on the residents of his constituency. [Interruption.] Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead eloquently did the same. Under section 23 of the Planning Act 2008, all airport expansion decisions that are seeking to increase their planning cap by over 10 million passengers per year are, as my right hon. Friend acknowledges, going to be required to follow the development consent order process, so they would be considered as nationally significant infrastructure projects. That means that they are subject to Government approval as part of that process. It is not just left to the local authorities.
The Government are aware that Luton airport has been in breach of night noise contour limit planning conditions for the past two years. As the noise controls at Luton airport are set by the local planning authority, decisions on enforcement should also be made at this level and without Government intervention. As Luton airport has requested a variation to a condition of its existing planning permission, which was granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the question of whether to call the application in is not determined by the aviation Minister. I understand that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is considering requests to call in this planning application for a variation of conditions. He will have regard to call-in policy when reaching his decision. In the meantime, as a result, it would not be appropriate to comment any further.
The Government recognise, however, that aviation noise is a key concern for communities who live near airports and underneath flight paths, and that aviation emissions are a key factor when considering how the sector can grow sustainably. To maintain an appropriate balance between growth and the environmental impact of aviation, the Government believe that, where possible, noise and environmental controls should be set locally, and this is often achieved through planning conditions.
Sir Mike Penning
There is something special about Luton. Yes, this should usually be done through the local authorities and local councillors should decide, but Luton owns the airport and Luton is the planning authority. It is not done in the usual way; it is a very different situation. They get all the profits and none of the flights; they get all the benefit and we get all the pain.
Michael Ellis
I take on board my right hon. Friend’s point. I am sure he will agree, having said that, that considerable investment is currently being made in transport improvements in Hertfordshire. There are also some excellent opportunities for further investment in this key corridor through the various funding streams that I referred to earlier, most notably the housing infrastructure fund and the major road network. I would urge local partners to build a robust and compelling case that demonstrates to Government the need for investment in key infrastructure in this high-growth part of the country, delivering benefits to the constituents of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, and to current users, as well as equipping the area for future growth and success.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) order 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2019.
It is a good to have you in charge of us this afternoon, Mr Robertson. The order is short, even for a statutory instrument. It has precisely two articles—one is the citation, and the second, which is the operative one, is shorter than the footnote it references. It really is genuinely short and sweet.
The order extends for a further two years our ability to run non-jury trials in Northern Ireland. This is a regrettable step, which we have to undertake, if required, once every two years. The order provides for that extension under the terms of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007. That is all it does. This is one of those things that is, sadly, still required in Northern Ireland; it is not something that anybody particularly wants or desires. Given that the security situation in Northern Ireland remains at severe—we can all think of two very serious events that have occurred in just the last few weeks—it is, sadly, necessary.
I reassure colleagues that the powers are used very sparingly. The latest figures show that, in the six years since 2013, the number of non-jury trials has at no point exceeded 2% of the total number of Crown court cases that have been dealt with in Northern Ireland. In the last four or five years, the number of cases has been running in the mid-teens—there were 17 and 12 cases in 2015 and 2016, and about 19 in 2018. Those are very small numbers overall, and I hope that everybody here shares my hope and expectation that they will remain at that low level.
In that tiny number of cases, where there is a particular risk of juries being put under pressure, these measures are regrettably still needed. It is therefore wise and necessary, sadly, to extend the provisions for a further two years. We have been doing that regularly since the old Diplock court system—this is not that—was replaced in 2007. They have been extended every two years ever since. They have come up again, although I say that with regret and a heavy heart.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Having read the background documents, I will be supporting the Government on this statutory instrument. However, one of the comments in the consultation responses was about reviewing the statutory test for issuing a non-jury trial certificate. Will the Minister expand on whether that will happen? I would feel happier if that were the case.
John Penrose
I will endeavour to address that and any other comments in my final remarks, after I have given the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ealing North, a chance to make his comments. He has dealt with previous extensions and is highly experienced. I will happily come back to any comments and deal with them, if I can, as a group.
To finish my basic exposition of what the statutory instrument does, it is, sadly, necessary. It provides for a further session of two years. It is the third or fourth such extension since the old Diplock court system was removed. I look forward to responding to any comments and concerns. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth plans to support the measure in principle.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I repeat the comment made by the Minister that it is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Robertson. I had the honour to serve under you on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for many years, and I have huge respect for your involvement, so it is a pleasure, and it is entirely appropriate that you are chairing this debate.
I also welcome the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who was a most distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I feel slightly awed to be standing and speaking in her presence. I have no doubt that she will correct me, should I err.
It is not the intention of the Opposition to oppose this instrument. This is the fourth time that I have served on such a Committee to seek an extension of this process. Tragically, the situation in Northern Ireland has not improved. If only we could say that we no longer need these courts and non-jury trials. However, the tragic death of Lyra Catherine McKee and the recent incident of a bomb being found under a police officer’s car tell us why the situation is still, rightly, classified as severe.
I would have hoped, after that extraordinary occasion in St Anne’s Cathedral in Belfast, at which the Minister and I were both present and heard the extraordinary eulogy—a call for unity and for some good to come from the tragic death of Lyra McKee—that we could move forward. We will have a statement from the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House later. I hope that it will be good news, but as someone who has spent a lot of time on this area, I am inured to a certain in-built pessimism.
We must renew the provisions tonight because, frankly, jury tampering remains a real threat. Intimidation is also a real threat, for not just juries but the judiciary. In the past, judges have actually been killed—we could cite many cases. We therefore have to extend the provisions.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth was correct: there has to be an element of oversight, particularly on the certification process. The last time we raised this matter, the role of the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland civil service, the judiciary and the prosecution service was raised. Some further comment about the physical process of certification might reassure some of my colleagues. I am not aware that any respondents to the consultation raised that issue, but perhaps we should look at it.
It is noteworthy that there has not been an upswell of opposition. The introduction of the Diplock courts led literally to rioting on the streets—bullets were fired. When Diplock courts came in, it was one of the most unpleasant and brutal times in Northern Ireland’s history. We have moved on from that, and the Minister rightly said that this is not the Diplock system by another name. We are talking about a tragic necessity in a very sad time.
I support the Minister on this measure, and the Labour party will support the Government. However, we will do so with, as the Minister rightly said, a heavy heart, because we all hope and pray that the day will come when this measure will be unnecessary. That terrorism remains such an inherent problem in Northern Ireland is a terrible indictment of our inability to get to grips with the situation. I am always keen to hear what the Government are doing to try to dial down that severe level of threat.
The information that the Minister has given us about the percentages—we are talking about 2% of all trials in Northern Ireland—is crucial, and needs to be reiterated at all opportunities. Above all, any of us who was at the funeral service for Lyra Catherine McKee would have hoped and felt in our hearts that the sunshine was perhaps breaking through the rain clouds and that there was some hope.
I still think that the basic, inherent decency of the people of Northern Ireland—some of the best people I have ever met—will triumph, and that these dark days will become a memory, as will these statutory instruments. We do not want to be here, but we have to be at the moment. With a heavy heart, I endorse the Minister’s comments.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to your work on Northern Ireland matters, Mr Robertson, and I am pleased to see you in the Chair. I will make one or two brief points that I would be grateful if the Minister could consider. He has heard the them from me before.
Whether one is talking about non-jury or jury trials, I believe we need criminal justice reform in Northern Ireland. It is a concern that the lack of devolved institutions is holding that back. It is difficult enough to deliver at the best of times, but it is obviously more or less impossible in the absence of devolved Ministers to make those kinds of decisions.
In many quite serious cases, there are protracted delays. Delays are bad not only for defendants, because they have the charges hanging over them for longer, but for the appropriate administration of justice, because they make it more difficult to establish a successful prosecution, as evidence can obviously weaken over time.
I hope the Government, in their efforts to get Stormont back up and running, or in the absence of that, will not forget the need to ensure that the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland works effectively, not least because of the very serious terrorist threat that is still evident there, as both Front Benchers acknowledged. One way to address that threat is by effectively prosecuting those charged with terrorist offences. Prosecutions are certainly more difficult if they take excessive time, not least because people who are charged with serious terrorist offences are not infrequently released on bail. For all sorts of reasons, that is unsatisfactory, but it becomes almost inevitable if a trial takes one, two or even three years to get off the ground.
I hope you will forgive me, Mr Robertson, for raising a more general point about the criminal justice system. As I say, it applies to both jury and non-jury trials. It is an important part of normalising Northern Ireland and addressing the security threats to ensure that justice can be delivered effectively and without excessive delays.
John Penrose
I should start by saying that I am delighted to hear that everybody is committed in principle to supporting this measure. That is tremendously reassuring. It is important that we speak on a cross-party basis with one voice and that we remain committed to delivering effective justice, even when people are trying to subvert fair trials in Northern Ireland—admittedly, in a small minority of cases. I am delighted that everybody is on side and willing to support this measure, and I thank them for that.
As I go through my speech, I will address the points that have been made, starting with that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, the former Secretary of State. She is absolutely right that criminal justice reform not just in terms of non-jury trials but more broadly in Northern Ireland is increasingly pressing. This is one of several devolved areas of government in Northern Ireland—the issue is not limited to criminal justice—that are crying out for reform. Had Stormont been sitting for the past two-plus years, we would have expected to see major and significant reforms. Not making reforms creates not just a slower process of justice, but in many cases a much less efficient and more expensive process of justice, or whatever other area of devolved government we are talking about. The fact that we are two-plus years on from the last time Stormont Members were able to address these issues means that the list of things that are less efficient, less timely, slower and just generally being left behind by the passage of time and the progress of events is getting longer and longer.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there will be a statement in the main Chamber later this afternoon, in which the progress of the Stormont resumption talks will be reported to hon. Members. The talks are moving forward. I do not want to pre-empt what will be said, but there may be an opportunity for her and others to ask for more detail about the progress and prospects for developments. She is right that, ultimately, the only way to solve this is to get Members of the Legislative Assembly back inside the doors of Stormont so they can address these issues. It is far better for those issues to be dealt with within Stormont, rather than from Westminster, principally because it ensures peaceful, democratic problem-solving of Northern Ireland problems in Northern Ireland. Even when people are trying to do their very best here, we are just not quite as close to the issues as the people who have been elected to Stormont for that purpose.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth asked about the four criteria that are used to decide whether something qualifies as a non-jury trial. In fact, there are two levels of criteria, one of which is split into four. Fundamentally, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland has to be satisfied that there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if a jury trial were held. They then have to suspect that one or more of four criteria—to which, I think, the hon. Lady referred—has been satisfied: whether a defendant is an associate of various proscribed organisations, and a whole series of similar but slightly different related criteria.
David Seymour, the independent reviewer of this legislation, came up with a series of recommendations in his 11th report, which we are in the process of addressing. I cannot see a proposal there to change those four criteria, but if the hon. Lady has any particular proposals she wants to suggest, she should, by all means, write to me, and we will see whether we can address them. In general, David Seymour’s recommendations are being taken forward. We are not going to be able to take them all through, but many of them are being dealt with.
It is important that all of us here remember that David Seymour and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have said that they regard this extension of non-jury trials as a regrettable but necessary requirement in the circumstances. I thank all Members again for supporting this measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore
The amendments have been made with the intention to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden on charities and ensure that the OfS has a sufficient regulatory relationship with the relevant exempt charities to be an effective principal regulator. The amendment to the Charities Act made the removal of exempt status automatic upon deregistration, so no action is actually required by the OfS. The OfS can deregister a provider only if certain conditions are met. That covers both conditions on registration, and consideration of the denial of an access and participation plan.
[Official Report, 15 May 2019, Vol. 660, c. 266.]
Chris Skidmore
Separately, regulations 28 and 32 amend the Education (Information About Children in Alternative Provision) (England) Regulations 2007 and the Education (Individual Pupil Information) (Prescribed Persons) (England) Regulations 2009. The provision requires institutions that are not schools in receipt of funding from the Department for Education to provide certain pupil information to the Secretary of State and other bodies, including HEFCE. The amendment will substitute OfS for HEFCE, as HEFCE no longer exists. That is the same for regulation 32.
[Official Report, 15 May 2019, Vol. 660, c. 267.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation:
Errors have been identified in my speech during the debate.
The correct information should have been:
Chris Skidmore
The amendments have been made with the intention to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden on charities and ensure that the OfS has a sufficient regulatory relationship with the relevant exempt charities to be an effective principal regulator. The amendment to the Charities Act made the removal of exempt status automatic upon deregistration, so no action is actually required by the OfS. The OfS can deregister a provider only if certain conditions are met, one of which is serious breach of conditions of registration.
Chris Skidmore
Separately, regulations 28 and 32 amend the Education (Information About Children in Alternative Provision) (England) Regulations 2007 and the Education (Individual Pupil Information) (Prescribed Persons) (England) Regulations 2009. The provision requires both schools and institutions that are not schools in receipt of funding from local authorities to provide certain pupil information to the Secretary of State and other bodies, including HEFCE. The amendment will substitute OfS for HEFCE, as HEFCE no longer exists. The substitution is the same for regulation 32.
Yamuna River
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 4th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 View all Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 June 2019 - (4 Jun 2019)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Welcome, everyone. Please switch electronic devices to silent. I remind colleagues that teas and coffees are not allowed in the room—unless you are offering me some.
Today we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Our first item of business is to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, before beginning line-by-line consideration of the Bill itself. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally, without debate.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 4.30 pm on Tuesday 4 June) meet—
(a) at 7.30 pm on Tuesday 4 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 June;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clause 3; Schedule 2; Clauses 4 to 8; Schedule 3; Clause 9; Schedule 4; Clauses 10 to 15; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 11 June.—(Kevin Foster.)
The Chair
That means that the deadlines for amendments to be considered at the Committee’s line-by-line sittings today and on Thursday have passed. The next deadline is the rise of the House on Thursday for amendments for consideration at our final line-by-line sitting next Tuesday.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Kevin Foster.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions on amendments are taken when we come to the part of the Bill the amendment affects. New clauses are decided at the end. In this instance, that means new clause 1 will be debated early on in proceedings with the existing clauses to which it is connected, but a decision on it will not be taken until later.
Clause 1
“The Parliamentary building works”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. You and I go back some way in our political journeys, having first met back in 1992, when you were still Councillor Streeter. It is safe to say that we also have to look back over a long period of time—decades—as we start to look at the Bill and the maintenance and repair works that need to be done.
Clause 1 defines what the Bill is about: looking to tackle the numerous problems with the Palace of Westminster, including falling masonry, fire risks, water leaks, sewage leaks and toilet closures. We all agree—the Bill’s Second Reading was approved unanimously, without a Division—that the restoration and renewal of this Palace is an urgent and pressing requirement that needs to be progressed. Following the passage of motions on R and R by both Houses in early 2018, the former Leader of the House made swift progress, publishing a draft Bill in October 2018 for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill published its report in March 2019, and we took on board many of its recommendations before introducing this Bill on 8 May.
This is a short, sensible Bill, which will put in place the necessary governance arrangements with the capacity and capability to oversee and deliver the restoration and renewal of the Palace. The Bill will also put in place a number of financial safeguards to ensure that the R and R programme represents the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Clause 1 outlines the parliamentary building works to which the Bill relates. It sets out what works the Sponsor Body will be responsible for as part of the R and R programme. We know the Sponsor Body will be responsible for the works to restore the Palace, as well as certain works connected with the restoration of the Palace, such as the arrangements for decanting the House of Lords. However, the clause also allows for the scope of the works the Sponsor Body is responsible for to be widened if the House Commissions decide, with the agreement of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, that it should be. Crucially for many Members, the clause also requires this work to be undertaken with a view to Parliament returning to the Palace of Westminster
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”,
in line with the resolutions passed by both Houses.
For the reasons outlined, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair today, Sir Gary. I do not wish to delay the Committee much longer, and certainly I do not have time to pay tribute to the fraternity of MPs from Devon, much as I would love to be a part of what is presumably a beautiful county.
Obviously, we very much support the terms of the Bill, and we have already made that clear on Second Reading. Clause 1 sets out the basis and the terms of reference for the Bill. We recognise the intrinsic value of this historic site, and there is no question that there is a long overdue need for restoration and renewal. Indeed, a constituent contacted me over the weekend who had been involved in surveying the building and some of the utilities attached to it 20 years ago. He told me that his report at the time, which obviously was not acted on, indicated that there was an urgent need even then to undertake works. Those works have not taken place and therefore we are where we are now.
The project will clearly cost money; we are talking, after all, about a UNESCO world heritage site, which in part has stood continuously since the middle ages. We cannot reasonably ignore this issue any longer. We support clause 1, and we do not seek to amend it. It lays out clearly the scope of the parliamentary building works, and we would hope to see that progress through to the next stage.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Naturally, one of the concerns about this building—we saw this in Paris, of course—is about what would happen if there was an emergency and the building was badly damaged in the interim. Who, once the Bill becomes law, will be responsible for dealing with remedial works before the restoration commences?
The Chair
Does the Minister wish to respond to that question? There is no obligation for him to do so; it is up to him.
Kevin Foster
Certainly our intention would be for the Sponsor Body to take responsibility for the full process of the works on the estate, and, again, the way that clause 1 is drafted allows that to be extended if necessary.
The overall push of the Bill is to create the legal mechanism for delivery of the project, and I will be clear that the alternative to not having clause 1 stand part of the Bill, and indeed to not having this Bill, would be that the House Commissions would try to deal with things separately, in a way that would neither deliver value for money nor provide clear accountability.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I think that what the Minister was probably moving towards suggesting is that there is no intention to hand the building over until such time as a full set of plans has been produced, the House has approved a budget and all the rest of it. In other words, that is some considerable way down the line. In the meantime, surely we have to do what patching and mending we still need to do to make sure that our staff are safe and that we can continue to do our work as effectively as possible.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention. He is absolutely right that passing the Bill does not hand over the Palace of Westminster immediately to the Sponsor Body. That will happen after a further stage of parliamentary approvals, when we will look to approve estimates and budget plans, and also make choices, bluntly, about what we want to spend and what we want to get from the Sponsor Body. That is when the Sponsor Body will take responsibility for the building, subject to the plans to bring us back to it in due course.
I will make one point, and I know the hon. Member for Rhondda will agree. He talks about our still having to spend money to patch and mend, and, yes, money is still being spent every day. I am very clear that doing nothing is not a choice. The choice is either to do something that might put this building into fit use for the future, or to continue to patch and mend, knowing that we are not mending the building and that it is getting worse every day.
In particular, the potential for a serious fire, or a disastrous fire at the level that we saw at Notre-Dame, cannot now be ruled out. Although the building is life safe—we can make sure that we can keep people safe—we cannot give any great guarantees about what would happen. If anyone takes a visit down to the basement, they only need to look at the many decades of wiring, pipes and other things passing over, plus some of the voids within this building, and the design of it from the Victorian era, to know that that would not be how we would build a fire-safe building today.
With that, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
The Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
Christian Matheson
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(f) to require the Delivery Authority to ensure that contracts for construction work in connection with the Parliamentary building works must not be awarded to construction companies who have been found to have blacklisted construction workers from employment and who have subsequently failed to enter into a Trade Union Recognition Agreement with a registered UK trade union.”
We fully support the creation of a Sponsor Body as a single client body working on behalf of each House with overall responsibility for the programme. The body will make strategic decisions relating to the carrying out of the works and consult with Members of both Houses when performing their duties.
The Bill requires the Sponsor Body to form a company limited by guarantee, the Delivery Authority, to formulate proposals relating to the Palace restoration works and to carry out the parliamentary building works. With the inclusion of the Delivery Authority, these two independent authorities are able to operate effectively in the commercial sphere, bringing the expertise and capability needed for a project of this scale. This two-tier approach was used successfully to deliver the London Olympics.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Sir Gary. I wish to seek clarity on whether there will be a clause stand part debate separate to the debate on the amendment.
The Chair
It partly depends on how the debate unfolds, but if it is of particular interest to the right hon. Gentleman, I am happy to give him that guarantee at this stage. Is he looking for that?
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Sir Gary. Rather than several of us making four speeches, might it not be better to have just one debate on all the amendments to the clause and vote on them at the end? Might that be a little briefer?
The Chair
That is a very good point. We have a number of amendments tabled by different individuals. I look to Meg Hillier. Are you content?
The Chair
Why don’t we do that? Let’s be grown up about this. We will discuss all amendments to clause 2 at the same time. Christian Matheson, are you happy with that?
The Chair
As well as amendment 2, we will therefore consider:
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(h) to require the Delivery Authority to ensure that opportunities to bid for contracts for the Parliamentary building works are promoted across the United Kingdom and that a yearly audit is carried out of the location and size of the companies awarded contracts, with the aim of ensuring that the economic benefit of the Parliamentary building works is spread across the United Kingdom and across companies of different sizes.”
New clause 1—Report on construction contracts—
“(1) The Delivery Authority must publish a report once every six months setting out the construction contracts awarded or let as part of the Parliamentary building works.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the number and type of contracts awarded;
(b) the location of the firm awarded the contract; and
(c) anything else the sponsor body deems necessary.
(3) The Delivery Authority must lay each report under subsection 1 before both Houses of Parliament”.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, leave out “desirability” and insert “need”.
Christian Matheson
Thank you, Sir Gary.
Clause 2 gives some directions to the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body about the way it might exercise its functions. Amendment 2 is on the subject of blacklisting and I remind the Committee of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is that I am proudly a member of the Unite and GMB trade unions and have received support from both in the past. I bring forward this amendment on blacklisting not at the behest of any trade union but on my own initiative and that of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, because it is the right thing to do.
Blacklisting is pernicious. It destroys lives and it is dangerous, and I must tell the Committee that it is still going on. Skilled tradesmen, electricians, plumbers, heating and ventilation specialists, steel erectors, mechanical and electrical contractors, all with full qualifications and experience, suddenly find that they cannot get taken on for work on any construction site, or they are given a job, they turn up to start and are suddenly told they are not needed anymore. The secret network of the blacklisters has kicked in and a worker’s card is marked. They are marked down as a troublemaker or a militant.
I have represented construction workers and, sure, some are difficult or what might be termed less than politely in the industry as arsey. I challenge hon. Members to look around the Committee. Here too, on both sides, we have our own awkward squad. In every walk of life we find people of different types. Let us be clear: this is not what blacklisting is about. That is simply a cover.
The people who are blacklisted may have done nothing at all to deserve to be ostracised. A site manager might simply dislike an individual. The result: he is blacklisted. More likely, though, they are people who stood up for decent conditions, fair pay and, critically in the construction sector, for strong health and safety standards. Construction is a dangerous business and corners cut might mean costs cut, but it also means lives put at risk or even lost. Too often, the men who have been willing to stand up for their fellow workers and challenge lax health and safety regimes are the ones who have been marked down as troublemakers, when the truth is that, in many respects, they are doing their employers a service.
Earlier blacklisting bodies included the Economic League and the Services Group. The Consulting Association is the most recent example of an organised blacklist that we know of; its offices were raided in 2009 by the Information Commissioner’s Office, and it was found to have been running an organised blacklisting operation with 3,300 names. An idea of the scale of operation can be judged from the fact that in the 2008-09 financial year subscribers spent £87,749 on name checks. That means that, at £2.20 for each check, 39,886 names were checked.
Tom Brake
I know that the hon. Gentleman has pursued the matter assiduously, and I commend him for that. He has rightly set out the scale of the problem. He will be aware that if a policy of employing no companies that had blacklisted workers had been followed, there would have been difficulties delivering contracts. Does he know how many of the largest players in the construction sector have entered into a trade union recognition agreement?
Christian Matheson
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The problem is that blacklisting was prevalent in the industry for many years, and the danger is that it is still prevalent. The truth is that I am not quite sure. Most of those companies will not have done that at this stage, but this measure is a way of encouraging that. I will come back to that point.
In the decade since the 2009 raid on the Consulting Association, trade unions fighting for their members would have found it easier to get blood from a stone than to get justice for their members. Compensation was received from only some of the culprits, after lengthy legal battles. One such construction company was Sir Robert McAlpine. Last December at the commencement of yet another legal action, the company said that
“Blacklisting in construction was, until 2009, an industry-wide issue…most of the largest British companies in operation today were involved in the past when there was no legislation in place to outlaw the practice.”
In other words, they would still be at it now if the minimal legislation had not been in place, which incidentally is mostly to do with data protection laws. Since the founding chairman of the Consulting Association was a director of Sir Robert McAlpine, we can hardly be surprised. Yet many firms are still at it now, and many have not admitted their guilt or paid compensation. Parliament cannot be allowed to be associated with the practice, or with firms that have undertaken the practice and failed to make good their crimes and misdemeanours.
First, the reputation of Parliament is at stake. We cannot be seen to be enriching businesses that carried out these crimes and have not been held responsible or admitted liability. Secondly, this is a prestigious contract, and these will be prestigious contracts. It is not just about the money. The companies will win new business on the back of this globally high-profile work. Thirdly, it is also about the type of culture we want working on projects on this estate: one in which safety is paramount and where concerns are listened to; one in which workers are respected; and one in which discrimination is not permitted. We need to be clear that blacklisting is a form of discrimination. If such a culture is permitted, and if workers are too scared to raise concerns for fear of losing not just their job but their ongoing livelihood, then the reputational damage to Parliament should someone suffer injury or death on our site would be horrendous, not to mention, of course, the responsibility we would bear for the victim and his or her family.
The amendments before the Committee instruct the Delivery Authority not to consider applications for contracts from firms that have been found to be involved in blacklisting, and that have not subsequently entered into a trade union recognition agreement. To touch on the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, Members on this side have considered different forms of words to encapsulate the demonstration of progress away from blacklisting made by construction firms. We considered whether it would have been sufficient to have paid compensation arising from the court cases. I remind the Committee that some implicated firms have not even done that—I cannot name them yet because they are involved in ongoing legal cases, but there are several of them.
We decided that it was insufficient, as it did not clearly demonstrate a change of behaviour. The amendment calls for the Delivery Authority to proscribe any of the firms found to have been involved in blacklisting, for example through the loss of a court case, reaching an out-of-court settlement, or having been a member of a blacklisting body such as the Consulting Association and having not since entered into a recognition agreement with a UK trade union. A recognition agreement is a way of demonstrating a change of culture: a determination to work together to resolve problems and a commitment to treating employees and their representatives with respect. In other words, it is about not just apologising for blacklisting in the past but taking clear and concrete steps not to undertake it again. I am sure that workplace safety would be at the heart of any such agreement, with which no hon. Member could disagree. If we insist on the measure in this place, it will send a signal to the industry for the first time, and we may see the beginning of the end of this dreadful, mean, discriminatory practice that has downright dangerous consequences. We missed the chance in offering the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben contract to McAlpine, which had previously been up to its neck in blacklisting; we cannot miss it again. Above all, it is right to make a stand against blacklisting, so I urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Following your guidance, Sir Gary, I will move on to new clause 1.
Christian Matheson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, who has also tabled amendments on the subject. The project is of national significance and is relevant to every part of the UK. Regions and nations across the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to benefit economically from the parliamentary building works. Work should be spread across the United Kingdom and across companies of different sizes.
The project provides us with a wonderful opportunity to invest in people’s futures by upskilling them and by working with small and medium-sized enterprises as well as larger businesses. It is incumbent on the Sponsor Body to ensure that all areas of the country benefit from the programme, including businesses outside London and the south-east. Market engagement and involvement must begin early and reach as widely as possible to include geographically diverse companies.
In particular, the project gives us the opportunity to work with people in the heritage and conservation sector, with the potential to create training opportunities in that sector. Those skills may have been lost or might not exist in some areas of the UK economy, so this is an opportunity to bring them to the nation for the first time, or for the first time in many years. There is a real risk of a skills shortage in this niche sector. The Joint Committee recommended that the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority consider how apprenticeships and other training schemes could be delivered as part of the R and R programme to increase capacity in the area and to provide a lasting legacy of skills from the programme.
The new clause asks the relevant body to provide a regular report that details its work and how it has met the requirements of spreading the work, wealth and skills around, so that can be scrutinised and progress can be monitored. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Christian Matheson
The new clause does not seek to prescribe how the Sponsor Body or Delivery Authority spreads those benefits around, although the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is more than sensible. It seeks to lay out a regime in which the scrutiny of the success of those proposals can be undertaken, so we can make sure that progress is being made. In this day and age, it would be absurd not to put those contracts and work opportunities online. I would also like to think that the bodies concerned would be proactive in going out and finding skills.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
We need to do more than just say, “It’s online”, and think we have somehow ticked a box. We need the equivalent of roadshows, or whatever, to go out and speak to the companies, and make them aware that this project is for the whole country and not just for London.
Christian Matheson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In many respects, this is an opportunity to promote the work that is being done in Parliament. There has been criticism of the programme in the past—the Minister and other hon. Members referred to it on Second Reading—but it would also be an opportunity to promote exactly why the work is needed and would promote the benefits as well as the actual contracts themselves.
Amendment 3 is about the Joint Committee’s recommendation concerning the renewal of Parliament’s education centre, which the Government have so far overlooked. Under clause 2(4)(g), the Bill states that there is a need to confirm
“the desirability of ensuring that educational and other facilities are provided”
in the restored Palace. However, the Joint Committee recommended that the Sponsor Body should take account of the need rather than the desirability of such facilities. The current wording of the Bill does not provide a concrete commitment to guaranteeing refurbishment of the vital education services. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that the education centre has been a huge success in bringing the work of Parliament alive to the many schools that visit. I pay tribute to the staff who work in the education centre for the fantastic work that they do.
As I say, the current wording of the Bill does not provide a concrete commitment to guaranteeing refurbishment of vital education services. The Opposition strongly support mandating the restoration of those services. Our education facilities are a core part of the parliamentary estate. Everybody has a right to learn about their parliamentary democracy, and educational facilities form the background of parliamentary engagement. The programme provides us with an opportunity to renew and enhance the education centre to allow for wider engagement, particularly with younger audiences. The education centre should be part of the legacy of the programme of restoration and renewal to encourage greater awareness of an involvement in Parliament. Such engagement with parliamentary politics is perhaps more important now than ever.
Although the cost of renewal will be high, the benefits will be great. We could create a newly refurbished education centre with accessible modern resources for those wishing to visit the building and engage with the work of the Houses. The new facilities that are built could be used for educational purposes once the House no longer needs them when the decant is finished. The restoration and renewal process is a project of national significance and it will be a mistake to overlook the opportunity to create a new and innovative education and learning centre and the wider educational facilities across the estate that are at the heart of Parliament.
Furthermore, the amendment links closely with the Joint Committee’s recommendation for consideration of public engagement in the restoration and renewal to be included in the Bill. It recommended that the Sponsor Body should promote public engagement with and public understanding of Parliament. The Sponsor Body has an important role to fulfil in engaging the public with its work and the ongoing works. The process should involve full and open engagement with relevant national and local bodies and with individuals. In that way the public are involved in their Parliament at all stages and are aware of the progress.
The former Leader of the House stated that it would not be
“appropriate that this should be part of the Sponsor Board’s role”,
and that responsibility should lie with Parliament. However, it seems that public involvement should be intrinsic to the process of renewal, as Parliament belongs to the people and should adhere to their input.
Mr Prisk
I agree with much of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but, without wanting to appear a pedant, would it be better not to have the word “need” and simply delete the first three words of clause 2(4)(g) so that the clause would read,“the Sponsor Body must have regard to ensuring that educational and other facilities are provided”, rather than having regard to the “need”? Might that be a little stronger and more effective?
Christian Matheson
It is now a matter of sadness—it sounds facetious—that I did not consult the hon. Gentleman when I tabled my amendment, because his proposal is a lot simpler. I often wonder about the simpler the wording, the better the wording, but I am most grateful to him for that. Perhaps we can return to his proposal at some point.
The education centre provides a crucial lifeline for public engagement with parliamentary activities. We have a duty to protect and renew this UNESCO world heritage site, but we also have a duty to ensure that it connects with the next generation and future generations in a way that is exciting, attractive, vibrant and entirely relevant. I hope members of the Committee will bear that in mind when considering voting on the amendment.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Before I call Meg Hillier to speak, for clarity I remind Members that we are debating amendment 2 to clause 2, with which it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, new clause 1 and amendment 3. Because we are taking the group of amendments together, I will reverse my previous ruling on the clause stand part debate: now is the time to make your most excellent speeches. I call Meg Hillier.
Meg Hillier
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary and finally to be here debating this Bill. I pay tribute to the Joint Committee that produced its excellent report in 2016; it is just a shame that it has taken so long to get this far, but we are here now with a common purpose.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester for the blacklisting amendment that he has tabled; it is an excellent opportunity to enshrine in law something that will change habits. In the Committee that I have the privilege of chairing, a challenge when looking at Government contracting is often that Government are a big purchaser of services, but they have power that they do not choose to use to set parameters. This is an opportunity for a project of this size—many billions of pounds—to set the parameters and establish and push a better method of practice in a sector that has had problems in the past. Certainly, any business that wants to take part should behave in the way that my hon. Friend suggested.
My amendment stems partly from my experience as a Member representing part of the Olympic site. When the 2012 Olympics were proposed, one of the things that excited my local residents was the opportunity for them and their friends and family to get jobs on the site. Despite much pressure for that to happen, we discovered during and after the Olympics that there were a number of issues with local businesses and individuals getting work on the site. A lot of promises were made, and sometimes they were genuinely made but people found ways of getting around them. For example, a local resident could be somebody renting a room for a few weeks, who therefore became a local resident and qualified in the resident targets for those jobs, but they were not local. Local businesses did not get enough of a look in because the contracts were very large.
In preparation for the 2012 Olympics I visited New South Wales—not on the taxpayer’s pound as I was on holiday—and I met the Culture Minister for New South Wales. In preparation for the Sydney Olympics, they went through every contract that was going to be let in the Olympics and broke it down to every single item that they might need to procure—every chair was broken down into its nuts and bolts. If there were companies that produced something in not quite the way required for the Olympics, they were given the advice and opportunity to learn to produce something different to meet the needs of the Olympics. Those contracts were laid out clearly. Added to that, the Government of New South Wales made a concerted effort to work with their local businesses to make sure they were contract-ready, so they could bid for the scale of contracts that the Olympics might require.
Meg Hillier
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to that.
The point of that experience is that it is not for us to prescribe how the Sponsor Body might do this, but a body managing a project of this size, with this range of work, can seek out and assist and support others to do it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside talked about having roadshows; there are Members in this House who will be the best advocates for their local businesses. I am sure that people who know that we are on this Committee and have an interest have come and told many of us about how their constituency provided elements of the existing building and could provide them again.
Meg Hillier
I think we will hear from the ceramics sector in a moment. There are an awful lot of opportunities for our local businesses. I am sure that local authorities and business organisations in different areas will be champing at the bit to prove that their organisations can do it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside made a valid point about contracting. The Government have moved on with things like G-Cloud to make it easier for smaller businesses to contract, but the rules can be challenging. I would not want to prescribe anything in the Bill because I think it is challenging to prescribe in law, but I hope that the Sponsor Body—I will put it on the record, and I hope it will read or hear this—makes sure that the contracts are broken down into the right size. Often, for those procuring large contracts, it is simpler to secure one big one and to let the subcontractors to the big contract take up the work. The danger with that is that they are not subcontractors.
One of the things that we need to have in place is an audit system. With the Olympics, after the event no proper audit was done of the jobs that were supposed to be created locally. The National Audit Office could have direct access to those companies, which would be a great way forward, or the Sponsor Body could commission its own audit. As we have a National Audit Office serving Parliament, however, I think it would be an excellent place to do that. The outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General and his team were keen on that. I have not had the chance to speak to the new incumbent, who started his job—very nobly—on Saturday. It is early days for him, but I am hopeful that the NAO team is still willing to take that on, as I had that reassurance from them.
Unless we measure and monitor what is happening, games can be played—people and businesses can lose out. This measure does not need to cost more if the preparatory work is done, so that such businesses can apply. Think of the skills that this place could use—stonemasons, wood carvers and a huge range of other skills and niche businesses—some of which we might not have in the UK, but if we start planning now and thinking about what we might be doing, some businesses could adapt their production processes to provide some of the things that this House needs. The prospect of a big contract might make it worth their while to take that risk. Of course it is a risk—we cannot just give those companies a contract; they will still have to bid for it—but if they are willing to do that, we should give them every opportunity.
That yearly audit is vital, and the benefits will not happen otherwise. If the Sponsor Body goes down the route of having subcontractors, we have to have a way to ensure that the big companies really subcontract to specialists, not just to subcontractors they already know and work with, but opening things up more widely. The risk is that that will not happen, but I do not want to prescribe it in law because it is challenging.
If the amendment is adopted it would require the Sponsor Body to think about big project integration. Often with big projects—most recently with Crossrail—the challenge is to integrate the smaller contracts at the time just before delivery. Some of the bits of work will have to finish at around the same time, or in sequential order, to work properly, so the Sponsor Body would be required to think that through carefully in the early days. That is why I would like to get this in the Bill, so that the body has no excuse—in law, it would know what it has to do.
Mr Prisk
I envisage that this will be a digital project and that building the information modelling will be at the heart of the way in which it is done. That naturally undertakes what the hon. Lady just described. Is that her expectation of how this contract will be delivered?
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is one of the things that could happen, but as we have seen—I had the privilege of visiting Crossrail a couple of times, most recently in the past few weeks—sometimes nothing beats having eyes on the ground, seeing what is happening and checking with contractors what is happening. That is a skill of project management, which of course uses digital tools to deliver. Who knows, but let us hope that a British business delivers such tools and will be able to help the Sponsor Body and win such a project. A good project manager will still be needed on the ground to ensure that all the smaller businesses work together.
This measure does not need to cost more money; it just needs to be planned from the beginning. The process cannot be added at the end, suddenly, when someone says, “Oh, we have had a lot of noise from MPs who are concerned that their companies have not got the business.” It must be planned from the beginning. The Minister is very committed to his region, and he was a great advocate for Devon when he served nobly on the Public Accounts Committee, so I am sure that he is with us in spirit. I hope that the Government are willing to accept the amendment. I will accept a change of wording if they feel that the drafting is amiss, although I had good advice from the Clerks.
Tom Brake
I am in some difficulty in asking questions, given my role on the House of Commons Commission, but I have established that I am allowed to speak and to express views. As the hon. Lady knows, the northern estate programme is very large and is already under way. Contractors can email that programme to express an interest in the works. That seems to me to be a good testbed for what she is arguing for—all the work that she wants to happen to audit the restoration and renewal project.
Meg Hillier
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to start now and make it a mission of this place to set a tone for how other large projects should be run, to ensure that we support our thriving and exceptional small business sector, which, even with Government attempts to try to send more money in its direction, sometimes still feels cut out of large Government contracts, which are not broken down to a small enough scale. I hope the Minister will take that on board.
I want to comment on the education centre. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford suggested an elegant manuscript amendment—I am not sure what the procedure would be, Sir Gary, or whether that would be accepted—but the general principle raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester is right. We must not forget that the current education centre is a temporary building. It had planning permission only for a decade, it did not get built straightaway, and where it is now will have to be a space for heavy plant, so that building will be gone during—if not before—the restoration.
With the prospect of a new temporary Chamber or facility in the northern estate, there is every opportunity to plan in education from day one. It should not be an optional extra. I am often in and out of that building with schoolchildren from Hackney South and Shoreditch—it is very close by and easy to get here—and the building has had a major impact in helping them to develop their political understanding and skills. I will have plenty of successors from Hackney South and Shoreditch, and there will be heavy competition when I hang up my shoes and move on, because they have been inspired by coming here.
I pay tribute to the education team. In fact, I have also looked at their value for money, and pound for pound they provide extremely good value for money in what they deliver. We must ensure that education is a definite part of the future, not an optional extra. The danger is, if there is a budget problem—with proper audit we hope there will not be, and we will consider audit later—it could be dropped if we are not careful. I hope the Minister agrees that it needs to be written in more firmly. The Government did not accept points on this in the Joint Committee’s report, but I hope that, in the light of the debate, the Minister, who is a reasonable fellow, will consider a change of heart. In the end, it does not affect Government; it affects this House, this country and all the young people of the UK who come through it in future.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I want to speak briefly about amendment 14 in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, with whom I served on the Joint Committee. The amendment is on all fours with the Joint Committee’s conclusions. She is right that the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament will be one of the biggest and most important public works projects in the country, and it should, as the Joint Committee’s report mentions, emulate what was done for other large public works. She mentioned the Olympic park, and its aquatic centre was partly constructed by Welsh companies. Similarly, when Heathrow had two terminals either constructed or reconstructed recently, its owners went out of their way to ensure that companies throughout the country benefited from such large-scale public work. Again, I was pleased to see that at Heathrow a number of Welsh companies had the opportunity to contribute.
The restoration of this Palace will require a huge number of diverse skills, which may already be possessed right across the country. It is important that the Government remember that this is the restoration of our national Parliament building, so it is entirely appropriate that each and every part of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to benefit.
The hon. Lady’s amendment accords entirely with the Joint Committee’s conclusions, and I very much hope the Government recognise that this is an issue for this House rather than for them. There is much support across the House for the proposition that companies right across the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to tender for the work and benefit from it, with skills and businesses created that will endure long after the restoration of the Palace of Westminster has been completed. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment.
Tom Brake
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I rise first to express my support for the amendments set out so far. The point I raised with the hon. Member for City of Chester was about whether adopting his approach would preclude any substantial work being done, because of the number of companies that, unfortunately, were involved in blacklisting and that might not have taken the action that he rightly wants, so far. I hope that the Minister will give us some clarity on that.
The main point that I wanted to make was about the written evidence, which Members will have seen, submitted by Professor Flinders, Alexandra Meakin and Dr Alexandra Anderson, principally regarding clause 2. The evidence addresses the Sponsor Body’s duties, which were referred to earlier, with regard to ensuring perhaps a greater degree of public involvement, and having a public conversation about the future of the building. I would certainly welcome that. I do not know whether it would have to be done through the Sponsor Body, or whether Parliament could do it, but clearly it must happen.
We must ensure that there is proper engagement and public understanding, as the writers suggest, especially with regard to the regions of England and the devolved nations. Clearly there will be people around the United Kingdom who, looking at how much money is being spent on the Palace of Westminster as well as on other things such as infrastructure in London and the south-east, will feel that at the very least an explanation is needed for such a level of investment. Therefore, engaging the regions and the devolved nations—including ensuring that they get involved in the project and the large amount of work that will be available—will be very much part of the process.
The contributors of the written evidence also suggested that there is a need to look at the relocation accommodation to test alternative ways of working. That would mean using the temporary Chamber in Richmond House—which may indeed end up not being temporary, if it is decided to retain it as a permanent Chamber—as an opportunity to test alternative ways of working, which presumably could include electronic voting. Clearly, that is not the direction given by the Joint Committee, but I certainly hope that there may be scope to investigate it. The Scottish National party has, in questions, pushed hard on the issue. Clearly, if it were to be successful in a trial in the alternative Chamber it could perhaps be rolled out more permanently in the new Chamber, when the restoration and renewal project is completed.
The amendments also highlight the need for a diversity and inclusivity-sensitive Parliament, which is essential. I know that work is already starting on that, particularly in relation to accessibility. That is not just from the point of view of mobility. It also relates, for instance, to accessibility for people with autism. As I understand it, people with autism would not feel particularly comfortable sitting in a room like this one. I know that those issues are being addressed. I think that the Minister has cooled down after his exchange with a number of Members of Parliament, including me, on the urgent question on EU citizens’ voting rights, and he will clearly get a much gentler ride here as I think there is broad consensus on where we will go, but I would like to hear his assessment of the written evidence I have been discussing. There are some good concrete proposals in there.
Mr Prisk
When I first intervened I should perhaps have drawn the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
I very much welcome, as a number of Members have, the principle underlying amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. It is right that this Parliament should, in its restoration, benefit the whole UK and the smallest of firms. It is absolutely right as a point of principle, and in the debate about the restoration of the building we have naturally been concerned that the public will worry about the amount of money we are spending on our workplace. Yet it could and should be seen as an investment opportunity of several billion pounds in future trades and crafts—I am sure Opposition Members will spell those out in great detail; ceramics for example—that benefit every part of the United Kingdom and every firm, large and small. Those sentiments are very welcome.
Mr Prisk
The right hon. Gentleman speaks about one of my particular frustrations with all public buildings, which is that we throw money at the capital cost, never put in money for the long-term maintenance, and wonder why the damned thing costs as much as it does—if “damned” is an acceptable word, Sir Gary.
I draw the Committee’s attention to my two concerns about the amendment. First, as worthy as the amendment undoubtedly is, as for any condition that we set, there will be some form of cost, whether in expression of time or in process. In this instance, I happen to think that we should establish that cost at the start. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is absolutely right to say that if one does that at the beginning and then has the discipline not to tinker and meddle thereafter, one can avoid the spiralling costs of other public projects.
Secondly, there is the nature of the audit envisaged in the amendment, which the hon. Lady addressed to a degree. Going by what she said, she does not wish to have a strict audit in the sense of trying to have a rigid quota, in which one part of the country must have a certain percentage and so on.
Mr Prisk
The hon. Lady is nodding. That is extremely encouraging, because my worry is that we might get into a game between the Sponsor Body, the Delivery Authority and hon. Members from across the House about who gets what quota, which would then ratchet up the cost and distract from the central purpose.
Those concerns notwithstanding, the principles under- lining the amendment are good. There may be a good argument for tweaking it, about which I am sure that the Minister will respond. It is crucial that we talk about and show this to our constituents as something for the whole of the United Kingdom, for every trade and craft, and for every business, large and small. That is why the sentiment of the amendment is commendable.
Chris Bryant
I wholeheartedly support the fact that the Bill is finally before Committee, and regret that it has taken so many years, not only under this Government, but under previous Governments, to get to this point. I wholeheartedly support the idea in the clause of handing the work over to a Sponsor Body, which in turn has an arm’s length body—a Delivery Authority—because that is probably the only way to stop us lot from continually meddling with the project.
Every building contractor always says that they want a good client. A good client could mean one of two things. Either it is someone who continuously changes their mind about what they want, which means that the price goes up and up—that is good for one end of the equation—or it is someone who makes up their mind at the beginning, decides what they want and sticks with it right through to the end, and ends up with a project delivered on time and on budget.
I desperately hope that we will end up as the latter and not the former. I fear that we, both individually and as a House, may find it far too tempting to keep on meddling with the project, which is why it is really important that we do it this way. If someone ever wanted to know why handing over to an arm’s length body is particularly important, they would simply have to look at what happened after the fire in 1834. Caroline Shenton’s book on that is masterful in showing how terrible self-opinionated and self-aggrandising MPs can be, of which I am glad to be a fine example.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for City of Chester on their amendments, which are important for different reasons. I will address only amendment 14. I completely agree that, in delivering the work, which will be one of the most important infrastructure projects in the country for many decades, costing many billions of pounds, we need to ensure that there is a benefit for every part of the country. I am not denigrating the pros—I think it important that the project goes ahead for all sorts of different reasons, which have been referred to elsewhere.
However, the single biggest difficulty will be having enough people with the skills to be able to do the work. I simply do not think that, if we just hope that that will happen, these people will materialise from nowhere. I am not going to use the B-word in this debate, but I simply note that the building industry in this country has been heavily dependent over the past 15 years on workers from other countries in the European Union. We will want to make sure that we still have access to those people in future.
The bigger point is that when Wembley was rebuilt, large numbers of workers from the Rhondda worked on the project. Crossrail has large numbers of people who travel up every week. They come up very early on a Monday morning and go back on a Thursday evening. I want to make sure that that happens on this project as well, but that means several things.
First, some kind of parliamentary building academy is needed in many different parts of the country to make sure that we have the specific skills that we need for this project, especially considering the fact that Buckingham Palace will be going through a similar project at a similar time. Some of the skills that we will need simply do not exist in the main in this country any longer. If you want somebody to build a drystone wall—we will not need them here—you will pay over the odds because very few people now have that skill and it will take a long time to get 100 metres done, unlike 100 years ago. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Clwyd West is offering to come and mend my drystone wall for me, not that I have got one.
Chris Bryant
They are not very useful for this project, but there may be stonemasonry skills that could be very important for this building. It is interesting that the recent work on the cast-iron roofs and the stone courtyards has drawn in pretty much all the skilled labour in this field in the country. If we are to deliver this project on time and move out in 2026 to 2027, we will have to train people by that time. That is why the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is as important as any other tabled today.
My final point on the clause relates to the education centre. One of the problems is not only that the building has to come down in a couple of years—it has permission for only 10 years and that piece of land will probably be a major part of the building site that will be needed for the project—but that Victoria Tower is no longer fit for purpose for the Archives centre. The photography room in the Archives centre has never worked, which is why a lot of the really valuable photographs are now in danger of decaying—because they are a fugitive technology. We are not keeping the historic rolls well. They are in the right order, but they are not kept separately, which is why they are jumbled on top of one another.
All that is a good reason why there must be a serious legacy at the end of this project. I very much hope that that is an education centre, which retains the Archives here on site so that people from our constituencies and from around the world can fully understand how democracy has been advanced on this site since 1258.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I am pleased to represent the SNP on the Committee. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda, with whom I served on the Joint Committee. He eloquently put forward some of the arguments that we heard in evidence and that were reported on three years ago in relation to the warnings about access to skills. I hope the Government will look at that at this late stage and take heed as the project continues.
I wish to be brief this afternoon—particularly on this group. I should say that I am also a member of the shadow Sponsor Body. I support the amendments. I will not reiterate the fine words that have been spoken in support of them, particularly by the hon. Member for City of Chester, who put forward the case on blacklisting very strongly, except to say that the parliamentary authorities took some heavy criticism on the letting of the Elizabeth Tower contract, because of that particular company’s history on blacklisting. Parliament should not be seen to condone such despicable employment practices again.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I very much welcome the move forward that this Committee represents.
I want to address amendment 14. As a country, we are getting better at large infrastructure projects—that may seem an odd thing to say, but I truly believe it. I look at Crossrail. In terms of its tail-end, we await the report that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is about to publish, but the early stages were a model of the way in which we see development. The construction was basically done to time, but things were done to time in another way as well—in terms of promoting what the project was across the country and getting many companies involved.
My only fear about amendment 14 is that the hon. Lady talks about a yearly audit being carried out. My worry is that that is too late. This should really be in the roots of the project; it is not something that happens once the project has gone above ground. It must be part of the project right from the very start, not from the time the work starts.
I was involved in the early stages of High Speed 2. We ran a number of conferences around the country showing businesses what would be involved and telling them how to start to apply to be considered for that work. That has got to be the way, and that work needs to be done right now. It should be part of the very early work of the Sponsor Body. I am sorry—I forgot to declare my interest: I am currently serving on the shadow Sponsor Body. I know everyone there will be following the words spoken here in Committee closely.
We should be talking about that aspect now. It is of great pride to me that, whenever I have constituents down and show them Portcullis House, I can show them the stone from Birchover quarry—the Ann Twyford quarry—in my constituency. That sort of work was done on that project, and it has to be part of these projects. It is also a way of selling why we have to do this work. We are not doing it out of some desire to improve the facilities here. Yes, we want to make them better, but it is also a matter of restoring one of the premier buildings in not just the United Kingdom but the world. That is why I am slightly concerned about the yearly audit, because by the time we get to that stage, it will be too late. It has to be part of the work of the Sponsor Body and one of its early jobs.
Gareth Snell
Thank you very much, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Before I touch on ceramics, as predictable as I am becoming in this place, I want to lend my support to amendment 2, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. We know that trade union-recognised bodies tend to be safer and that their staff tend to be happier and to get jobs done more quickly and on time, because they have a reputation to work with. We also know—this is linked in part to new clause 1 and amendment 14—that where trade union bodies are involved in the construction industry, modern-day slavery is less prevalent.
I mention that because the construction industry will freely admit that it still has a problem with tackling modern-day slavery through gang labour. The best intentioned commissioning and procurement cannot guarantee what the layers of sub-procurement down the chain will deliver. A trade union-recognised employer would be able to work with supply chains to ensure that we do not unwittingly propagate modern-day slavery through the procurement and commissioning of large-scale infrastructure works linked to this place. There are already recorded instances of public bodies, without prejudice, finding themselves receiving services from people in modern-day slavery because of the way contracts are subcontracted out.
I support my hon. Friend’s amendment 2 because, by involving trade unions with employers at an early stage of large projects, we can ensure not only that we put our money into the fabric of the building, but that we put our values into the building. That has to be an important part of how this building moves forward.
I turn to the ceramics industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside mentioned the sums that are already being spent to keep the building going. Many hon. Members will have seen that the Minton tiles in Central Lobby, which were originally made in my constituency—in fact, by one of my predecessors, the Member for North Staffordshire in the 1870s—are being replaced, one at a time, by a wonderful company called Craven Dunnill. Where we already have skilled people on site doing remedial work, they ought to be involved in conversations now so we can work out what skills they can bring forward and how the procurement and commissioning process can be best placed. I do not mean that in the sense of helping them on a commercial basis, but they will be able to tell us what they can and cannot do and what the scope of the industry is. Because we already have a contractual working relationship with those companies, we have nothing to fear about the credibility of the advice they give.
That is why amendment 14 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is so important. The ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent can make us pretty much anything we ask for, but I would wager that very few people know that. Yes, it can make tiles, teapots and tableware, but advanced ceramics is now a wonderful way of replacing metalwork—not that I have anything against metalwork, but ceramics are longer standing and have a greater tolerance for stress. There is an opportunity to build in—[Interruption.] Well, I am not quite on commission—if I were, I would declare it.
My point is that there are sectors of the UK economy doing wonderful work that many of us do not know about. Unless we ask them up front what is possible through the procurement process, we may end up doing what, I am afraid to say, often happens with the military: they decide they want something, so they buy that something. What they actually want is something that can do a certain thing, but they do not think about what else is available. Considering what we hope to achieve at the end rather than what we want to buy may create greater scope—
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the problems in the building is that nobody has yet managed to count correctly the number of brass windows we have—it is either 4,800 or 7,200, depending on who we believe. Nobody makes those windows today, so somebody is going to have to start training people soon to try to replace them. It is the same in ceramics.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If we want something in the wall that will let in light, and that will let in cool air when it is hot and keep out cool air when it is cold, does it have to be a brass window of that design? Is there some other way of doing things? [Interruption.] We could do it in ceramics, but that might be slightly dark in daytime. We have not quite got transparent ceramics yet. The way we think about the outcomes will be important in shaping the procurement process. That is something that the Sponsor Body ought to be considering now, but with the industry alongside it, because nobody is better able to tell us what it can do than the industry itself.
I want to make a brief comment in support of amendment 14. The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 is a wonderful piece of legislation. It started as a private Member’s Bill, and it has allowed procurement and what we are actually paying for to be revolutionised. I urge the Government, when it comes to the point of working with the Sponsor Body, to frame how procurement should work. Yes, the cost—the value of the things that we are buying—is important, but the additional value that we can derive through the Act in the procurement process, in terms of opening up this vast investment to skills, new technologies, and research and development in different parts of the country, may have a lasting legacy beyond the jobs and employment contracts, which are very transactional. It may genuinely root changes in communities, which will benefit from this place. I will therefore be supporting the amendments.
Kevin Foster
This has been a fascinating debate, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members have made passionate points. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central strongly endorsed the ceramics industry, as always, and spoke about the quality of its products.
Yesterday, I had the joy of having a tour of the basement. If any member of the Committee has not yet had the opportunity to do so, I would strongly recommend it; they would be helping to make progress with this project. I saw the innovative sewer ejectors, which were put there in the 1880s. They have “Chester” on the side of them. The hon. Member for City of Chester will be delighted to hear that they have been such a functional part of this place for so many years.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am delighted that Chester is represented here, even if it is only in the sewers.
Kevin Foster
Of course, Chester is not just represented in the sewers; it is represented by the hon. Gentleman, who is sat here in the Committee doing his job, as always.
It was useful to hear the comment about putting our values into this place physically. Certainly, that is one of the things that the Sponsor Body will need to do. It was also interesting to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales about the quarry in Derbyshire that provided the stone for Portcullis House. Again, that shows that, although this is a project in London, we do not want it to be a London-centric project. With all respect to hon. Members who represent Greater London constituencies, we want it to be a project that reflects the entire Union that this Parliament serves, and we will seek to spread the prosperity.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I want to build on a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales made about having not just contractors but materials from across the United Kingdom. In Scotland, Chinese and European steel was used for the £1.3 billion Queensferry crossing. This is not simply about cost, although we need to keep within budget; we must also look at the jobs, skills and businesses that we are supporting.
Kevin Foster
I recall my hon. Friend referring to that bridge project in a couple of debates in the Chamber about the UK steel industry. It is important that we use materials from across the United Kingdom, and create jobs and skills. The steel casting on the Elizabeth Tower—a project that has already been referred to—came from Sheffield, and the encaustic tiles in Central Lobby were produced in Shropshire, so there is already a spread across the country.
Gareth Snell
Three-quarters of the encaustic tiles were made in Stoke-on-Trent. Unfortunately, the top quarter—the bit that everyone sees—was made in Telford, but it is rooted on a solid foundation from the ceramic city.
Kevin Foster
I am reassured, knowing the quality of the product that comes out of the Potteries. I still have a set of plates made in Stoke-on-Trent that I won in a raffle. I have had them for about 25 years, but they are still doing their job to this very day. That speaks to the quality of product from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that the Minister’s argument may be strongly supportive of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. Clause 2 already lays out several things that we consider to be so important that we put them in the Bill, such as disabled access and the fact that we will return to the building. Why should this not be one more?
Kevin Foster
Most of the things in the Bill are statutory, but we do not go through in detail each piece of environmental legislation or health and safety practice that we would expect. That is where the statutory obligations need to be complied with.
I am conscious of the comments about the ability to secure contractors; at this stage, this amendment is not one to put in the Bill. We believe there are other more appropriate ways to ensure, via the Sponsor Body and with strong parliamentary representation through the three members present in this Committee, that these areas come in. Again we could look at, for example, subsection (4)(b), which stresses having
“a view to ensuring the safety and security of people who work in Parliament”,
but does not go on to specify individual areas.
I suggest that this would be better picked up through the parliamentary relationship agreement and the programme delivery agreement, with other areas that may be items where Parliament might not necessarily have statutory responsibility, but would not wish to see the works associated with it, given the obvious impact—I accept that if Parliament was engaging with contractors who were engaging in blacklisting, that would have a strongly negative impact on Parliament and its reputation.
I come on to new clause 1, requiring a report once every six months. The Government consider that unnecessary. Under schedule 1, the Sponsor Body is required to produce for Parliament, at least once a year, a report on the progress of the parliamentary building works. Ultimately, the content of those reports would be a matter for the Sponsor Body, but we would expect them to include details on what contracts had been awarded.
As with the previous amendment, we feel that the programme delivery agreement would be a better place to specify such requirements, rather than the Bill. Not only the parties to that agreement, the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, but I am sure hon. Members across this House—in terms of how we hold to account the parliamentary members of the Sponsor Body—will be interested in how that process works and in ensuring a regular flow of information.
The Bill puts in place the necessary governance arrangements to undertake the parliamentary board works. Given that the governance arrangements create a stand-alone body, we consider that matters such as the reporting of contracts should be for the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority to consider, rather than being prescribed by Parliament in primary legislation at this stage.
Moving on to amendment 3, I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for having good educational facilities on this parliamentary estate. They are part of what we are and part of ensuring that a future generation can find out about Parliament. We will not necessarily prescribe in this project that we rebuild exactly the same facility as we have now; there are some incredibly exciting opportunities to create spaces, for example for the Youth Parliament, which at the moment can only realistically meet on the estate when we are not sitting in one of the Chambers. What opportunities might be provided by having had a decant period that creates a new facility that the Youth Parliament and other citizens might be able to use, and by generally having a better facility?
However, while I hear suggestions of future amendments that I would not reject the Government’s considering on Report, the way the thing is structured is that “need” relates to those things for which there are statutory responsibilities, such as health and safety, security or disabilities. There is no concept of Crown immunity applying to this project. The project will be required to make reasonable adjustments for disability access—again, within the confines of working within a building that is Grade I listed and where virtually every corner has a moment of history associated with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and I were reflecting earlier on the cupboard where the suffragette hid in 1911, which, it is safe to say, is not in its greatest setting at the moment and does not allow for any particular use of it for educational purposes, despite its significant role in history.
Kevin Foster
We can’t move it, but I understand it has a computer server in it; it is hardly the most fitting compliment to shove a computer server in the room. Those are the sorts of areas where we can look at how we expand the wider role in education.
I cannot imagine that Members of either House would endorse a programme of works or an estimate that did not include a clear provision for educational facilities in the final building and in the decant option. In the wording of this particular clause, however, by using “desirability” for this and other facilities, it is the Government’s perspective that the Sponsor Body has a direction, but also some flexibility. The other facilities that we might have considered sensible 30 years ago may not necessarily be the other facilities that we consider sensible today. For example, 30 years ago it would have seemed sensible to put in a large number of public phone boxes, but a facility to charge a mobile phone would have been completely irrelevant to all but the wealthiest of people visiting the House. Now, we would take the view that the balance would be the other way round.
Meg Hillier
The Minister is making an eloquent argument against the word “need”, but we have an elegant amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, which talks about taking out the words “the desirability of”. My concern—I think some other hon. Members input their concern too—is that if it is not on the face of the Bill, we will have already lost the education centre and there will be a risk that it might fall off the edge, at the end of the project. I think it is important to have it on the face of the Bill.
Kevin Foster
That is why the face of the Bill is balanced. While these are not statutory obligations—there is no statute saying or implying that we have to have it—having it down as desirable reflects that. I am looking in Sir Gary’s direction, but the amendments before me are the ones on the amendment paper and the ones we are considering. There is no manuscript amendment or any other proposed amendment at this stage, but I would not rule out looking at this issue again on Report, if a proposal is brought forward. We would be happy to work with colleagues if there is a feeling that this provision should be strengthened.
To respond to the question about relevance, it is on the face of the Bill—it reflects desirability. I accept that ultimately some of the facilities—not the educational ones—will depend on balancing many competing priorities, including the very pressing need to preserve the heritage of this building.
Chris Bryant
I think the Minister is saying that if the amendment that was suggested as a potential manuscript amendment were available to us, then he would be in favour of it. Can he commit to bringing that amendment forward himself on Report?
Kevin Foster
While I thank the hon. Gentleman, I am clear that this is a parliamentary project. The Government will seek to defend their interest as this Bill goes through, but it would not be our intention to bring forward Government amendments, except to deal with matters specifically relating to the Government’s role. However, we would look kindly at something a bit later. If a Back-Bench amendment were brought forward—particularly if Parliamentary Counsel were involved—we would not inherently move to object, but that is something upon which to take advice.
At this stage, the wording of the Bill as it stands gives Members what they are looking for; the desirability of ensuring that education and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace of Westminster, after the completion of these works, is clearly on the face of the Bill. The Sponsor Body must have regard to that and it would be on the front page of primary legislation. We are all clear about the goals we wish the Sponsor Body to achieve, despite our discussion on wording.
Meg Hillier
I seek some guidance from the Minister. He is the Minister presenting the Bill. The law was drafted by Government, because that is the way that Bills are drafted and the Sponsor Body cannot draft the Bill itself. Therefore, the Minister is the custodian of what this Bill will say. Yet he has just said that it is not the Government’s role to add to the use of the Bill because it is not ultimately a Government responsibility. Is he saying that he will go away and talk to the Sponsor Body about what it would like to see, and then he might consider a Government amendment, or is he saying he would only accept a Back-Bench amendment but he would seriously consider one along the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, amending the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester?
Kevin Foster
The Government have been clear in their wish to facilitate Parliament in its desire to complete restoration and renewal; that is the position we have strongly adopted. If a Member wished to engage with Government, before Report, about particular wording then obviously we would wish to make sure we had had advice from Parliamentary Counsel. We do not want to find that the Bill has an unintended consequence, or that an amendment has been made that will make the Sponsor Body’s job more difficult; I am sure the hon. Lady does not want that either. I say again that I do not think that anyone reading the face of the Bill would take it to mean that there is not a clear and strong push towards having educational and other facilities in this building. That would be on the face of primary legislation.
Mr Prisk
I feel slightly embarrassed by being called elegant on two occasions; that is something that my former rugby colleagues would not necessarily recognise. The Minister is right to say that he needs to take careful consideration with Parliamentary Counsel and he is absolutely right to want to talk to the Sponsor Body. I am guided by that. I have not heard anyone on the Committee say that they do not believe that educational facilities should be there. The answer is to find a truly elegant solution, and I have confidence that the Minister will do so.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have outlined the position and, as I said, although we are not prepared to accept the amendment today, I am happy to have further conversations before Report. What is on the front page of the Bill is obvious, and few would doubt that that gives a clear indication of our intentions.
I turn to amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. It is clear that we want the project to be delivered across the entire United Kingdom, with all companies and those who can bring skills and talents to the project able to do so. The clause establishes a Sponsor Body for the purpose of having overall responsibility for the parliamentary building works and sets out the duties placed on the body and a number of factors that it needs to have regard to in exercising its functions.
It is important to remember that the clause, as well as the Bill as a whole, establishes the necessary governance arrangements and accountability to oversee and deliver the parliamentary building works. While we wish to see such delivery, we ultimately believe that it is for the Sponsor Body to look at how best to achieve that, again with representation from Members who represent seats across the United Kingdom. I can look for example, at how we are doing other projects. There was a reference to Heathrow holding roadshows around the United Kingdom; I wish to see the Sponsor Body doing such engagements.
I guess that every Member of this House will be only too keen to let the Sponsor Body, and particularly its parliamentary members, know about opportunities for development of skills and creation of new crafts. We will have to balance that against some challenges. There is only a limited number of suppliers of certain heritage products; in some cases, there may be only one or two. I was given the example of bronze windows, which only two suppliers make today. I suggest that, at this stage, accepting the amendment would not be appropriate, but the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority will need a strong regard to the desire that the project reflects the entire United Kingdom when contracts are being let. The Bill is about setting up the framework and the legal body that will look to deliver the contracts; it is not about agreeing those contracts and the programmes of work, which will be voted on by the House at a separate time.
Neil Gray
Is this not exactly the point at which we should be ensuring that this is a UK-wide project? I say, as a current member of the shadow Sponsor Body, that if this issue is left until further down the line, other cost or time pressures may be applied to the project, and the Sponsor Body may, for whatever reason, see this as being superfluous. Unless we do this right now at the outset, we may lose that element of opportunity.
Kevin Foster
While I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, I do not agree. I have every confidence that the Sponsor Body will look for good value, and that will mean contracting with companies across the whole United Kingdom. We see this in the experience of other projects and major events. Of course, we can have confidence that the hon. Gentleman will be a strong voice in pushing the Sponsor Body, as he has been on the shadow body, to look at working across the United Kingdom. I suggest it is not appropriate to put such a requirement into the Bill at this stage.
Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. However, I refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said. The clause already sets out specific criteria. Although the amendment may not be so elegantly worded, I was careful in drafting it to ensure that it would set the principle in train at this early stage, while not prescribing how the Sponsor Body would go about things. Members of the Sponsor Body are here, and others will no doubt be watching. As the Minister knows, they are only on for three years at a time, so it is important that this issue is enshrined in the Bill and not lost in the mists of time. Many of us will not be here when we actually move out of the building, by which point many of the contracts will already have been let. I urge the Minister to give us some comfort that he will at least go away and consider this. I am minded to press the amendment to a vote, on the basis that we need to set down a marker in the Bill for the principle that we should make this a UK-wide project. I need more words of comfort from the Minister before I will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Kevin Foster
We would be happy to take this away and look at how we can provide further reassurance to Members. The intention is that the Delivery Authority will look for work across the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that if the amendment is pressed to a Division, the Government will have to resist it at this stage, despite the fact that we all seem to have the same objective.
Things such as the yearly audit of the works will mean that the Delivery Authority remains accountable to Parliament, and parliamentary members will be on it. There will be appropriate discussion to be had about exactly how they face questions and how they can be held to account on a day-to-day basis, including by the Public Accounts Committee, which I cannot believe for one minute will not take the opportunity of regular reports and examinations of how the authority is spreading its work, contracting and making sure that this a project for the entire Union.
Mr Jones
I have heard what my hon. Friend has to say, but as he will know, subsection (4) provides steers as to how the Sponsor Body shall exercise its functions. If my hon. Friend is not willing to allow the amendment, is he prepared to consider, maybe on Report, moving this provision into subsection (4), so that the Sponsor Body has to have regard to the need to spread the work around the United Kingdom? That compromise may be of assistance.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. Given that it is constructive, I would be quite happy to offer to do that. We could look at this, perhaps on Report, if an amendment was brought forward. Again, if Members wish to work with Parliamentary Counsel to deliver something, we will be happy to consider that and to see if we can reach an appropriate compromise on Report and insert it. However, the way my right hon. Friend suggests may be a better option.
Chris Bryant
I am getting a bit confused. The Minister seems to say that this is not a Government project, so the Government will not table amendments. However, they will resist amendments, so they clearly have some kind of Government view. I presume that, as on Second Reading, this is un-whipped business, because it is business of the House, unless the Government Minister tells me differently.
Kevin Foster
Obviously, whipping arrangements are for each party. Again, I make the point that this project is being fundamentally driven by Parliament, for Parliament. The Government are facilitating the Bill to provide the legal framework for that, via the mechanisms that we can use, in terms of time and support. I am entitled, as the Minister, to take a view on amendments that are brought forward; the shadow Minister is bringing amendments forward and taking a view as well.
At this stage, my advice to the Committee is that we do not believe that this amendment should be put in. I am happy to pick up on the suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West and other Members of constructive engagement before Report, as I have offered on the other area, to see if we can find a form of wording that is acceptable and that Parliamentary Counsel would also be comfortable with, in terms of its not having unintended consequences for the Bill.
With that, I think I have concluded my response to the amendment, and I thank hon. Members.
Tom Brake
I am sure it was not a deliberate omission on his part, but the Minister will be aware that I quoted from the written evidence supplied to the Committee—evidence PBB01—which made a number of suggestions, including, for instance, ensuring that the public are fully engaged in the process and that the relocated accommodation or temporary Chamber is tested for alternative ways of working. I was hoping for a ministerial view on that submission, which I am sure the Minister would like to give the Committee now.
Kevin Foster
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for prompting me back to his query; the contribution from the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield was a welcome one to read, with a number of thoughts, suggestions and ideas on how the project could be enhanced. I would not necessarily propose that the amendments suggested in its contribution be made—the right hon. Gentleman has not tabled those amendments, so I suspect he takes a similar view about not amending the Bill to reflect them—but it is certainly welcome to see that positive engagement and thought in terms of what could be done.
I hope that, as the Sponsor Body is established, it will look to those types of submissions in thinking about how we can make this a project that reaches out and hopefully changes people’s perceptions of Parliament, as well as one that restores and renews this building physically. It was a welcome piece of correspondence to receive, and one that the Sponsor Body could well read and learn from.
Christian Matheson
Listening to the debate on this first group of amendments, and having come somewhat late to this party, I am reminded of the expertise among hon. Members on both sides of the House on the detail of the work to be done and the challenges we must face. I am most grateful to hon. Members for their contributions.
I will respond to the debate in reverse order. First, on amendment 3, relating to the education centre, I confess that I was not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford had tabled a formal manuscript amendment, and had to seek advice, but, in a saner sense, of course he had not. He made a straightforward suggestion, and the Minister was positive in his response not only to my amendment and to the case for maintaining educational facilities, but to the suggestion that we might look at this again on Report, perhaps with a simpler amendment that would nevertheless still embed into the heart of the legislation the importance of the educational facilities. I would like to go down that route, if I may.
Although I would never look a gift horse in the mouth and would not like to turn down the opportunity, I am not quite clear why we would need the Parliamentary Counsel’s advice on an amendment that would simply delete two words; that might be a bit of overkill. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and to the Minister for providing support for the amendment on the educational facilities. I do not intend to test the views of the Committee by putting it to a vote at this stage.
Let me move to new clause 1 and to amendment 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, which were considered together. By the way, I hope the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central are aware that he is known so well throughout the House that even before he stood up we all knew he would talk about ceramics, such is his dedication to representing that great industry in that great city. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford made a fantastic point that this is not necessarily an investment just in a UNESCO world heritage site, but in the future of the country. That is certainly the message that I shall be using and taking out—if he will permit me, of course—whenever I talk about this.
I urge hon. Members to look around the room: we know that there is some work that can only be undertaken in situ, but I ask them to look at the wallpaper, the wood panelling, the brass windows and the electronics. All those materials and components can be sourced and produced elsewhere, so the work does not all have to be done in London, only the installation. The Minister talked about where there might only be one or two suppliers, and the effect that would have on cost. He is of course right, but there is a responsibility incumbent on those one or two suppliers to grow the skills base, and hon. Members have talked about that.
What I would say about new clause 1, and particularly the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, is that this is not a complicated proposal. It is a fairly innocuous suggestion to ensure that we monitor that the work is going out and about across the country. It is not prescriptive. It is not saying to the Delivery Authority or the Sponsor Body, “You must allocate so many contracts to so many parts of the country.” All that the new clause and the amendment do is to suggest that we should be able to monitor just how well those bodies are spreading the work around. They are not directing them in a particular way, and I cannot see why the Minister would not want them, other than the general concern—which I understand—about not wanting to put too much in to the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to clause 2. As I have indicated previously, I am not minded to allow a stand part debate, so I will put the question immediately.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Jo Churchill.)
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 4th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 View all Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 June 2019 - (4 Jun 2019)
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 10, line 11, leave out “appointed from amongst both” and insert “elected from”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 10, line 12, after “and” insert “appointed from”.
Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
“(4) The number of members of the House Commons and the members of the House of Lords must be equal.
(5) At least one member referred to in sub-paragraph 1(c) must be a HM Treasury Minister.”
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 11, line 19, after “appointment” insert “or election”.
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 11, line 20, after “appointed” add “or elected”.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 11, line 23, after “Minister of the Crown” insert
“other than a HM Treasury Minister”.
Amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 11, line 27, after “appointment” insert “or election”.
Amendment 13, in schedule 1, page 11, line 29, at end insert—
“4A (1) The Parliamentary members from the House of Commons must be drawn from a range of parties in the House of Commons and must include a representative from a party that is not one of the three largest parties in the House of Commons.
(2) The Parliamentary members from the House of Commons are to be elected by Members of Parliament from their own party, or, in the case of the Parliamentary member who is not from one of the three largest parties, by Members of Parliament who are not from one of the three largest parties.”
Meg Hillier
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
I tabled amendments 8 to 13 partly to explore how we could make sure that the membership of the Sponsor Body would reflect the make-up of the House, to note the importance of having elections, and for consequential purposes. We now have elections for Select Committee Chairs, and for Select Committee Back Benchers. That reform has swept through the House, but it was not proposed for the Sponsor Body. The main point is to enshrine balance and the principle of election in the Bill.
I recognise that if there were an election it would be a challenge for smaller parties to get representation. That would be one of the benefits of going through the usual channels. However, there is of course a benefit in elections, because people are held directly accountable by the electorate, whether it is their party group or a wider electorate. I did not have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the usual channels, who, I am sure, have views, and I should be happy to hear the Minister’s views. However, an important principle is involved, about election and being held accountable, and that is the reason for my proposal. The other point is the involvement of a smaller party, and the mechanism for that.
The amendments may not be the perfect solution, but they enable the Committee at least to probe the idea of an election from among the smaller parties for their representative on the Sponsor Body. The reality is that in the time available I did not have the opportunity to gauge wider opinion and it may be that some Members in small parties would not want to devote a lot of time to the Sponsor Body. I recognise that the amendment is exploratory but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the general principle of elections and balance.
We had an interesting discussion in the previous sitting, and there was a lot of talk about UK-wide representation, and getting that reflected in the works. There is a benefit to party-wide representation as the project goes forward, partly to tie in knowledge about what is going on, in each party grouping, so that people are aware. It will give a clear view that this is a cross-party parliamentary matter.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson.
I, too, support the idea of elections to the Sponsor Body. One of the most positive things that has happened since I became an MP in 2001 is the election of Select Committee Chairs. That means that Members from different political parties have to reach out across the whole House, and I think that that would be a positive measure in the present case.
I understand that there is some anxiety about how we would end up with the precise numbers from the different political parties. The fact that the Liberal Democrats have appointed from the Lords adds a further problem, but I still think that that should not detain us too long. It should be perfectly possible to have an election.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hanson. I shall keep my remarks fairly brief.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda that the election of Select Committee Chairmen has made a difference. The slight difference in the case of the Sponsor Body is that there will be members from both Houses. Elections to appointments do not take place in the other place, so under the amendments House of Commons members would be elected, or a procedure would be introduced into the other place that it did not have before.
I recognise the need for members from across the United Kingdom, and representing the parties, on the future Sponsor Body. With appointments made so far to the shadow board through the usual channels, it has of course been for each political party to decide how to come to a nomination. Some parties, including mine, use the votes of Back Benchers to decide how to fill vacant slots on Select Committees, but those are submitted to the House for approval, as of course appointments to the Sponsor Body will be.
I would not support the amendments at this stage, given the fact that they could create a difference between how Lords and Commons members were appointed. They would give the impression of the body being more like a joint Select Committee when it is not; it is a legal body constituted in its own right. It is ultimately up to Parliament to decide how it establishes and appoints to this organisation, which should essentially be about making sure that Members who offer the most to the Committee are appointed, rather than those who might be the most popular among Members.
On party allocations, I recognise what has been put in the amendment around making sure that smaller parties are represented. Of course, if these positions were elected across the whole House, the larger parties would clearly benefit, given their weight of numbers.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I point out to the Minister that a larger party today may be a smaller party tomorrow.
Kevin Foster
I take the view that, whatever the political situation, the constitution should be able to cope with it, respond and adapt.
Kevin Foster
Indeed. That is very unkind from the right hon. Gentleman, to be fair. I did not necessarily wish to point out that the party that for many years was the first party here no longer holds that position due to significant seat losses in the 2015 general election. However, we think there is a lot to be said for appointing the right people, rather than electing the most popular. I will give way to someone who has many years of experience.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Before he takes any lectures from Liberal Democrat Members about how this system works, it is worth reminding them that on no occasion have any of their Select Committee Chairmen, so far as I can remember, been elected by the whole House. They do deals within their party to only put one candidate forward on the Committees where they have the chairmanship, so the House has therefore not had the opportunity, for those particular Committees, to have the vote that the hon. Member for Rhondda talked about. That is a bit of failure in their system.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for sharing his encyclopaedic knowledge of how this place works. Although I understand the thrust of the amendments, they would create the unusual position of electing Members in one House and appointing them in another. On ensuring party balance, as I say, the Liberal Democrats have chosen to appoint a peer, rather than a Member of the House of Commons. It is for them to choose the person they feel most appropriate to represent their party; it is not necessarily for the Government or for other Members to do that.
This is not about electing people to a post where they would necessarily function for the whole House. For example, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch acts for the whole House as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—she is very distinguished in that role—and, as the only one, she therefore has to work for all Members. I agree that that has been a worthwhile and useful innovation in our constitution. It has helped to solidify the independence of Select Committee Chairs and has probably led to people being elected who would not necessarily have got through the usual channels under the old system.
However, I think it is appropriate that we reflect in the House on the fact that such elections would be an innovation and would set a precedent for the House of Lords; they have not had them for these positions before. I suggest that to introduce the amendments would not necessarily be helpful to the spirit of how the Bill has moved forward. I point to the three Members in the room who have been strong members of the shadow Sponsor Body, which shows that we can appoint the right people to this group once it is founded in law.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair tonight, Mr Hanson. I apologise for not seeking with sufficient vigour to catch your eye earlier and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak now.
I will first speak briefly to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, which would bring elections in for the House of Lords. To challenge one aspect of the Minister’s statement—that that is something the Lords is not used to—their lordships are used to the bizarre elections of hereditary peers. I am afraid that, when they happen, they are often a source of bemusement when we see three candidates competing for one post, all from a hereditary position.
With your permission, Mr Hanson, I shall speak briefly to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 4 is about achieving an equal number of representatives from each House, and amendment 7 is about a Treasury Minister playing a role on the Sponsor Body. As the Opposition have said, we fully support the creation of the Sponsor Body. A programme of such immense size and complexity requires clear governance and an effective system of administration. The Sponsor Body must be accountable and representative, including representatives from both Houses, Government and, potentially, experts with a heritage or construction background.
Under the current plans, there is an extra peer on the Sponsor Body, leaving unequal numbers of peers and MPs. We would like to see that rectified. I fully respect the right of the Liberal Democrats to choose who they think is fit, although I have to say that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington answers with aplomb on behalf of the House of Commons Commission. He has demonstrated his ability to serve on committees such as this, and whoever is chosen, they will have a high bar to hit in order to match his contributions.
To rectify the imbalance—we want equal membership from both sides—we support the Joint Committee’s recommendation that a Treasury Minister sit as an ad hoc member of the Sponsor Body, attending when necessary. That brings me to amendment 7. That Committee stated that
“a Treasury Minister should be an additional member of the Sponsor Body.”
It said that that would
“underpin the hierarchy of decision making and…provide clarity to those delivering the project”.
The Government rejected that recommendation, instead insisting that the Estimates Commission consult Her Majesty’s Treasury on the annual estimates for the funding of the R and R programme. The Estimates Commission is instructed to “have regard” to any subsequent advice given by the Treasury.
In my view, a Treasury Minister should be tied in throughout the process by membership of the Sponsor Body. Although we agree that the Treasury should be subordinate to Parliament in shaping restoration and renewal, we believe that the presence of a Treasury Minister within the Sponsor Body would allow for sufficient buy-in by the Government throughout this lengthy process. It would also provide someone from the Government side to drive forward the process. Hon. Members have referred to the role that Tessa Jowell played as a Minister during the London Olympics project. She, too, performed her role with excellence.
The Government would be directly consulted and responsible at every step of the project. That would allow for ongoing and tough scrutiny of the costs of this huge project. Accountability and transparency can only be improved through the inclusion of a member of the Government. Given the magnitude of restoration and renewal, a Treasury member could be instrumental in responding to financial queries about the project and speaking on behalf of the Sponsor Body in Parliament. A culture of transparency and open communication will be critical to the success of the project.
Kevin Foster
I am grateful for the chance to respond to these two amendments. The first deals with the balance between the two Houses. It could be possible to have an additional member, if Parliament wished to do that, and they could be from the House of Commons, if it wished the usual channels to appoint them, but again, this comes down to the point that we have given an opportunity for a party to choose who it believes is the best person from its parliamentary members; we are clear that it could not be an individual who is not a Member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. And the party in question has opted to pick someone from the House of Lords, which gives a balance of four to three. I do not think that that is necessarily a negative, given that that party clearly has representation in the House of Commons. We have seen one of its very able Members making a number of very useful and constructive contributions here. I do not think that the point should necessarily be specified in statute, given that parliamentary members have to be approved by a resolution of both Houses. If Members of the House of Commons were concerned—for the sake of argument—that a party had decided to appoint more members from the House of Lords, it would be open to Members of the House of Commons to block that, and similarly, if there were an attempt to remove membership from the House of Lords, it could move to ensure that a fair balance was maintained.
That is why I suggest that the amendment would not be appropriate. This is about allowing the body to have the parliamentary members who can contribute the most but who are answerable to Parliament and have to be appointed by Parliament as well. Democratic oversight ultimately is there in the fact that we, as the House of Commons, could decline appointments if we felt that they were not appropriate or the balance was being got wrong.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I remember that, when we published the Joint Committee report, there was some concern about the ambiguity of the Government’s position regarding restoration and renewal. It seems now that, with the former Leader of the House driving the project forward, the Government’s position has been more supportive. However, can the Minister understand the criticism being levelled at the Government? Not accepting a Treasury Minister on the Sponsor Body might well be seen as the Government once again trying to distance themselves and not being foursquare in support of the project?
Kevin Foster
It is safe to say that the Government fully support the project and will facilitate the will of the House to take it forward, hence the introduction of the Bill and the role played by the Leader of the House.
If we look at the structure of the Public Accounts Committee, technically a Treasury Minister is a member and gives a speech once a year which is a 10-minute statement of support for the audit process. If that Minister took part in the actual inquiries and the debates of the Public Accounts Committee, I do not think that would enhance its work, and I speak as a former member of that Committee. It could inevitably inject a party political element to its work. The Public Accounts Committee is very strong because it is seen as a resolutely cross-party body.
I do not think the Government’s position shows a lack of commitment. It shows our desire to have the Sponsor Body, the client, working towards instructions Parliament has given it. The Treasury will play a role in engaging, defending the taxpayers’ interests and providing comments, so that it can give a view when the House decides on the estimates process. It would be rather strange to say that Members would think it better for a Treasury Minister to be part of the body that they were commenting on, rather than being enabled on behalf of the Treasury to comment on the Sponsor Body’s work. Again, Members from the governing party will be on the body, and we can see the commitments we have made. The Government see clearly that there is a need to take forward restoration and renewal, and I think that Opposition Front Benchers take exactly the same view. Carrying on patching this place up is not an alternative, because each year the bills are getting bigger and bigger and the taxpayer is having to pay more and more to achieve a worse outcome. No Government would wish to endorse or support that.
I understand the reason for amendment 4, but the Government feel that it would be better were the Treasury to engage with the Sponsor Body through the clear relationship and link set out in the Bill. Treasury Ministers will be open to questions in the House about the Government’s work and commitment throughout the life of the project, rather than having to give a caveat, along the lines of, “Today I am answering as an HM Treasury Minister, but tomorrow I will be answering as a Sponsor Body member.” That would not sound or look right to me; it would create a conflicted role, or a position in which the Treasury Minister was almost an honorary member of the Sponsor Body, rather than taking part in its work in detail.
The Government’s strong preference is for the amendment not to be made. That does not in any way diminish the commitment and the strong links that the Treasury and Parliament will need to have with the Sponsor Body as it takes the project forward.
Meg Hillier
I will not press my amendment to a vote on this occasion. I hear what the Minister says; the Sponsor Body is an unusual body. In the time that I have had available, we have not yet settled how we will deal with election, but I think I have laid a marker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda says, we believe in elections; I get the impression that Conservative Members do, too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) A person who has already gone through a fair and open competition to be appointed chair of the shadow Sponsor Body will be deemed already to have met the requirement in paragraph 2(2) above.”
This amendment would allow the chair of the shadow Sponsor Body to be appointed chair of the Sponsor Body without the need for a new recruitment exercise.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has already gone through a fair and open competition to be appointed as an external member of the shadow Sponsor Body will be deemed already to have met the requirement in paragraph 3(2) above.”
This amendment would allow the external members of the shadow Sponsor Body to be appointed external members of the Sponsor Body without the need for a new recruitment exercise.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I do not want to take long over this; I very much welcome the Bill making faster progress than I thought it might while discussions were taking place. It has moved up the Government’s agenda as other things have been taken away, but we do not need to discuss that further.
A glaring omission in the Bill concerns recreating the Sponsor Body. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the shadow Sponsor Body, but I would not be covered by my amendments, which are aimed at those members who only last year went through a full and open process and were selected to do their jobs. At a stage when the shadow Sponsor Body has only just started carrying out its tasks, I think it would be wrong to put a question mark over those members.
Amendments 5 and 6 simply reflect the fact that last year the chairman and the other members went through a full and open process, and I would like them to be incorporated into the new Sponsor Body for some time. I accept that terms will end naturally and I am aware that there will need to be discussions about how their replacements should be appointed—I fully support that, but it would be wrong for the Bill to put a question mark over those members so quickly.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for co-sponsoring the amendment and showing the cross-party feeling, and some people have already sat on the shadow sponsor body as a result of the House’s decisions. I think I am suggesting a reasonable way forward, but the Minister may have other ideas, which I am happy to consider.
It is right that we make progress and that we do so in an orderly way. Any appointments must be made in a proper, fair, robust and orderly manner. Things that are happening at the moment with the Bill, which I welcome, mean that we are perhaps progressing at a faster rate than originally imagined.
Christian Matheson
Briefly, I welcome the remarks of the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales in support of his amendment, and I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside also put his name to it. It is a common-sense amendment that Labour fully supports, and we hope that the Minister will consider it fairly.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales on finding such consensus. I hope the Minister will add to it.
Kevin Foster
When the Bill was drafted, automatic transfer was considered, but there were concerns about whether it could be implemented in practice. There were also thoughts about the possibility of permanent appointments and the clear need to have a performance review in other areas. Having listened to the representations and comments made, I suggest that, rather than accept the amendment today, we should work on an acceptable form of wording for a motion that we will be happy to support on Report. We take on board the principle, but we must ensure that we do not set up a system in which the appointments of all the external members come up for renewal on one day. We must ensure an appropriate transfer.
We have listened to the representations from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts who are on the current shadow board. Having had a recruitment process last year, it would be strange to look for reappointments this year, especially because of the potential impact on continuity. As I have said, the House will take significant decisions, potentially in 2021, about moving the project forward. We must consider whether it would be sensible to do that with a clean slate of external members, or to put people through a reapplication process when they are just bedding in and starting to get into the complex detail of the role. I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee if we take away the principle behind the amendment, which I am happy to support, and work it into a motion that we can support on Report.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am prepared to accept the Minister’s assurances, and will not seek to push the amendment to a vote. There is a practical way forward, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s suggestions for the parliamentary draftsmen. As someone who has sat in his seat on other occasions knowing that the drafting is inappropriate, I now look forward to receiving the new drafting and getting an amendment ready for Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
The Delivery Authority
Meg Hillier
I beg to move amendment 15, in schedule 2, page 22, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The Comptroller and Auditor General must have access rights to allow him to examine the preparedness of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority to undertake the Parliamentary building works.
(11) In exercising the power in sub-paragraph (10), the Comptroller and Auditor General must have particular regard to procurement practices and the need to ensure that small businesses have sufficient opportunity to participate in the Parliamentary building works.”
One might expect that I would want to see good auditing of this project, not only because I chair the Public Accounts Committee but because, like all of us, I represent taxpayers, and it will be taxpayers who ultimately fund it. It is also important that the proper audit arrangements are in place to make sure that everybody working on the project is aware that the eyes of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office are on them—that is what I am proposing as the best approach to audit. That approach also brings in parliamentary scrutiny, because under the arrangements of Parliament, the National Audit Office’s reports can automatically be taken up by the Public Accounts Committee. Of course, other Committees can look at the project too, but it means that we would have numbers.
For those who have not been on the Public Accounts Committee, I will set out the process. When the National Audit Office produces a report, the figures are agreed with the audited body. That enables the members of the Committee to focus on the detail rather than arguing about the numbers. The report is an accurate record of what the costs are, but the National Audit Office also looks more widely at the efficiency and effectiveness of programmes, including how business cases are set up and so on. It is really important that we build that in from the outset. A new Comptroller and Auditor General took office on Saturday 1 June; I have not had a chance to discuss this with him in detail, but I have been in touch with the National Audit Office.
In some respects it is possible to do this without an amendment to the Bill, but it is still discretionary. Until this Bill is passed, under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983, the CAG may be appointed an auditor of a body to which he has not been appointed by statute
“by virtue of any agreement made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, between that authority or body and a Minister of the Crown.”
An appropriately worded agreement would trigger the CAG’s economy, efficiency and effectiveness powers, but of course, we do not know if we can get that. While I would hope the Sponsor Body would embrace that, it would be helpful and not detrimental in any respect to have it in the Bill, so that it is very clear. Of course, in so far as is possible before the Act is passed, the CAG can enter into an agreement that would hopefully mirror his statutory rights.
I am very concerned, though, that we have this in statute—in the law—to embed the National Audit Office’s embrace of this role at an early stage. My amendment proposes that that happens with both the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, and that it starts now, so that the National Audit Office is not looking at this project in 15 years’ time, perhaps when something has gone wrong; we build it in from day one. It would ultimately be for the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide how often he looks at this, but I would suggest an annual approach. Obviously, the National Audit Office would annually look at the accounts, if that were agreed, and would have the ability to produce individual reports on aspects of the project. That would be within the properly independent powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. My amendment does not directly prescribe what the CAG does, because that would be wrong: he is an independent person, representative of this House and of the tax-paying public. However, it is important to set this out in statute.
There is another element that we may want to consider, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on it. Currently, it is not easy for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office to access a company’s records. They can look at a contract between Government and another body in the private sector or wherever, and will then be able to see certain elements of what is going on with that private company, but the NAO does not have access rights to those companies’ accounts. For the purpose of value-for-money examinations, it might be helpful for the CAG to have unequivocal access to relevant information that contractors, subcontractors and grant recipients of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority have. I have not put that in the amendment, because I received late advice on how we might approach it, but I would be interested in the Minister’s views.
If we are really serious about ensuring that we are watching taxpayers’ money and that this does not spiral out of control, that level of audit would really hold the feet of the companies working on this project to the fire. They would know that everything they did would be available. I should be clear that under audit rules, that would not necessarily be public information; the National Audit Office would have access, but there would still be considerations about whether it was published. It would not be an open and published document, but the National Audit Office would have access rights, as it has with the BBC and the Bank of England, two recent additional audits that it has done.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I understand the point about the Comptroller and Auditor General. As I understand it, he reports to my hon. Friend’s Committee, the Public Accounts Committee. I just want to be clear in my own mind about the relationship between the PAC and the Sponsor Body, and whether there is a risk that two horses might be running at one time, particularly in the scrutiny process.
Meg Hillier
I am very happy to explain. The Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the House and accountable to Parliament. His role—it is currently a he—is to make independent decisions about value for money. He also undertakes, as he is doing right now, audits of over 700 public bodies that fall within the purview of the National Audit Office.
In constitutional terms, the Public Accounts Committee has been in existence for more than 150 years and has the first right of refusal if the Comptroller and Auditor General produces a value-for-money audit report or carries out an investigation. Other Members and other Committees of this House can ask the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General to do some work on an issue, and it is entirely a matter for his discretion whether he chooses to do so. whether the request is from the Public Accounts Committee or from any other Committee or individual Member of this House. There have been occasions when individual Members of the House have asked the National Audit Office to look at something and it has done work that has led to some interesting outcomes. The Comptroller and Auditor General is very much a servant of the House.
The Public Accounts Committee, as the Minister highlighted, is a cross-party Committee, reflecting the balance of Parliament at the time and always chaired by a Member of the Opposition. Our job is to examine, through the audit process, what has happened. It is not to direct policy; we strictly do not discuss or make a judgment on whether a Government policy is the right thing. We are looking at the execution, efficiency, effectiveness and economy of that policy.
It could be that there is a policy that I, as an Opposition Member, vehemently oppose, but as Chair of the PAC I am looking not at the policy, but at the effectiveness of it. It has been the case for more than 150 years that members of the Committee take a clear and balanced view based on the facts presented by the National Audit Office. One of the benefits of having the National Audit Office involved is that the figures it produces in a report must be agreed with the body on which they have done a value-for-money study, so once that report is taken by the Committee, the Committee is sure that the numbers are correct and accurate and there is no argument about the figures. Those figures then become a matter of record for the House.
Of course, that does not preclude any other Select Committee investigating; we could, for example, have the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee looking at some of the craft skills, or the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee looking at some of the industrial impacts of the work. Constitutionally, any Committee is free to do its own work, but that is how things stand for the Public Accounts Committee. There is absolutely no conflict there.
It is important—I hope the Minister agrees—that even if this is not perfect yet, we seek advice from the National Audit Office and others about how we can ensure we get the most effective scrutiny of this multibillion-pound taxpayer-funded project, so that after the Committee stage and once the Bill is passed, we can reassure our constituents that we have written into the Bill the strongest possible audit of the value for money of this project.
Kevin Foster
I welcome the spirit of the speech and the hon. Lady’s approach. From my perspective, we believe the Comptroller and Auditor General has a range of powers over this, and it is worth noting that the role he would play is specifically referred to in schedule 2 at the bottom of page 21, where, again, it says that the Comptroller and Auditor General “must” send a copy of the statement of accounts—it does not say “may”.
At this stage, including the amendment is not necessarily the approach I would suggest we adopt in this Committee, but certainly, once the Sponsor Body is up and running and has agreed on engagement with Parliament, it is almost unimaginable that, as a project having a large amount of public funds spent on it, it would not look for strong engagement from the Comptroller and Auditor General, and look, bluntly, to how its own existence came about. A strong Public Accounts Committee report was exactly what persuaded the House to support the decant option, against the arguments of several hon. Members who were not too fond of that option, but who understood the logic. Certainly what persuaded me to vote in a free vote for the full decant option was reading the Public Accounts Committee’s conclusions, which were based on the NAO’s work on which option would represent the best value for money. Making the amendment to the schedule at this stage might not be the most appropriate thing, but I am more than happy for us to take it away and reflect on the structure.
When it comes to agreeing the relationship between the Sponsor Body and Parliament, it is almost inevitable that we will need to consider closely the relationship with the Comptroller and Auditor General, especially in terms of when the estimates come forward. It would be hard to imagine that many Members of the House would not look to the quality of the assessment done by the Comptroller and Auditor General and then the conclusions the Public Accounts Committee has drawn in relation to his or her work.
Kevin Foster
Certainly. I will briefly finish referring to the issues around the Comptroller and Auditor General, and then, with the Chair’s permission, I will perhaps make some brief references to amendment 1 in the context of procurement practices and spreading things out.
The Chair
I should tell the Minister that amendment 1 was not selected. If he wishes to comment, he may want to reflect on the issue without mentioning the words “amendment 1”.
Kevin Foster
As always, I will be guided by the sage advice on procedure that you provide, Mr Hanson.
There is a view that making an amendment that gives additional powers and functions to the Comptroller and Auditor General would be unusual. It would not normally be considered an appropriate change, but I hope the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch will take from my comments the value that is definitely placed on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr Prisk
To be clear, from what I have heard from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, there is the option, where the Sponsor Body has concerns about a particular aspect, for it to approach the Comptroller and Auditor General and commission certain works—whether he takes them on or not—and the Comptroller and Auditor General would then report directly to the Sponsor Body or through the PAC to the Sponsor Body. We need to be clear about who is talking to whom and who is commissioning what from whom.
Kevin Foster
To be clear, at the bottom of page 21, at line 40, the measure states:
“The Comptroller and Auditor General must…examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts”—
supplied to him by the Delivery Authority—
“and…send a copy of the certified statement…to the Sponsor Body as soon as practicable.”
It is almost unimaginable that that work would not then be subject to questioning in Parliament and via the usual processes that the Public Accounts Committee can use to oversee the work of the NAO.
Kevin Foster
As I am referring to the Committee, I will let its Chair intervene.
Meg Hillier
Any parliamentarian can ask the National Audit Office to do a value-for-money study on anything. It is unusual for Departments to ask for work to be done, but it would be normal that the Comptroller and Auditor General made his own decisions. It might be that the Public Accounts Committee requested that. My vision is that we would have regular value-for-money studies on every aspect along the way. A responsible Sponsor Body, which I believe we have—members of it are represented here—would welcome that scrutiny.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and laying that out. As she rightly says, it would not be for the Government to direct the work of the Public Accounts Committee; that is for the Committee itself. Turning to page 22, it is worth noting that the measure states:
“The Sponsor Body must, in respect of each financial year, lay before Parliament a copy of the certified statement and report sent under sub-paragraph (7)(b).”
It would not only be internal to the Sponsor Body; it would be laid before Parliament as well.
Briefly, in terms of looking at how we achieve value for money, many people across the United Kingdom would be keen to see all the UK involved—I know you, Mr Hanson, will want north Wales to play a firm role. However, people will obviously think, “Is this just about spending money in London?” I am conscious that some people have suggested there should be a mechanism to divide the work across the country, but that would slightly miss the point of the project. When the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were built, there was not a divvy-up of money across the different parts of the United Kingdom. It reflected the fact that that was a unique project.
The Chair
And the Comptroller and Auditor General having access rights to examine this issue in detail, as in the hon. Lady’s amendment.
Kevin Foster
I thank you for your comments, Mr Hanson. As I say, that is where we are regarding that area.
I fully appreciate the spirit of the amendment and what it is driving at. There will clearly need to be a very strong process of parliamentary scrutiny, including by the NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor General, but there must also be an ability for individual Members to question and hold to account the Sponsor Body on behalf of their constituents. However, at this stage, this would be an unusual amendment to accept, and therefore it is not considered to be the most appropriate course; that is certainly the advice that the Government have received.
Meg Hillier
On the basis of what the Minister has said, I will withdraw this amendment now, but with the right to return to it, perhaps in a simpler form, at a later stage.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
The Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I will not delay the Committee long, Mr Hanson, I promise you, but I want to raise a couple of issues that are important to clarify.
As Members will know, schedule 3 lays out how the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission will operate. It has only four members and its quorum is two, as long as one Member of the House of Commons and one Member of the House of Lords are present. It makes no provision for who the Chair of that Committee should be, but the Commission is able, if it so chooses, to reject entirely an estimate at any stage through to actual delivery of the project.
I want to know what happens if there are only two people there who have different views and there is no Chair. How will it be decided whether they have agreed or rejected an estimate? Also, does the Commission operate according to House of Commons rules or according to House of Lords rules, because those rules are different in respect of what happens on a tied vote? For that matter, they are also different as to whether the record is kept in Latin or in English.
These may sound like light-hearted comments, but they are important, because it may come to a point where the Sponsor Body is happy with an estimate, but only two members of the Commission turn up, with one of them against and one in favour of the estimate, and we have stalemate, with no means of deciding whether the estimate is to proceed.
I think that setting up a new Commission is unnecessary. What we have done with the Members Estimate Committee is that that is now the House of Commons Commission. It has the same membership; that is laid down in statute. I am ruminating on this subject, and I may table amendments to that effect on Report, but I just wonder whether it would be better for the body that makes this decision to be a Joint Committee of the Finance Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Then, there would at least be a broad range of views from both Houses and an established process, whereby there is a Chair and decisions are reached, even when there is an equality of voices.
Kevin Foster
I have listened, with interest, to the hon. Gentleman’s points. I will certainly be happy to hear more on this point and perhaps I will reflect on the issue, and have some conversations about it, before we get to Report, to see whether there is an appropriate way that we can consider the matter. As always, that is subject to my usual caveat, which is that we want to make sure that this is a practical Bill that provides a framework for the Delivery Authority and the Sponsor Body to get on with delivering the work, which I know the hon. Gentleman is also passionate about achieving.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for City of Chester wish to press new clause 1 to a Division?
Christian Matheson
We had a discussion and a Division on a similar amendment earlier, so I do not intend to press new clause 1 to a Division at this time.
New Clause 2
Report on disabled access to the restored Parliamentary estate
“(1) The Delivery Authority must publish a report setting out what steps it will take to ensure that the Parliamentary estate, including the restored Palace of Westminster, will be fully accessible to—
(a) Members of Parliament with disabilities;
(b) Members of the House of Lords with disabilities;
(c) visitors with disabilities;
(d) staff with disabilities; and
(e) any other person with a disability.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) reference to accessibility solutions for those with physical disabilities; and
(b) reference to plans to provide facilities and access for those with non-physical disabilities.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Christian Matheson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Christian Matheson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have made excellent progress today and I do not want to detain the Committee much longer. Nevertheless, the question of access to the restored parliamentary estate for people with disabilities is important and deserves consideration. New clause 2 is similar to a couple of the amendments we discussed earlier, in that it requires a report to be published by the Delivery Authority setting out what steps it would take to ensure accessibility to the parliamentary estate.
The new clause is solely focused on ensuring that direct attention is paid to disability access within the restored Palace. Parliament needs to be an accessible and welcoming place for all people, including those with physical and non-physical disabilities. We are pleased that attention has been paid to supporting those with disabilities within the legislation. However, we believe that requesting a report will ensure that disability access is properly investigated and taken into account at every stage of the restoration and renewal process.
I particularly want to look at the question of hidden disabilities. Disability would not necessarily be as grave, in many respects, if we lived in a society that was designed around every ability. In the last 20 years, we have made progress through the Disability Discrimination Acts, but there is further to go. I want to focus on plans to support those with so-called invisible disabilities, but I by no means wish to ignore the accessibility challenges for those who rely on wheelchairs or other forms of mobility assistance.
The parliamentary estate is increasingly accessible, but there is still a long way to go to ensure that that the whole estate is open to everyone. Indeed, we know that easier access will benefit almost all of us at some stage in our lives, whether as a parent pushing a buggy, during pregnancy, or as an older person who is finding steps difficult to manage. We all value effective design for our access needs.
This is an historical building and there will be areas where we simply cannot manage to make physical adaptations to overcome access problems for people with disabilities. To blow the trumpet of my own constituency, Chester is an historical city with Roman, middle ages and civil war history. Much of the city centre is protected as a scheduled ancient monument. Nevertheless, Chester won a European Access City Award, as the most accessible city in Europe, despite those historical constraints. So changes and improvements are possible.
Physical disability access must not be overlooked in the Bill. We hope that the report would allow for a direct and constant focus on the issue. Crucially, it would allow for external experts, such as disability charities, to scrutinise the plans and suggest improvements as we proceed through their development and implementation.
The report would also highlight accessibility issues faced by individuals with non-physical disabilities. It is all too easy to identify an individual with mobility needs, if they have a wheelchair or mobility device, but many common disabilities, such as dyslexia and autism, are unrecognisable by sight. I will be honest with the Committee: I have made that mistake in the past. I have seen somebody coming out of the disabled toilet and thought, “Why have you gone in there? There is nothing wrong with you.” I admit that with great shame. There are disabilities, illnesses and impairments that are not immediately apparent but are just as debilitating and require adaptations as much as those that are immediately evident.
Invisible or hidden disabilities—any physical, mental or emotional impairment that goes largely unnoticed—can include: cognitive impairments; autism; chronic illnesses, such as multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue and chronic pain; levels of deafness; impaired vision; anxiety; depression; post-traumatic stress disorder; and many others.
Christian Matheson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before I started scrutinising the Bill, that would not have occurred to me. Only from listening to the debates was that example brought to my attention. The relevance of the amendment is that the proposed report would demonstrate that we are looking at such issues, and allow external bodies to audit, perfect and improve our proposals.
I emphasise invisible disabilities because they are commonly overlooked when planning for disability access, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Specific investigations are required into how we can make the Palace of Westminster and surrounding sites sensitive to disabilities that are not necessarily obvious. For example, architectural consideration must be given to people with learning disabilities or autism. The noisy and busy halls of Westminster can present a challenge to many individuals. We need to be imaginative in working out how this place can be accessible. For example, specific quiet areas could provide a space for individuals with such needs to learn about Parliament in a comfortable setting.
As I walk around the Palace of Westminster, particularly on non-sitting days, when both Chambers are open to guests, there is a clear lack of seating for those suffering from chronic pain or fatigue, or older guests who might need to rest a little bit more often. Perhaps that could be rectified in the renewal of Parliament. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment, should I decide to press it to a Division.
Access considerations for every form of disability must be at the forefront of our minds throughout the restoration and renewal process. By preparing a report, we can focus our minds and the minds of those on the Delivery Authority. It will give an opportunity to external bodies, which are experts in these areas, to help and guide us, and to provide new thinking, as thinking develops on how we support people with disabilities.
Tom Brake
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Hanson. I rise to encourage hon. Members to participate in the different consultative sessions that are taking place for the northern estate programme on issues such as disability. That can feed into the wider considerations on disability that the hon. Member for City of Chester has raised. There are many opportunities for hon. Members to take part. I am afraid that on occasion the response is not overwhelming. It does provide a fantastic opportunity for Members to raise disability issues. Members will be aware that even in Portcullis House there are still issues—for example, for people in wheelchairs there are major problems going through doors. I encourage all Members to participate in the opportunities that are currently available.
Christian Matheson
I want to do the best for disabled visitors, Members and staff, but I do not have that expertise, as I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. Would not publishing such a report allow us to call upon the expertise of external bodies to help us with our thinking on the design?
Tom Brake
Absolutely. With or without the report, I hope that such engagement will be very much at the heart of the project. We should seek the views of and engage with not only Members, who know how the building currently operates on a daily basis, but those organisations that are specialists on mobility issues or autism, for instance. I am sure that they would want to do that.
Chris Bryant
I agree with the thrust of what everybody is saying, but it is worth bearing in mind that this is a wholesale set of issues, down to the fact that the annunciators are in red and green, which colourblind people will not be able to differentiate between; the lighting in the room is nowhere near good enough for the majority of people who are partially sighted; and the wallpaper and carpets make it very difficult for many people with particular forms of personality disorder.
Tom Brake
I agree entirely. Indeed, in many places in the building some Members are not audible to others. There is a whole range of issues. Some rooms are used for large public events, where people at the back of the room are very unlikely to hear what the person at the front is saying. At the heart of this project, all these issues have to be addressed, which provides Parliament with an opportunity to design a building that is an exemplar in all those respects. I am sure that the Minister will seek to ensure that is the case.
Kevin Foster
I could not have put it better myself. We heard passionate speeches about ensuring that this is a Parliament for all; not only for Members with particular needs, but for those who want to come and be part of the democratic debate that happens here. We can be candid that the vast majority of our facilities are from another era, with regard to disability issues, and not just visible disabilities. The example was given of someone with a wheelchair trying to come through the doors of Portcullis House, or of a child with autism.
One of the most pleasurable experiences I have had here in the past few months—we have all had some perhaps not so pleasant experiences in this place over the past few months—was bringing a group from Combe Pafford School in my constituency, all of whom have autism, and thinking about how we could appropriately have a question and answer session and how we could see around the building. I must mention the look on one staff member’s face as we went on to the Terrace and I had to give the briefing that climbing on the wall was probably not the thing to do, given that on the other side is a straight trip to the Thames. However, the joy on those kids’ faces as they saw where I could hang my sword, where the Chamber is, where decisions are taken and when they got literally to stand where the Prime Minister stand when answering Prime Minister’s questions was an absolute joy to behold. Hopefully we will see more of that in the new building, as well as more accessibility.
I have been very clear that, although this might be a Royal Palace, there will not be Crown immunity from the standard rules on ensuring disabled access; there will be a requirement to consider the legal need to make reasonable adjustments. There will of course be challenges in a grade I listed building, where virtually every corner has history where something significant happened. We will have to balance that against what costs may be attached but also, like anywhere else, what reasonably should happen. We should aim not just to meet legal minimums, but to create an exemplar for accessibility, as was touched on.
Neil Gray
I am heartened to some extent by what the Minister is saying about his expectations for the accessibility of Parliament, but I am concerned, following discussions at various levels, that there will need to be compromises between heritage and accessibility. Surely if our Parliament is not accessible by all, it will struggle to be representative. How far does the Minister expect that the project needs to go to ensure that it complies and can be a fully representative Parliament building?
Kevin Foster
The details will come from the Sponsor Body, but I would expect, when public business is being transacted, that someone with a disability should reasonably be able to observe proceedings, hear them and be part of them. They should be able to get to the room concerned, and not by being taken up in a service elevator, which—let us be blunt— is one of the pretty basic arrangements we have had to make to allow some access into the current building.
However, as with other heritage projects, that must be balanced with the fact that, for example, those steps in the Great Hall of Westminster are where Charles I was sentenced to death—they are historic in their own right. There are parts of this building that would be incredibly difficult to alter, but we will not put ourselves on a special pedestal. We will have to make reasonable adjustments, based on the law that exists. I think that getting the maximum level of accessibility possible, while working within the inherent constraints of a grade I listed building, some of which dates back to the middle ages, is something that all hon. Members are passionate about.
I would not describe it as compromising; it is about ensuring that we can balance the needs in this building, so that heritage does not always trump disability and disability works within heritage. As the hon. Member for City of Chester will know, there are some amazing heritage buildings that have found some amazing solutions to provide access to heritage that was not possible before, without compromising its protection. Again, I think we all hope that this project will be the exemplar.
In paragraph 26 of schedule 1, the Sponsor Body is required to produce a report, and I would expect the report to cover matters such as how it is taking forward questions of disability as part of meeting its legal and moral duties. In terms of getting the expertise that hon. Members particularly wished to refer to, the Sponsor Body can establish committees and sub-committees in undertaking its work. Once the Bill has become an Act and the Sponsor Body has been established, it would be a sensible decision for it to look at establishing a committee on disability. Finally, if the Sponsor Body chooses, it can also look to enhance that work with those with outside interests. Although I fully appreciate and support the sentiments that the hon. Member for City of Chester has expressed, I do not think that introducing the new clause would not be appropriate, given what is already in the Bill.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It is not my intention at this stage to put the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Christian Matheson
On a point of order, Mr Hanson. The Committee’s proceedings have gone very well today. I am most grateful to all hon. Members, and particularly to the Minister for the way he has handled this. We have continued largely in a vein of bipartisanship and a desire to get this through. I particularly thank the hon. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber tonight; I have come to this fairly recently, but it is clear that they have built up a real expertise over a couple of years of this long process, and I know that will be put to good use as the process continues. I thank you, Mr Hanson, the Minister and other hon. Members for helping us to proceed so smoothly.
Kevin Foster
Further to that point of order, Mr Hanson. I echo the thanks of the shadow Minister to all who have served on the Committee this afternoon. It has certainly been an interesting experience for my first Public Bill Committee as a Minister, particularly given the passion and interest—
Kevin Foster
In many ways, I hope they are, because it is quite right that Ministers face challenging questions from hon. Members who are passionately interested in the subject being debated. We may not necessarily all agree on every point, but certainly in this instance we are all very much agreed on the purpose, the direction and the overall desire, through this Bill, for this to be a project that really takes a Parliament that looks to represent all to being a building that is suitable for all, and that is fit and, crucially, safe for the 21st century and the centuries of history that will be created in this building long after today, as our forefathers and mothers have done.
For me, it has been a pleasure to serve on this Committee; I thank you, Mr Hanson, for your chairmanship this afternoon, and Sir Gary for his chairmanship earlier. It has certainly been an experience, and I look forward to when we next debate some of these issues on the Floor of the House, on Report.
The Chair
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members, and I shall pass on their thanks to Sir Gary Streeter for his chairmanship.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
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
Telephone and Online Scams
(5 years, 5 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
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered telephone and online scams.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to have the first debate back after the brief Whitsun recess. It is good to see the Minister in her place. I am grateful to her; I understand that, due to personal circumstances, she is covering for the Minister with responsibility for this area, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who is covering for the shadow Minister for policing, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). It is a covering event today, but I am extremely grateful to the Front Benchers for being in their places.
We do not need to be weekly watchers of “Watchdog” to know that scams are a scourge in our communities. We all hear examples week in, week out of constituents, friends and family who have been targeted by scams. In 2019, those scams are far from the more traditional forms of fraud we have seen in the past. There is no face-to-face interaction with the perpetrators of the crimes and people are not being targeted like the celebrity scammers in “The Real Hustle”. Instead, millions upon millions of individuals are being targeted in the safety of their own homes. Whether it is through a phone call, an ad that people see on their smartphone or a rogue email, the methods used by these hidden fraudsters are becoming more and more sophisticated every day. Today, I am calling on the Government to do one thing: to expose the fraudsters and get ahead of the game so that we can stamp this scam culture out once and for all.
Why are scams such a problem? Many might say, “Don’t be stupid. Anyone can tell the difference between a scam phone call or email and a legitimate communication,” but the truth is that, with the increasingly sophisticated methods being employed and the vulnerable people being targeted, we cannot rely on that assumption, and the statistics show that. Picture an 80-year-old living alone in an area of high crime. They get a call from someone purporting to be from the Department for Work and Pensions inquiring about a problem with their pension. They rely on their pension to get by and trust the caller because they have said they are from the DWP. The caller tells them that their pension payments may be put on hold if they do not provide some personal details over the phone. Can we all honestly say that we do not know of elderly family members, friends or constituents who would not be tempted to go along with that? If someone is being told that their money might stop if they do not co-operate, they could well be driven into a false sense of security and provide the information being asked for.
One of the key problems is that, whether over the phone or online, criminals are taking on the role of responsible and trusted sources to coerce potential victims into co-operating. While that is a big problem for vulnerable populations—particularly the elderly—it by no means stops with them. Many Members may well remember the recent cases where the face of the “Money Saving Expert”, Martin Lewis, was being used on targeted online advertisements on Facebook. It was not just one Facebook advert, but some 1,000 targeted Facebook ads that were using that trusted figurehead. They were glossy and looked legitimate, but ultimately they were seeking to pillage money from those who could least afford it. That just shows how wide the problem goes. If we cannot trust an advert with the face of the “Money Saving Expert”, what and who can we trust?
One constituent even approached me recently about a scam involving emails asking for information being sent from my own parliamentary email address. That issue has been referred to the House authorities. Most recently, just last week another constituent emailed me saying that a false email had come with my name on, but that was not from my email address. The constituent rang my office, querying why I was using a different email from my normal parliamentary one. Thankfully, they had had correspondence with me before. Even as Members of Parliament, trusted as we are with handling the personal information of constituents, our names are being used. I only knew about it because of that particular constituent, who was savvy enough to realise that the email was not mine, but a fake one, which was asking for personal information, including their national insurance number and their bank details. None of us are immune from the issue.
On the one hand, it is positive that clearly not all the public think of politicians as untrustworthy if they are putting us front and centre in pushing a campaign. But on a serious note, it shows how concerned we should be about the tactics that criminals are using. In the era of fake news, where there is an ever-important need to look over anything we see or hear with a critical eye, the hidden fraudsters who seek to steal our money online will adapt their methods in ways we least expect. That is why the issue is so important. It is not going away. If we manage to hold back the tide of scams out there today, the scams of tomorrow could be completely different, and we have to be prepared for that.
How big a problem are we talking about? Age UK found that up to 5 million people over the age of 65 believe that they have been targeted by a scam. It also found that single, older people are far more likely to respond to a scam than younger, married people. As many Members will know, around half of over-75s live alone. That just illustrates how elderly people are particularly vulnerable to this menace. That, in part, is where the real injustice lies with our current approach. What would our response be if 5 million older people had been a victim of an attempted burglary? There would be an urgent question on the Floor of the House, and it would rightly be declared a crime wave.
The statistics show that the over-65s are a staggering three times more likely to be targeted by a scam than be burgled. Scams pose less risk for the criminal than a standard burglary, with the number of potential victims rising exponentially as a result. Half a billion pounds was lost by UK banking customers due to scams in 2018. Remarkably, the charity Think Jessica estimates that as few as 5% of scam victims report the crime committed against them. That fact alone tells us that the statistics could well be the tip of the iceberg. But unlike icebergs, the issue is not melting away. In fact, the figures from all agencies, including the Government, suggest that the issue is getting worse.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2018, the number of reported fraud incidents rose by 12% on the previous year, equating to an astonishing 3.6 million individual cases. Sometimes that might be a fiver or a tenner stolen, but more often than not we are talking about much greater sums of money or personal information that can never be recouped. While £5 or £10 might not seem like an awful lot of money, for someone on universal credit or, worse still, appealing a universal credit decision, that £5 or £10 could be an awful lot of income for their household. Likewise, once people have become victims of fraud, it can be incredibly difficult for them to recoup the money they have lost. I recently helped a small business in my constituency get back nearly £20,000 that it lost in a scam after a long battle that the constituent had endured with his bank. That just shows how this crime can have a prolonged and significant impact on victims, and that impact is not only financial; it also puts strain on family and business. It simply is not good enough.
Just as the last Labour Government were tough on the causes of crime, it is now time we got tough on the scourge of hidden crime. Put simply, an epidemic of scams is sweeping across the country, and I know that south Wales is a particular hotspot. Every week in my inbox and during advice surgeries, I am contacted by constituents who have been targeted by the increasingly sophisticated techniques that I have outlined. Whether in written form, online, via text message or over the phone, the sophistication of the targeting seems to know no bounds. The criminals who sit behind a computer or a phone and think they are immune from the law need to be exposed as the hidden fraudsters they are. The very fact that many scams are targeted at the elderly and the vulnerable shows just how low these cowards will stoop in pursuit of a quick buck. With many communities still suffering under the strain of nearly 10 years of Government austerity, the money being stolen by scammers can push people’s finances to breaking point.
As with everything involving technology, there is no silver bullet to stop this problem, but there are things the UK Government can do to stem the tide and deter other freeloaders from seeking to cash in on our communities. We first have to look at the police’s approach. Tackling fraud online and via the telephone is not a strategic policing priority. The police watchdog, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, found only two months ago that the public are being left at risk because forces do not consider fraud to be a priority. One officer told the inspectorate that, despite people being more likely to fall victim to fraud than any other crime, it was falling behind other offences because it does not “bang, bleed or shout”.
The inspectorate’s report warned of a “disjointed and ineffective” response across England and Wales because of the lack of a national strategy. I therefore ask that the Home Office ensures that tackling such fraud becomes a strategic policing priority across all our forces. At a national level, will the Minister—perhaps she will pass this on to the Minister responsible—update Members on the progress made by the joint fraud taskforce? As I have mentioned, the ONS has found that fraud is increasing, not going down. Members across the House therefore need to know what the taskforce is achieving.
On a more positive note, I was pleased to see the introduction of the pension cold-call ban in January. I warmly welcome that effective step from Ministers. Although I recognise that the effects might not yet have been assessed, I am sure that all Members would appreciate it if the Minister provided an early indication of the effectiveness of the policy. Likewise, given that we know that fraudsters often adapt their tactics when avenues are closed off, the Government need to outline what they are doing to prevent other fraud—for example, online scams—from increasing following the cold-call ban. As I have said, the backdrop of austerity cannot be ignored when addressing this issue. The cuts to local government across England and to the Welsh block grant have undoubtedly had an impact on trading standards’ ability to tackle scams.
I want to praise the work of my local trading standards team for its work to raise public awareness of the threats posed by scams, particularly through its Friends Against Scams initiative. I also pay tribute to my local force, South Wales Police, which has done a huge amount to try to support constituents who have been scammed. There is a wider issue, in that once someone has been scammed, particularly if they are older, vulnerable and living alone, there is an element of embarrassment and they feel they cannot report it. South Wales Police has done huge amounts of work locally and across the region to try to reassure people that the scam is a crime and they deserve justice.
It cannot be denied that trading standards could do much more to tackle the problem if they had more resources. What representations will the Minister make to the Chancellor in advance of the spending review to free up funding to get to grips with the issue? The sheer scale of the crime means that one agency cannot tackle it alone. Increasing resources will mean that trading standards can work in a much more joined-up way with other agencies, such as the police and local adult social care services.
Although public awareness tactics have been used in the past, there is a need for a much more far-reaching and targeted campaign. Simply using Facebook adverts or leaflets in Government-owned buildings will not work. There is an irony, in that while many of those targeted are over 65, there is an issue about digital inclusion, access to broadband across the United Kingdom, and access to computers and the digital technologies through which advertising campaigns could work, yet lots of the people targeted do not have access to those services, so we arguably need to raise public awareness through television and other sources. We need to reach out to our communities, particularly our elderly residents, with the latest information on what types of scams are out there and how they can prevent themselves from becoming victims. The Government must see that as an investment in our communities against a problem that will only worsen if we allow the epidemic to continue to take hold.
Nobody likes the feeling of being violated by a criminal. No matter what the scale of the crime is, the feeling is still there to an extent, and yet there is a silent crime wave sweeping across the UK that very few people talk about, and the Government are not doing nearly enough to address it. It is time we got real with these hidden fraudsters and prevented them from inflicting any more damage on the communities we represent. Whether it is a family member, a friend or someone living down the street who we do not know, nobody deserves to have their money or personal information stolen from them. It is time we shouted louder and stemmed the tide. Whether it is £20 or £20,000, the Government must show today that they are serious about tackling the criminal black hole being inflicted on people’s finances. Warm words and sympathy are welcome, but they do not resolve the problem.
We are going backwards on tackling this problem. We need to get on the front foot and ensure we are ahead of the criminals. The word “scam” has become synonymous with something we cannot control of late. Today the Government—I know the Minister will do her best—need to step up and show that that is simply not the case.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind Members that the debate can last until 1 o’clock.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this extremely important debate. As he has rightly set out, the growth in recent years of online and telephone scams, which are often combined, is a deeply troubling development. The impact on individuals is colossal.
I can think of three examples that I am working on in my constituency. An early-retired teacher was recently scammed into investing £25,000 into a fake bond through an incredibly plausible copied website of a reputable bank. A young man who works in the arts was recently scammed out of an amount just shy of £50,000; he was presented with what was apparently a bill from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and was told that if he did not pay, he could be subject to prosecution. A couple who had no conventional pension were convinced by a combination of telephone and online scamming—their computer, but not their online banking operation, was hacked—into transferring nearly £200,000, which has utterly destroyed their retirement. Those are three instances of bright, not terribly elderly people being scammed by sophisticated criminals. It has had a massive impact on those people’s self-esteem; the hon. Member for Ogmore rightly talked about the sense of violation felt by victims of these scams. They have had their lives trashed, and, in one case, their retirement turned upside-down. The impact on the victims of online and telephone fraud is colossal, and we need to be aware of it.
My quick assessment of the people I am supporting through my constituency office is that there has been roughly £1 million of personal fraud perpetrated on individuals across the age ranges. Almost all the cases focused on online fraud. As the three cases I mentioned have not been resolved, we have been successful in getting significant amounts of compensation—full compensation for some—for victims of fraud in my constituency, but in the other cases, there has been nothing as yet, which is completely unacceptable. The hon. Member for Ogmore rightly pointed out the rise in fraud and the amounts of money involved. In the first half of 2018, there was some £95.7 million of online fraud.
I want to draw a correlation, which is not complete, but is hugely significant, with the loss of bank branches and physical banking opportunities in our communities. My constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale has pretty much the same geographical area as Greater London, though it has a slightly smaller population. Of all our towns and villages, only two retain physical bank branches. In the past three or four years, we have seen the closure of branches in the villages and towns of Milnthorpe, Grange, Ambleside, Sedbergh, Kirkby Lonsdale and others. To a degree, bank branch closures have come about because banks have responded to our changing banking habits. I understand that, but they have pushed it. It makes life a lot easier and cheaper for the banks if we completely relate to them online. It saves them a fortune. Think of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that banks will have saved, in my constituency alone, in wages, rent and overheads by closing down branches. When they have owned the buildings, they have had a huge cash sale capital receipt, and the money they have saved has gone into their profits.
There is also a correlation between the increase in online fraud and the decrease in the number of bank branches in our communities. Recklessly, banks have put customers—particularly, but not exclusively, older ones—at greater risk, while saving millions upon millions of pounds. I do not say that there is no business case for some branch closures, but the banks have been reckless, and have done nothing—or very little, having left it very late to do anything—to help victims of the increase in fraud as people who feel less comfortable going online have become more likely to feel obliged to do so. The banks have increased risks to their customers—our constituents—while saving themselves a fortune.
Authorised push payment scams are key to what we are talking about. We should welcome the voluntary code that came in just a few days ago, which I hope will result in significant changes. At the moment, if someone has been the victim of an unauthorised scam—in other words, if someone else has got hold of their details and taken money out of their account—nine times out of 10, or perhaps 99 out of 100, the bank will compensate them. If, however, someone has been fooled into moving some money out of their account themselves, as in the three instances I just related, nine times out of 10 they are on their own. The authorised push payment scams voluntary code ought to mean that future victims of authorised push payment fraud will be compensated.
Of course, all the people I have spoken about—indeed, all the people we will talk about today—are historical victims. Whether they were scammed in the last few weeks or the last few years, they stand to get not a penny of compensation. It is very good to see the Minister in her place. I really want her to focus on what we will do to help people who have been victims historically, which is everybody apart from those scammed in the last week. I ask her to take action so that the code can be applied retrospectively to all victims of authorised push payment scams.
The hon. Member for Ogmore rightly talked about the need to catch the criminals who do something so utterly despicable. My police force in Cumbria is under enormous resource constraints, but is doing a good job, in so far as it can, in providing support. In recent days, local media have reported on the relatively small number of police available to respond to incidents in our community. One of the reasons for that is that many have been taken off to do this kind of work. It is important to recognise that our police force must be given additional resource to catch those who are guilty of such crimes, and to support victims.
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking part in the debate. I am in the police service parliamentary scheme. What struck me when I met one of the victims of such fraud is the sheer scale of the paperwork that the police have to complete. They told me that that is because the back-office functions have been cut, as there is no funding, which creates additional pressure. The police want to deal with these cases. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are not enough officers to do so, but it is also about the paperwork involved, because the fraud is so complicated. The police have to have an hour’s discussion with the person who has been defrauded. Does he agree that there has to be specific funding, not just for trading standards but within the police, so that they can tackle the problem as broadly as possible?
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point. One issue is resource; another is time and expertise. We are not dealing with stuff that is simple to fix. He is right that one of the impacts of, let us be honest, the underfunding of our police service in the last few years has been that police commissioners seek to protect the number of visible police officers, for good reasons and because it is politically sensitive. How do they then save money? They get rid of all the admin staff. Police are therefore unable to focus on frontline policing, because they are taken off to do the admin work that the back-office staff used to perform.
Banks are saving perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds by closing branches and changing the way in which we relate to them, but they thereby put our communities at greater risk of online and telephone fraud. There is a real opportunity for the Government to take—not in a punitive way—a small fraction of the profits that banks have made by closing those branches. That windfall tax could be used for two purposes: compensating victims and resourcing our police service properly, so that we can protect people.
I would love the Minister to give us more information on those two points. First, will she backdate the code and ensure that it has teeth, so that historical victims of authorised push payment scams are compensated, as well as future victims? Secondly, will she consider a windfall tax on the banks, based on the profits they make from closing so many branches, so that we can resource our police properly, in order to protect the victims and pursue the criminals?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate; I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for introducing it. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
Every one of us elected representatives will know people who have been scammed. I will give a couple of examples, though I cannot put a figure on the moneys scammed from the people I will refer to. I was recently made aware of a successful scam whereby a lady was relieved of her entire retirement savings of some £20,000—basically, her life savings. She was a schoolteacher; it is funny that the lady to whom the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred was a schoolteacher as well. I do not mean to be negative in any way—just realistic—but one would have assumed that they would have been well aware of what was before them.
This lady was the head of the English department, and was very active in her local church. She is a very bright lady who is still very much with it; she is under 70. To put it simply, she fell for an elaborate scam. A man who sounded as though he were in his 50s, knew the banking lingo, and was polite to the extreme agreed to ring her back after she said that she was busy and could not speak because she was leaving her grandchild at school. He called back at the time they had agreed and went through what seemed like the logical steps to stop a scam from taking place. Unfortunately, he was the scammer, and he knew exactly what he was doing.
The point that I am trying to make is that even the best people can be scammed if they are not careful. Perhaps the scammer once worked in a bank or in the financial sector. Certainly he sounded beyond plausible by the end of the call. This lovely retired teacher’s husband was a long-distance lorry driver. They had worked long and hard hours to save enough money to retire—money that they were going to use to visit relatives and do what they wanted to do when they had more time to spend together. I must highlight that when this lady went down to her bank, the staff were incredible. It is good to underline it when banks step in and do the right thing. In this case, Santander and Nationwide must be thanked; they were able to track and trace some of the money, and the lady got some 75% of it back. I put on record my thanks to them for what they did.
Clearly, the scammers have upped their game. Their scams do not involve emails from so-called Nigerian princes, kings, and retired army generals, telling people, “You’ve just won all the money in the world, which you never thought you’d have, and you’ve inherited land. All you have to do is send your bank details, and we’ll transfer the money and everything else to you.” It is much more sophisticated today; we now have home-grown, plausible, knowledgeable thieves, able to prey on those who have worked hard and deserve to live their life free from such vile thieves.
I know another lady who was scammed. She is separated and divorced. The person who scammed her was aware of her personal circumstances because she has a Facebook account. Whenever we put something on Facebook, we innocently tell the world where we are. People know whether we are separated or divorced, and when they read that story, they quickly assume that we are vulnerable, which gives them another opportunity for a scam. The scam involved transferring money to a person from eastern Europe or wherever—he certainly sounded English, according to the lady. They had a Facebook arrangement and made telephone calls, but they did not meet. Appointments and liaisons were made, but there was always a reason he could not make it. The signs tell us that something was not right about it. He purported to be serving in the forces, but when the address that he had given was checked out, it was false, as were the details of his Army record. Everything about him was false, but she was vulnerable and innocently lost money to his scam. We need to be careful about that.
My local paper, Newtownards Chronicle, regularly publishes stories to highlight scams, whether online or telephone frauds, as do the police. The scams are on a large scale. HMRC reported that, last spring, it received some 250,000 reports of tax scams—nearly 2,500 a day—and asked for more than 6,000 websites to be deactivated. Some 84,000 customers lost money. About a month or two ago, HMRC warned in the press about people telling others, “Pay your tax by this time”, and some people were caught as a result.
Last year alone, customers lost tens of thousands of pounds, but only a fraction of that amount was refunded by banks. The new code, which we all know about, should mean that more money will be reimbursed. The refund will come from a central pot in cases where neither the bank nor the customer was to blame. Eight banks, covering 17 brands, have committed to implement the code immediately: Barclays; HSBC, including first direct and M&S Bank; Lloyds Bank, including Halifax, Bank of Scotland, and Intelligent Finance; Metro Bank; Nationwide; Royal Bank of Scotland, including NatWest and Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland; Santander, including cahoot and Cater Allen; and Starling Bank.
Not all banks have signed up, however, and that needs to change. In the Minister’s response, which I know will be forthcoming and helpful, perhaps she can give us an idea of what has been done to encourage other banks to sign up and be part of the initiative. We need to drive change and the way forward from this place and from this debate, and I look to the Minister, as I often do, to understand the Government’s plans for the line of action to be taken, legislation, and the methodology to ensure that scams and scammers can be stopped.
What more can we do to tackle the issue? In large part, it needs to be tackled through conversation and coverage. We need to encourage people to have conversations about phone scams with all family members, not simply those whom we believe to be vulnerable, although they also need to be told. It is surprising how many people can be caught out unwittingly. Hon. Members present, and people further afield, may remember the old days when front doors were left open, probably with the key inside. The money was in the wee tin in the kitchen, but it was never touched—that is how it was. Life has moved on. Today, thieves are willing to rob, pillage and steal, and they have different ways of doing it, which we need to understand.
The message must be clear. People should always check with their local branch before they give out any details. They should pop down and ask the staff on the front desk what is happening—or if they do not have a bank to pop down to and ask, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, they should certainly phone. The staff can let them know if there is an issue with any of their accounts. A genuine caller will understand and encourage the need to check with the bank.
I usually go on holiday every second year, and we have paid the money this year. As an example of how banks can do it, when the money is paid out from my credit card account, my bank phones me up and says, “This is a larger amount of money than we normally have coming through your bank account. Can you confirm it?” Some banks, and some debit and credit card companies, are proactive, as they should be.
I am not a soap watcher—I do not watch “Coronation Street” or “Emmerdale”, or any of those sorts of things—but my wife is, and millions of other people watch, too. As I understand from my wife, not from my own experience, they do storylines about different issues. There is an opportunity to use some of those soaps to raise awareness by carrying a hacker storyline. That would make more people aware of what is happening throughout the country. We need to understand that it is happening to people of all ages, not simply to the old and infirm; a 20, 25 or 30-year-old can be scammed as well. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred clearly to young and old.
We need to set aside more funding to enable the police to be more effective in tackling such fraud, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, and as others will. A business in my constituency caught online fraud while it was taking place, but when it rang its bank and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, they did not have the expertise to stop and trace the fraud. That should not be the case. The necessary expertise, experience and wherewithal must be in place.
The scams that happen in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ogmore or the Minister, or in my constituency or yours, Mr Hollobone, are the same scams that take place all over the United Kingdom. It is important that the police forces in all four regions interact with one another about scams. Perhaps that already happens, but if it does not, it needs to. Every region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland needs to exchange information about new scams, so that others know, and so that the knowledge passes down through the system.
We must have experts available to do what needs to be done—not simply to stop transfers midway, but to trace those who are carrying them out and ensure that they get the maximum sentence for their fraud. The sentences for fraud and for stealing from people need to reflect those criminal activities.
The lady about whom I spoke at the beginning of my remarks has been irrevocably changed by the experience; someone who was outgoing and confident has lost trust, not in her bank, but in herself. The effect on people is not just monetary or financial; it is deeper than that. There are long-term mental and emotional effects. We need to ensure that support is available to tackle the crime, catch the criminals, stop the scams and help the victims.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing the debate and for his comprehensive exposition of the matter.
The cost of scamming in our society is undoubtedly huge and cannot be counted only in pounds, shillings and pence, although the financial cost is significant. As we have heard, scamming affects all sections of our communities, but the elderly and other vulnerable members of our communities are at particular risk. The Office for National Statistics predicts that by 2030, the number of elderly people living in our communities will increase by 34% from 11.6 million to 15.7 million, and the number of people living with dementia is set to increase from 850,000 to 2.1 million across the UK.
We should not forget that the impact of dementia and other impairments makes vulnerability much more pronounced and the ability to target an individual repeatedly much more possible. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) discussed the impact of scams, and it is worth noting that victims of scams are nearly two and a half times more likely to require increased care provision or to die within two years of being scammed. It has also been reported that victims often experience a rapid drop in their physical health after realising that they have been scammed.
Those who perpetrate scams use increasingly sophisticated techniques to scam their victims, in some cases repeatedly. Trading standards, although already hard-pressed, is working on the frontline to do all that it can to safeguard the vulnerable. The most sinister, cynical and cruel aspect of scamming is that it is a criminal activity that targets the most vulnerable in their own homes. The one place where any of us should feel safe becomes the setting for people being conned out of their money, via sales scripts, data collection and sometimes even targeted mail.
The most common telephone scams are cold calls. I am delighted that, despite an unnecessary two-year delay, the Government have finally implemented my ten-minute rule Bill on nuisance calls in full, because there is a huge overlap between cold calls and nuisance scams. The adoption of that Bill is a very good start, but more needs to be done.
As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale set out, the impact of scams goes far beyond the financial loss. It is emotional and psychological, and has been shown to have an impact on our wellbeing. The hon. Member for Ogmore pointed out that scams can ruin lives and split up families, with the consequences lasting long beyond the initial trauma of financial loss. Moreover, even when financial losses are comparatively low, scams lead to a breakdown in consumer confidence.
The full effects of the harm caused are difficult to estimate, as—alarmingly—only around 5% of victims report that they have lost money. The average age of a victim is 74 years old and the losses average about £1,000, but many lose hundreds of thousands of pounds. Victims of scams often feel embarrassed and are afraid that their families will judge them to be no longer capable of living alone. For that reason, scams may not be reported, which leaves the victims open and vulnerable to repeat scams. Some people find it extremely difficult even to admit that they have been the victim of a crime.
The scale of the problem and its associated costs are huge. Alongside that, we know that trading standards is struggling to cope, although the work it does is worthy of high praise and demands our respect. I also want to highlight the excellent work carried out by the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System, which works to prevent fraud and financial crime through the sharing of confirmed fraud data. Last year, CIFAS prevented more than £1 billion in fraud loss by sharing data across sectors. Its data shows that in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran, 278 frauds took place last year and there were 103 victims of fraud. That is a mere snapshot of the true level of fraud, which is likely to be much higher because of under-reporting.
Scams do more than rob people of their money. They rob them of their confidence; their belief in themselves and in their judgment; their self-esteem; their willingness to trust people; and the help others may be able to offer them. Ultimately, they rob them of their ability to live full, happy, independent lives. Research carried out by Which? shows that what makes us vulnerable to scams is that we are all overconfident about our ability to spot one. Ironically, that overconfidence makes us all the more vulnerable. The gap between confidence and ability is dangerous.
What can we do? I absolutely agree with the suggestion put forward by trading standards that financial institutions should recognise that clients with dementia are by definition more at risk of being scammed and that measures need to be taken to protect that group as a duty of care—I would argue that it should be a legal duty of care. Those who are diagnosed with dementia live with a cognitive impairment, and that must be recognised as we seek to protect them.
The sharing of personal details and information with other organisations should of course require a clear opt-in, as opposed to an opt-out, which is an important tool in the fight against scamming. The normal default position of charities and other organisations should be that personal details are not passed on or shared. Although there is legislation in place, I am not convinced from the evidence I have seen that it is being as rigorously adhered to as it should be.
It is worth noting that about 850,000 people in the UK currently live with dementia and the figure is expected to rise to more than 1 million by 2025. Sadly, the scammer does not see people who need help and are vulnerable; they simply see rich pickings. It is the duty of society to do all it can to protect these vulnerable, elderly people.
Customers should be able to formally notify their bank in writing if they feel at risk and request that all transactions over a certain amount to new payees have a 24-hour delay before being processed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed his experience of that, and it is time that all banks had a legal duty to do the same. It would give time for the proposed transaction to be challenged and would potentially stop scammed money from leaving a scam victim’s account.
Of course, it is not just the elderly who can be rich pickings for scamming. In 2015, almost 24,000 people aged under 30 were victims of identity fraud, up from 15,766 in 2014 and more than double the 11,000 victims in that age bracket in 2010. Fraudsters get hold of their victim’s personal information—such as name, date of birth, address, their bank and who they hold accounts with—in a variety of ways, including through hacking and data loss, as well as by using social media to put the pieces of someone’s identity together.
Some 86% of all identity frauds in 2015 were perpetrated online, and that figure is rising. Interesting emerging evidence suggests that younger people report losing money to fraud more often than older people, as scams move online. Older people are more reluctant to report being scammed, but when older people are victims of scams, their losses tend to be much greater.
Society, the Government and industry all have a role in preventing fraud. Our concern is that the lack of awareness about identity fraud is making it even easier for fraudsters to obtain the information they need from social media sites. It is important that we all check our privacy settings today and think twice about what we share on social media.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale talked about the closure of bank branches, which is an important point. There is no doubt that banks are trying to force those of us who have chosen not to bank online—I include myself—to do so, not because it is convenient for us but because it is convenient for the banks. I for one will not bank online and I urge those who are not comfortable doing so to similarly resist that pressure.
We have heard today about some eminently sensible and straightforward measures that could be taken by having a more strategic approach. Banks having safeguards for vulnerable people could do much to protect those who are most at risk of scamming—the elderly and vulnerable in our communities. We should also reach out to those of all ages who use social media but do not have the information they need to protect themselves from identity fraud. We could do more to give people information, with education campaigns to better inform people how they can take some responsibility and some simple steps to protect themselves, as the hon. Member for Strangford suggested.
I urge the Minister to reflect on the suggestions that have been put forward to tackle this problem and to confront the situation whereby people are robbed in their own homes—an experience that they subsequently find deeply scarring. The effects are far-reaching. Let us do more to protect the victims of scams—we can do more. The scammers and fraudsters are very creative; we have heard some examples of that today. They are evolving their techniques. We need to be creative and evolve our measures to deal with them. In the end, we are all at risk, so we need to work together to protect our communities. I am very interested to hear what ideas the Minister is going to take forward.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, in the first debate back after the short recess. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for raising this crucial issue and for his thoughtful and powerful speech, which made a compelling case for greater action by the Government on telephone and other types of scamming.
The scale of this problem is truly breathtaking. Age UK has estimated that up to 5 million people over the age of 65 believe they have been targeted by a scam. South Wales, the part of the country that my hon. Friend and I represent, is a hotspot for these issues. He was right to speak of his local trading standards team and South Wales police. I entirely concur with his comments and support what he says in respect not only of his local authority, but my local authority in Torfaen and Gwent police. There is no doubt that trading standards and other law enforcement agencies would be in a better position to tackle this issue if they had not been subjected to nine years of austerity and spending cuts.
I welcome the work of the joint fraud taskforce, which I look forward to hearing more about from the Minister in due course, and the ban on pension cold-calling that came into effect in January. However, I note that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said there was a “disjointed and ineffective” national strategy. Therein lies an enormous challenge for the Government in pulling together so many different aspects of a strategy and enforcing it around the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke powerfully about the cases he has seen in his constituency office, and about a crucial issue that should not be missed in this debate: the future of bank branches. At the last general election, my hon. Friends and I stood on a manifesto that sought to change the framework of legal obligations to be considered when closure decisions come to the fore. Nobody is saying that there are not business cases. Footfall is of course important—nobody is denying that—but there are two things to consider. First, the wider social impact of closing branches is often missed. Secondly, if the current rate of branches disappearing from the high street continues, we will end up with deserts in different parts of the country because there are no branches nearby. The hon. Gentleman represents a very rural constituency where I am sure that would be a particular issue, but it applies across all parts of the country and is something that we really need to tackle.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about his constituent, a schoolteacher who clearly fell victim to a fraudster who was extremely credible, as I am afraid they too often are. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted a further issue, which I will come back to in a moment: once someone has fallen victim to a scam, what awareness is there of the remedy and the compensation that can subsequently be recovered? In some cases, it is sadly not.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) was absolutely right to highlight the increasing risk to vulnerable people. When we talk about some of the statistics on scams affecting people over 75—I will do so in a moment—we must not forget that anyone of any age can fall victim to such scams. She was right to point out the risk to young people from different types of online scams, including identity fraud, and the importance of being cautious about what is shared on social media and knowing how that information can be used by people who wish us harm.
In its most recent statistics on crime in England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics identifies a worrying trend in these types of cases. The number of fraud incidents, 3.6 million, was up 12% on the previous survey year, driven in part by a 27% rise in consumer and retail fraud. It is vulnerable people who are targeted. Age UK has identified that single older people are more likely to respond than married people, and half of all people over 75 live alone. In addition to that vulnerability, the people who perpetrate such crimes are becoming more menacing and sophisticated in how they set out to defraud people.
A number of aspects of this issue demonstrate the need for a laser-like focus from the Government. There is the classic lottery scam, where people are told that they have won something when they have not. There are Government scams, where groups essentially pretend to be the Government and use that badge of credibility to carry out their crime. There are also security scams, which were mentioned in earlier speeches, whereby people are contacted by someone pretending to be their bank or some other trusted source.
What are we to do? We have to raise awareness, but it has to be done in a robust, targeted and smart way. People who are victims of scams need to report them, and a number of the speeches picked out that it is often difficult. People perhaps feel embarrassed and do not want to say they have been a victim of this particular type of confidence trick. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore pointed out, that relates to how people are treated when they do speak up, and it is important that best practice on being sensitive to the relevant issues is spread among our police forces.
There are other, practical things that people can do. For example, the Royal Mail can stop unaddressed mailings in the post if people register for that service. There is also the issue of data protection, which is covered by both the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation. The Information Commissioner’s Office, to which I often direct constituents who are worried about what has happened to their data, is an oversight body. If people are concerned about the retention of their data, they should be encouraged to go to that scrutiny body.
The hon. Member for Strangford raised the question of what remedies there are when someone falls victim to one of these confidence tricks. There is the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and people often forget that credit companies are jointly and severally liable even if the breach or misrepresentation is by the person doing the selling. The Act applies only to sums between £100 and £30,000, but that is none the less one remedy. There is debit card chargeback and the authorised push payment voluntary code, to which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred. I praise the work of consumer groups on raising awareness of those remedies. It is something that we really need to focus on, so that people are aware that should they fall victim and lose substantial amounts of money—one of the cases mentioned in the debate involved around £50,000, which is a huge amount of money—there are routes they can go down to try to recoup at least some of their losses.
There was an excellent Library briefing for this debate, and I pay tribute to the Library staff who produced it. The Government really need to look at how they collect statistics in this area. Where they do collect statistics, is there a way of breaking them down into types of scams? Are they online or telephone scams? I have raised this point with Ministers before, and I appreciate that there is always a balance. They cannot collect every single statistic, but if statistics were collected on what the fastest-growing risk was, the Minister would be more able to target Government policy to reduce it.
It is crucial that we bring together a robust strategy all over the country. We need more resources for our law enforcement agencies, but they also need a consistent strategy that pushes back against the fraudsters who target our constituents. To use the words quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, the victims might not “bang, bleed or shout,” but great misery is certainly caused to them by this crime. The Government have to rise to the challenge.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this debate. He and other hon. Members have campaigned consistently on this extremely important subject. I thank all hon. Members who made contributions. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, this issue affects each and every constituency, and we all know someone, whether personally or professionally, who has been a victim of a scam or an attempted scam.
The examples that hon. Members gave show the range of scams that criminals can pursue and the range of people who can be victims. We rightly tend to focus on the most vulnerable—particularly the elderly, who are exploited by fraudsters because of their age and, the fraudsters assume, their frailties—but as the hon. Members for Strangford and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) highlighted, these scams are not restricted to the most vulnerable. They are now so sophisticated that they can take in people who would ordinarily think that they are able to withstand such efforts. The methods that fraudsters use include playing a recording of a call centre in the background so it sounds like they are calling from a large call centre, which reassures the victim that the call is legitimate. There are huge challenges, not just for law enforcement, which must respond robustly, but for us as individuals. We must ensure that we are as knowledgeable as possible about these scams to protect ourselves, those we care for and those we think may be vulnerable. I will go into that in a bit more detail in due course.
The Government take this harm extremely seriously. Fraud is the second most prevalent crime in England and Wales. The crime survey estimates that there were 3.6 million frauds in 2018. Victims can suffer serious financial and emotional harm, and the money that fraudsters make can fund other serious organised crime. Although we have made substantial progress, the Government’s efforts to tackle scams and fraud in general are focusing on three areas: the policing response to fraud, reducing vulnerabilities, and the care and service that victims receive.
We are clear that the law enforcement response to fraud must improve. The previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), requested that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services conduct an inspection of the police response to fraud because we wanted a much clearer view of how fraud is being investigated and what improvements are needed. The inspectorate’s recent report highlighted key weaknesses in the police response, suggesting that significant improvements are required to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the current fraud policing model. In practice, that means local and, increasingly, regional investigations, supported by national functions.
The hon. Member for Strangford rightly said that fraudsters do not recognise geographical boundaries. On his point about the UK-wide response, we very much recognise the need to develop a national policing strategy for fraud, which will address, for example, how the Police Service of Northern Ireland can link with the overall national strategy. The City of London police is the national lead force for fraud and serves as a national centre for the collection and sharing of intelligence across the four regions of the United Kingdom. We very much take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about the cross-border implications for the internal borders in the United Kingdom.
The inspectorate’s report and 16 recommendations demonstrate that the policing response to fraud must improve. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime, who apologises for not being able to be present today, takes this matter extremely seriously. He expects that the report will be taken seriously by chief constables and police and crime commissioners alike. We are working with the police and other law enforcement agencies to take forward those recommendations and challenge fraud at a national, regional and local level. The shadow Minister rightly asked about the statistics. I will take that point back to the Minister for Security and Economic Crime.
Let me turn to reducing vulnerabilities. In addition to improving the police response to fraud, we must also address the vulnerabilities in systems that fraudsters exploit if we are to make the UK a harder target for fraudsters. The hon. Member for Ogmore gave the example of a fraudster citing the DWP in a scam that one of his constituents suffered. We recognise that the Government and law enforcement must work closely with the private sector, as well as with each other. Agencies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are leading the way in the fight against online and phone fraudsters and are working relentlessly to close tax scams and raise awareness.
In the previous financial year, HMRC reported more than 12,000 malicious websites for takedown, recovered hundreds of misleading HMRC-branded domains, initiated the removal of hundreds of phone numbers used to perpetrate HMRC-related phone scams, and increased education efforts to ensure that the general public are aware that people may use HMRC’s or other agencies’ branding to try to extract their much-needed and carefully saved savings and income. Those education campaigns are being run by the media, television and newspapers. In 2016, HMRC identified a significant increase in the number of customers receiving malicious HMRC-branded texts. With the phone industry, it piloted award-winning controls that resulted in a 90% reduction in reports of such scams. The lessons learned from that are being scaled into a solution for the whole of the United Kingdom. As was reported at the weekend—hon. Members mentioned this—HMRC is deploying new controls to put an end to fraudsters spoofing the tax authorities’ most recognisable helpline numbers.
Nuisance calls are a source of extreme irritation for many, but for the most vulnerable they can also be incredibly stressful and harmful. We have taken a range of actions to reduce the number of nuisance calls. We have banned cold calls from personal injury firms and pension providers, as hon. Members noted. The hon. Member for Ogmore asked for an update. I will ask the Minister for Security and Economic Crime to write to him about that. It is very early days, but hopefully we can provide some information to him.
We have also introduced director liability for nuisance calls, and we are supporting national trading standards in rolling out call-blocking devices to vulnerable people. Members of Parliament have a real opportunity to help our constituents to understand the ways in which scams can operate and what we can do to protect ourselves against them. I recommend the Take Five to Stop Fraud scheme—a joint awareness campaign run by the Government and UK Finance, which provides simple advice to prevent people from falling victim to scams. The key message is that people should take their time when making a new payment, because fraudsters will try to rush them, as some of the very sad examples highlighted in this debate show.
The response to scams and fraud in general requires a collaborative, innovative response, because as we catch up with criminals, they will find other ways of exploiting technology to present new challenges and find new ways to steal people’s money. That is why the Government created the joint fraud taskforce: to better protect the public and businesses from fraud, reduce the impact of fraud on victims, and increase the disruption and prosecution of fraudsters. We continue to work with the taskforce to build on successful initiatives, such as the banking protocol—it has been discussed today—which is a code of practice to help banks to identify victims and alert law enforcement. It has prevented more than £48 million from falling into the hands of fraudsters and has led to more than 400 arrests.
We also welcome the publication of the voluntary industry code. It marks a significant step forward in the fight against authorised push payment frauds, which involve tricking customers into sending money to fraudsters via a payment service provider. To give an idea of the scale of the task, in the first half of 2018, consumer losses from APP scams amounted to around £145.4 million, of which just under £31 million was repaid to customers. The code will ensure that sending and receiving payment service providers will take steps to protect their customers, including with procedures to detect, prevent and respond to APP scams, with greater protection for customers who are considered vulnerable to that type of fraud.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about the retrospectivity of the code. Again, I will raise that with the Minister for Security and Economic Crime. There are no plans to force banks to apply the code retrospectively, but there are certainly no rules or laws in place that prevent banks from making good-will payments. We also encourage victims of APP scams who have not been compensated by their bank to lodge a complaint with the financial ombudsman.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, the code is voluntary, but to reassure hon. Members, the current signatories of the code cover approximately 85% of APP scams, and the Payments Systems Regulator, which leads the development of the code, actively encourages banks to sign up, as does UK Finance. In addition, the Financial Ombudsman Service will take the code into consideration when determining cases, regardless of whether the bank in dispute has signed up to the code.
On the other work that the payments industry does to prevent APP scams from occurring in the first place, the confirmation of payee service is the industry-agreed way of ensuring that names of recipients are checked before payments are made. Essentially, it is an account name checking service that can help to avoid the misdirection of payments. The industries developing the service say that it can be implemented by payment providers during the course of this year.
Regulators and industry are taking further action to increase payment security and reduce fraud via stronger customer authentication. From 14 September this year, rules supplementary to the second payment services directive will apply, meaning that payment service providers such as banks will be required to apply more security measures to large transactions, and customers may be asked to provide more credentials. That could reduce some types of fraud by up to 30%.
It is also right that we look at the service provided to victims of scams and fraud. Two economic crime victim care units have been established to better identify vulnerable victims of fraud and ensure that they are provided with the right level of support. That includes practical advice, support and guidance to help victims to cope and to prevent them from again falling victim in future. The units have been trialled in the Greater Manchester and West Midlands Police force areas, and an assessment will be completed this year to help to measure the impact of the scheme.
With funding from the Home Office, National Trading Standards has piloted local multi-agency hubs to ensure that victims of fraud receive support from the local agency best able to provide it, whether that be the police, social services or charities. At the risk of boasting about my own county, in Lincolnshire—one of the pilot areas—the local police, National Trading Standards and a health trust have worked in partnership to train 1,000 health and social care professionals to identify and support older people who have been, or may be, the victims of doorstep crime and scams.
A strategic action plan has been developed by Victim Support and National Trading Standards, with Home Office support, to ensure that the service received by fraud victims is rapid, appropriate and consistent, and takes into account any specific needs that they may have that might make them particularly vulnerable or susceptible to fraud. The joint fraud taskforce is working on a technical and regulatory framework to ensure that more fraud losses can be returned to victims. Work is also being undertaken to test the technology that can trace the movement of funds back to their source. The next step will be for banks to agree ways of operating that allow for the freezing of funds, a system of dealing with disputes and, ultimately, the return of stolen funds.
We all take this threat very seriously. The responsibility is shared by all concerned agencies, both in the public and private sectors, which is supported by civil society. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore for providing the opportunity to discuss this fraud, innovative ways of tackling it, and ways to ensure that the Government’s steps are monitored and have the impact that we wish them to have. This is a piece of work that, I am delighted to say, many colleagues across the House, not all of them here today, have shared in common to ensure that the financial and social damage that such invasive crime inflicts on some of our most vulnerable citizens is tackled and stopped.
Chris Elmore
I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions, as well as to the SNP spokesperson and the shadow Minister. I thank the Minister for stepping in for the Security Minister. I do not doubt for one second hers or the Security Minister’s sincerity in trying to tackle what should be a cross-party issue. No one wants to see constituents defrauded in any way. Certainly, I know that we all want to work constructively to resolve those issues. In the Minister’s typical style, it was refreshing of her to acknowledge that problems still need to be resolved, but that she is trying to do her bit within her portfolio, while encouraging other Home Office Ministers to find a way forward.
I sincerely believe that there is more to be done, and I hope to continue—over my next 18 months as an MP and in future—raising the profile of this issue, working with Ministers and those on the Opposition Front Bench, to ensure that we have robust processes in place to protect our constituents and get ahead of the scammers, rather than what feels like forever catching up with them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered telephone and online scams.
Suggitt’s Lane Level Crossing
(5 years, 5 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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
This debate will consider the important subject of the closure of Suggitt’s Lane level crossing in Cleethorpes. I call Martin Vickers.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the closure of Suggitt’s Lane level crossing, Cleethorpes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As you say, this debate concerns a very important subject. Although it relates specifically to Suggitt’s Lane crossing, it should be considered in the broader context of the accountability of Network Rail, a nationalised company that, on this issue, seems to be unaccountable to the Secretary of State of its sponsoring Department.
In theory, Network Rail can be held to account in a number of ways. The Office of Rail and Road monitors health and safety, has a role in determining the public funding that Network Rail receives and sets certain objectives. Andrew Haines, the company’s chief executive, is personally accountable to Parliament for Network Rail’s use of taxpayer’s money, and the Secretary of State for Transport holds some power over the board’s leadership and management of the business, but accountability on issues that can have a significant impact on local communities seems to be totally absent. For it to be so independent that it is wholly unaccountable and free from adequate scrutiny on such matters as the Suggitt’s Lane issue clearly is unacceptable. If Network Rail is able to dismiss the representations of local residents, councils, Members of Parliament and even the Secretary of State, surely it is time to revisit its structures. That should not and cannot be allowed to continue.
Until recently, the level crossing allowed hundreds of local residents every day to pass quickly and easily to the north promenade of the east coast’s premier seaside resort, without the hassle of a bridge. Let us consider the figures: according to Network Rail, 570 pedestrians and cyclists use the crossing each day. That figure undoubtedly will be higher at weekends and during holiday periods, but even assuming that it is a constant 570, that amounts to 208,050 per annum, which equates to over 2 million in 10 years. According to Network Rail’s figures, in 10 years, there have been just 15 near misses. A near miss must meet specific, closely defined criteria. I will return to those figures shortly.
The proposed closure was first drawn to my attention in a letter from the route managing director, Rob McIntosh, of 3 January. Later that month, Network Rail wrote a similar letter to the then leader of North East Lincolnshire Council, Councillor Ray Oxby, informing him that it had taken the decision to close the crossing—not to consult about it, but to close it. That decision was made before any consultation with local residents, the council or me. In that letter, the route managing director either exaggerated the case or was ill informed when he stated that the crossing was very dangerous, and outlined that over 50 freight and passenger trains traverse the crossing every day at speeds of up to 60 mph.
Let us remember the figure of 15 near misses in the last 10 years. Does that qualify as “very dangerous”? For the record, there are three trains per hour Monday to Friday, one in each direction, on the Manchester service, and the two-hourly service to Barton-on-Humber. In other words, there are three trains an hour almost every hour of a weekday. On Saturdays, there are six extra movements, with services to Sheffield via the Brigg and Gainsborough route. Incidentally, four years ago, a new footbridge was erected at Brigg station. No doubt, that improved facilities for a handful of passengers each Saturday, but the logic of spending thousands on the project is at the very least another example of Network Rail’s questionable priorities.
As for freight trains travelling at 60 mph, not a single freight train is in operation on that part of the line. Trains reduce their speed on the approach to the station, and immediately after passing the level crossing, the speed limit falls to 30 mph. Why not reduce the speed before the level crossing? Trains leaving the station do not have time to reach a high speed, so why not allow them to travel slowly, at 20 or 25 mph, until they have crossed Suggitt’s Lane, which is only a quarter of a mile away?
I raised those discrepancies with the Network Rail representatives in a meeting in March, but they seemed to be of little concern to them. In fact, one of their representatives was forward in telling me that given the opportunity, they would quite happily close every level crossing in the country—a laudable but wholly unachievable aim. Unfortunately, although the crossing has been in constant use by members of the public for 150 years, there seems to be no right of way, so Network Rail has been able to close it. It highlighted a pedestrian bridge a little down the line at Fuller Street and argued that it was a suitable alternative for local residents. It may be suitable for the able bodied, but not for the disabled and those with prams and the like. If it did occur to Network Rail—I am sure it did—that a bridge somewhere down the line would pose a great inconvenience for local residents, it chose to dismiss the issue. It is the lack of disabled access that has been the concern that constituents have raised most frequently with me in recent weeks.
Over the last few months, I have been in frequent contact with Network Rail in writing and in meetings, but no progress has been made. I have raised the matter in the House on five occasions in the last couple of months, and have secured the support of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who is in his place, who asked Network Rail to review its decision. He and I met Network Rail representatives on Monday 8 April to make the case further. They agreed to consider reopening the crossing while they review their plans. I presented a petition to the House, organised by Cleethorpes-based DN35 CrimeWatch, which was signed by over 4,000 local residents who oppose the closure.
Late in April, I had the opportunity to make representations directly to Andrew Haines, the chief executive of Network Rail. I pressed him on the situation and argued that, at the very least, the crossing should be reopened while a review takes place. He promised that he would personally look into the issue, which he duly did and wrote to me to say, “No change.” In a matter of days, I discovered that Network Rail had erected a permanent barrier at the crossing to make it impossible for pedestrians to cross. Clearly, it did not consider the recommendation of reopening very seriously, or in any great detail.
The response from Network Rail to date has been disappointing, but I remain committed to the campaign, and will continue to support local residents, who I am glad to see in the Public Gallery, in their objections to this heavy-handed and ill-advised decision. According to Robert Wainwright, head of level crossings at Network Rail, the UK has one of the best level crossing safety records in Europe. That is especially remarkable as our country has one of the most intensively used rail systems in the world.
Five years ago, the Select Committee on Transport, of which I was a member at the time, produced a report on level crossing safety. I draw hon. Members’ attention to two of its recommendations. The first stated:
“We recommend that Network Rail address criticism of its apparent preference for footbridges as replacements for level crossings and explain what assessment it makes of the impact on disabled people of replacing level crossings with footbridges rather than underpasses.”
The second stated:
“We are concerned that the proposed appeal mechanism for closure orders, using judicial review, will be out of reach for ordinary people and, increasingly, local authorities. We recommend that the DfT consider using alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation by the Office of Rail Regulation”.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Did the Committee not also state in its recommendations that it considered there was merit in applying a public safety test to any diversionary route that may result from the closure of a level crossing? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of whether Network Rail followed that recommendation in this situation?
Martin Vickers
I certainly recall that point. I have to confess that I do not know whether it has been followed through. We will wait to see whether the Minister is able to confirm that.
I understand that in the past decade, Network Rail has made a great deal of effort to improve the safety of level crossings. Initiatives such as the introduction of level crossing managers and ever-improving technology have proven successful in improving behaviour at level crossings. From a practical perspective, technology is probably the most effective means of changing outcomes. It is a huge factor in the reduction of deliberate misuse and human error across the country. I see no reason why Network Rail could not implement technology to aid pedestrian decision making at Suggitt’s Lane. Perhaps it could include supplementary audible warnings and overlay miniature stop light solutions.
In September 2013, the Law Commission published a report and a draft Bill containing a series of recommendations aimed at improving the safety and regulation of level crossings. Its suggestions included providing tools to support health and safety regulation, including level crossing plans and enforceable agreements between railway operators and other duty holders, and giving the Secretary of State the power to issue directions if necessary. Those proposals, if properly implemented, have the potential to make level crossings much safer, so that Network Rail feels less incentivised to close them on a whim.
Clearly, a vast number of alternatives to closure are available to Network Rail. I have no doubt that this decision was taken as it was the easiest and cheapest option. There was no need for Network Rail to take into consideration the trouble the closure would cause elderly and disabled residents, given the lack of powers for any person or institution to hold it to account. That is unacceptable, and it must change.
Installing a modern footbridge with disabled access at Fuller Street would prove extremely expensive. Whether the funding for that came from the owner of the bridge, North East Lincolnshire Council, or from Network Rail, it would be public money. I question whether public money should be spent on eliminating a theoretical risk at Suggitt’s Lane when there are thousands of level crossings, many with trains passing at 125 mph, where the money could be better spent.
I referred to the 15 near misses to which Network Rail referred. Remember, that is 15 near misses in 10 years, during which time more than 2 million people will have passed over the crossing. On 9 April, Mr Ian Stuart from the Rail Accident Investigation Branch emailed one of the local campaigners, Lynn Sayles. He wrote:
“We have reviewed our records from when we were established in October 2005 and have found details of only one Incident at Suggitt’s Lane level crossing, which occurred on 13 January 2011. The circumstances of this particular case were unclear, but involved an individual being found with an injury in the vicinity of the crossing. However, there was no direct evidence that the injury had actually been caused by a train. The RAIB received no formal notification from the industry about the accident and the circumstances could not be substantiated so no further action was taken.”
Only one of the 15 near misses was considered significant enough to involve the RAIB. That is one near miss, in which the circumstances could not be substantiated, against more than 2 million crossings. Why close the crossing and cause massive inconvenience on the basis of those results?
Of course people should not trespass on the railway, and of course people should not act foolishly, but, sadly, some do. We all suffer to some extent as a result, but in this instance the massive inconvenience simply is not justified. Anyone who is determined to trespass on that stretch of railway can go along to Cleethorpes station at any time of the day or night and wander down the platform and on to the track.
I urge Network Rail to do the right thing: to admit that it has not fully appreciated the strength of local feeling, that full, proper and meaningful consultation should take place, and that while those discussions happen, it should reopen Suggitt’s Lane crossing. My plea to the Minister is that he uses his good offices to find a solution.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am pleased to call Melanie Onn, but I will need to call the Minister no later than 20 minutes past 1 o’clock.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for generously allowing me a few minutes to add my voice to those of the campaigners who crowdfunded to get here to participate in the debate, such is the strength of their feeling.
It is really important to acknowledge that any death on our railways is a tragedy. Of course that must be avoided, so I completely understand the desire to close dangerous level crossings, particularly where there is a real risk to life. However, this issue is not about a genuine risk; it is about a perceived risk. It is about an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist—an attempt that has caused huge disruption and upset to residents across north-east Lincolnshire.
The risk is actually worse now that people with bicycles and people with mobility problems have to cross a bridge that is not really suitable for that. In fact, young William, who has joined us in the Gallery, recently fell down that bridge trying to take his bicycle across it. Has Network Rail given that any consideration? I suspect not, because now it has displaced the risk, it has become somebody else’s problem.
Having been asked about risk assessments, Network Rail conveniently says there is no need for it to do them because this is not a public access route. However, it drafted factually incorrect risk assessments to support the decision to close the crossing, as the hon. Member for Cleethorpes said. Network Rail says there is no public right of way, but it has previously written to members of the public and local authority planners in support of Suggitt’s Lane crossing becoming a right of way.
As recently as September 2018, Network Rail confirmed in writing that there were no plans to close the crossing, yet within just three months, without providing any details or timeframe to the public, and without even responding to the former council leader’s concerns, it closed it. After 150 years, despite the fact that more than 500 people a day use the crossing, Network Rail has walked away, saying it has no need to take any account of the impact it has caused to the local community.
We heard about the RAIB’s assessment. Is there something in that that we need to consider? If there have been so many near misses that Network Rail considered to be so important, why did it not report them to the RAIB? Network Rail has published various documents about the risk of the crossing, which are completely inconsistent. One gives the crossing a risk status of D2, but another puts it in the extremely low M13 category. The recent risk assessment was produced and published just four days before the closure, but that was months after the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, the leader of the council and I were notified in writing of the decision. What on earth was the point of doing that assessment if Network Rail had no need to do risk assessments in the first place?
Network Rail says it has given safety talks to schools. It can provide no evidence of that. It says it participated in local safety events. It holds no records of those. It says it has communicated with local residents and businesses about safety issues. It has no evidence of those letters. How is it possible that a public body can be so utterly incompetent, seek embarrassingly and obviously to pull the wool over the eyes of members of the public, and be in a situation where it not only ignores its own mission statements about accountability but has no transparency whatsoever in its decision making? It has left campaigners, such as those in the Gallery, with just the very expensive route of a judicial review.
There is a similar situation with the Angerstein Wharf crossing in Greenwich. Network Rail has had the good grace to listen to the leader of the council, the MP and the community, and to delay the closure of that crossing. If that is possible for Greenwich residents, why is it not possible for Grimsby and Cleethorpes residents? I think Network Rail hopes to get away with this, but this is a warning. The campaigners, who are here today, are dogged and tenacious. They will not give in. Network Rail might hope for an easy exit, but that will not happen.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes. I urge the Minister to use his considerable influence on Network Rail to insist on a proper consultation, and to recognise the hard work of campaigners such as Lynn Sayles, Robert Palmer and Councillor Debbie Rodwell, among others, as well as the impact on local businesses, disabled people, families and the elderly, who all rely on this crossing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate. We should also recognise and thank the local residents who have come down to observe the debate for their perseverance in raising this important issue—and their perseverance in getting into the building when it is pretty lively outside. I will talk briefly about the railway more broadly and level crossings in general before addressing Suggitt’s Lane.
We must recognise that rail is a critical part of our national economic infrastructure, offering safe journeys to work and facilitating business and leisure travel. It also moves millions of tonnes of freight around our country, relieving congestion on our roads. We are seeing a real boom time in the rail industry, with passenger numbers having doubled since privatisation in the mid-1990s.
I want to see more progress made, with that success built on by improving and extending services wherever viable, as well as ensuring that we see more frequent and better services to places such as Cleethorpes, which is a point my hon. Friend has made to me many times. He is a champion of this issue, particularly on a direct service to London, which was the subject of our last meeting. However, the growth in rail and rail freight comes at a cost: a more heavily used network can bring greater safety risks to passengers and the public, particularly at stations and level crossings, and that leads to difficult choices for Network Rail to make as it seeks to deliver faster and more frequent services; of course, it must not compromise on safety while doing so.
There are no easy solutions. I recognise the responsibility that Network Rail has in making operational decisions as the duty holder for Britain’s railway infrastructure—indeed, Ministers cannot overrule decisions made on safety issues—but the point raised by Members about accountability was well made. I will take that away from the debate.
There are 7,000 level crossings across our mainland rail network, with different types of crossing based on the different levels of risk. These range from open passive crossings, with no barriers or gates, for where trains are infrequent and speeds are low, to crossings with full barriers monitored by CCTV and with telephones.
Level crossings of whatever type are safe when used correctly. Absolute safety may be an impossible goal—we should aim at it, though—but it is important that the right type of crossing is used at a location to achieve safety with minimum delays to the surrounding community, whether on foot or on wheels. The factors that are taken into account include the speed and number of trains; the volume and type of road traffic; the nature of private use; the number of pedestrians; and the location itself. Clearly decisions have to be made locally, because what is appropriate for a quiet country road is totally different from that for a busy urban area.
Ninety-six per cent of accidents at level crossings are considered to be caused by either driver or pedestrian action, whether intentional or unintentional. Safety, therefore, clearly can be compromised in this area. Statistics show that the safety record of level crossings in this country is among the best in the world, but we always seek ways to improve safety.
Level crossings now represent the single biggest source of risk of train accidents—those with the potential for multiple deaths. I therefore agree with Network Rail’s initiative to minimise the number of level crossings on the network, but that must be done in a proportionate way that takes people with it. Network Rail has to focus on improving the operation and maintenance of level crossings; a risk assessment programme to identify where additional action may be needed, which certainly includes the safety impacts of any diversionary routes; measures to promote the safe use of level crossings; and, where feasible and appropriate, closing crossings altogether if the opportunity arises.
Let us focus on Suggitt’s Lane, which Network Rail told me it decided, with a heavy heart, to close permanently. That is in line with its statutory duties as the managers of our rail infrastructure. On the legal position, Suggitt’s Lane was established as a private level crossing to serve a local fishing business in, I believe, the 1860s. That business has ceased, and there was no public right of way at that crossing; it was just for the business. That position was confirmed in discussion with North East Lincolnshire Council and in Network Rail’s own investigation.
Let me explain what brought Network Rail to its decision. It observed a number of potentially fatal incidents at the level crossing, including young children crossing unattended, people walking on the tracks and motorcyclists using the crossing. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) highlighted the 15 near misses recorded in the past 10 years, which are in addition to those examples. Evidence suggests that other incidents may have gone unreported.
Melanie Onn
Does the Minister accept that only one incident has been recorded with the RAIB, and that was back in 2005?
Andrew Jones
I recognise that point. The RAIB records are clear—that is the truth—but we always try to avoid the need for the RAIB to get involved, because its involvement means there has been an accident. This is about trying to ensure that accidents do not happen.
Network Rail has concluded that, having taken action with the British Transport police to improve public awareness and use of that crossing, no infrastructure can be installed to address its concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes will be aware, Network Rail held a public information event on 22 March at which it explained that, in its view, closure was the most effective option for ensuring the safety of the public.
From comments in this place, from media coverage in the local paper, which I have looked at, and from the fact that people have made a great effort to join us at this debate, it is clear how the closure has affected local users, how strongly people feel about that, and how it has also affected some businesses on the promenade. I understand that entirely. To balance against that, I also understand why Network Rail made this difficult decision. It is not a straightforward matter, and there is no ideal alternative.
I am aware of the provision at Fuller Street footbridge and recognise the point, which was well made by my hon. Friend, about the lack of access there for people with reduced mobility. It was interesting to learn that that is a significant concern among his constituents. My hon. Friend chaired a meeting last Friday with Network Rail and North East Lincolnshire Council to discuss the options for that bridge in more detail. I understand that Network Rail has agreed in principle to contribute to enhancing the bridge, should that prove viable, and that it and the council will send engineers to review the bridge in the weeks ahead.
Martin Vickers
Will he acknowledge that it would be wasteful to spend any public money on that project, because the risks are so minimal? The money should be spent where there is more risk.
Andrew Jones
We have obligations to keep our rail network as safe as possible. The definition and calculation of risk is a key factor in deciding where money is spent. It is important that we have a dialogue between the local council and Network Rail to look at all the options and come to an effective permanent solution, which can and must be found. That could mean work at Fuller Street or other areas, but I want to ensure that people are talking locally about a local solution to a local problem.
The challenge has been well articulated by Members. Network Rail will have been following the debate, and I will ensure that it picks up the content of our discussions and addresses the concerns that have been expressed. I will write to both hon. Members and, through them, to their constituents.
We have a difficult situation where a local community has been affected by an organisation charged with safety seeking to improve safety. In this case, we are not seeing what an agreement might look like. That is of some regret, but we must work harder to try to reach a solution that all sides will be happy with, keeping the community together and making sure that people can travel safely in and out of Cleethorpes.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Trade Union Access to Workplaces
(5 years, 5 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
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered trade union access to workplaces.
Working people in the UK can thank our trade unions for fighting to give us the minimum wage, parental rights, holidays and sickness pay. With nearly 6.5 million members in the UK, trade unions are our largest voluntary and democratic organisations. Trade unions are on the frontline every day, fighting poverty, inequality and injustice, and negotiating a better deal for working people. This role has never been more critical than it is today, with in-work poverty on the rise and zero-hours contracts widespread, but a barrage of anti-trade union legislation over the past decade has meant that workers have found their ability to organise and take industrial action to challenge these injustices greatly restricted.
Under existing legislation, huge multinational companies such as Amazon and McDonald’s can employ legions of low-paid, insecure staff, often in terrible working conditions, all while turning record-breaking profits. It is boom time for large multinational companies, but their success is not passed down to employees. With British workers facing an uncertain and exploitative job market, trade unions are the perfect tool to make these workplaces fairer.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that it is a real pity that some big employers do not see the benefit of having an organised workforce, which facilitates better industrial relations, improves dialogue between employers and employees, and is better for staff morale and for keeping staff turnover low?
Faisal Rashid
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come to later in my speech. If employers look after their employees and they are happy, then they are more productive; in the end, everybody wins. That was a great point.
It is no exaggeration to say that working conditions at large multinational companies are, at times, reminiscent of the deplorable practices of the 19th century. Workers have recounted having to urinate in bottles for fear of being disciplined for a toilet break and heavily pregnant women report being refused permission to sit down for a break during 12-hour shifts. How can we allow this to happen in the UK in the 21st century? I have spoken to countless trade union officials who tell me that, despite the widespread desire for improved rights and conditions at work, efforts to unionise staff in such workplaces are often fruitless.
In large part, that is because there are currently no rights of access for trade unions to enter the workplace and speak to workers for the purposes of recruitment. Workers at Amazon have had their shift patterns interrupted and randomised simply to prevent them from talking to union officials on the way into work. Union representatives visiting branches of McDonald’s across the UK to speak to workers about the benefits of joining a trade union are routinely thrown out of stores, with their presence reported to senior regional managers.
When I raised these issues in Parliament several weeks ago, both Amazon and McDonald’s responded by denying that these practices were taking place in their stores. McDonald’s stated:
“We strongly dispute the notion that we are asking people to leave our restaurants based on their membership of a union. If anybody comes into a restaurant with the sole intention of disrupting our people while they work, or customers while they eat, we would ask them to leave regardless of their reason for causing disruption.”
Does that attitude not sum up the problem with the current legislation? The crucial work of our trade unions is simply a nuisance to these companies and is getting in the way of their exploitative practices and profiteering. The current laws simply let them get away with it.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that our highly restrictive trade union laws and low collective bargaining coverage have helped to make the UK one of the most unequal countries in Europe and the OECD in terms of income inequality, and that guaranteeing trade union access to all workplaces would be a moderate and practical step in addressing these issues?
Faisal Rashid
Absolutely; that is an excellent point. I could not agree more.
Union members from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union have recounted stories like that of Mohamed’s, a worker from north London, who was excited at the prospect of working alongside his colleagues to improve basic things at work, like getting his shifts 10 days in advance so that he could plan his life. Because of those efforts, he was informed by the management that he was banned from every McDonald’s store in the area. I note that in its statement McDonald’s did not dispute that account.
In its response, Amazon stated:
“If you want a true assessment of our working conditions just register for a tour at one of our fulfilment centres.”
A registered, company-sanctioned tour—effectively a corporate PR exercise—would hardly paint an accurate picture of working conditions at Amazon. Let the figures speak for themselves: from 2015 to 2018, a shocking 600 ambulance calls were made to Amazon warehouses. I have visited an Amazon warehouse in my own constituency in the past; the technology on show was indeed very impressive, but that hardly gives an accurate account of what it would be like to work a 12-hour shift in the warehouse. Nevertheless, I am happy to take Amazon up on its offer of another visit. Would I be able to bring representatives from the GMB union with me? Until now, many of them have consistently been denied access to the workplace.
It is not just Amazon and McDonald’s; these practices are widespread, particularly in poorly paid jobs. In its recently published report on InterContinental Hotels Group, Unite the union documented a workplace culture of fear and bullying, with management pressurising low-paid staff into working for eight to 10 days straight. IHG employees and subcontracted employees have been routinely denied the right to freedom of association and have stood little chance of exercising their right to collective bargaining.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling this debate. While making the case about large employers, will he acknowledge that there is a lot of exploitation of workers by small employers, particularly bullying and harassment, and that they also shut their doors to trade unions? That is to the detriment of small employers, as well as to the detriment of their staff.
Faisal Rashid
I thank my hon. Friend for that brilliant point. It works for all stages in every sector, regardless of the size of the business. If large organisations practise fairly, it will filter down, especially through subcontractors. It is the responsibility of large businesses to show smaller businesses what they are doing. If they follow the right practices, that will filter down to subcontractors. Perhaps larger businesses could have some kind of contract to make sure that their subcontractors look after their employees in the same way as they do. Large businesses have to set a precedent.
Union members are vulnerable and live in fear of reprisals from their employer. Bupa is one of the largest and highest-profile providers of residential social care in the UK and part of an international health group that serves approximately 32 million customers in 190 countries. It consistently refuses to allow Unison officials access to workplaces to speak with staff and members regarding union rights and representation.
During 2017 and 2018, Unison North West regional officers were banned from every Bupa care workplace, despite assurances that visits could be conducted at the employer’s convenience and with due regard to operational and safeguarding concerns and priorities. I have just mentioned what McDonald’s said about disruption, but unions do not want to disrupt the business at all. They give adequate time before they come, and that is all I am asking for in the legislation. Of course I am pro-business and I support great businesses, but not at the cost of poor workplace conditions for employees.
I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister that the UK is a signatory to the European convention on human rights, article 11 of which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”
Does he not agree that the examples I have listed constitute a flagrant violation of that right? If so, what does his Department intend to do about it?
I do not want to use this debate simply as an opportunity to criticise existing practices, but to propose a way forward. I hope the Minister will listen to my proposals, because it does not have to be like this. By expanding trade union access to workplaces, we can restore dignity and respect at work and put an end to the exploitation and misery we see on the rise today. As I said, I am pro-business and I want to see our businesses flourish, but that should not come at the cost of dignity and respect at work. An alternative is possible.
We can look to places such as New Zealand for inspiration, as well as for evidence that the legislation that I am proposing works. Under the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2018, trade unions there have far greater access to workplaces. Workers in New Zealand can speak to union representatives in their place of work, which has led to higher union membership, higher wages, and fairer and more just workplaces.
Under this legislation, all that is required is that the union provide a short period of notice that it will be visiting the workplace, allowing for management to add the extra staff member needed for the duration of the visit. The situation is beneficial for all involved: disruption to the business is kept to an absolute minimum, while workers’ legal and human right to join and form a union is properly adhered to.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Does he agree that that access is even more important when individual workers are undergoing disciplinary or grievance procedures, and that we need to see a full right to representation for workers in those procedures? At the moment the employers have an unequal force of arms, but resolving these issues could make workplaces better for all employees.
Faisal Rashid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was a union rep at my workplace before I joined Parliament, and the number of cases in which I represented my colleagues is unbelievable. There are a number of things that union reps can achieve, working with the employer and of course the workers, and that is crucial.
With the success of New Zealand in mind, I want to see similar legislation adopted in this country. Last month, I presented a private Member’s Bill to that effect, which seeks to remove a number of restrictions on trade unions’ conducting business in workplaces. I have received a lot of support for the Bill from hon. Members, over 50 of whom were willing to co-sign it. However, to date I have not been supported by a single Conservative or Liberal Democrat MP.
Arguments against increasing the collective bargaining power of working people have long been discredited. It is a myth that strong trade unions drive down profit. If strong trade unions drive down productivity, why has the UK long suffered from a productivity gap despite having the most restrictive trade union laws in western Europe? In truth, a happy, well-respected workforce is also a productive one, but the stories I have heard from union officials paint the opposite picture: too many people in this country feel exploited and dispensable at work.
If we are to transition away from a low-wage, precarious economy, increasing the collective bargaining power of our workers is critical. That is why I am fighting to improve trade union access to the workplace. We need strong trade unions and a better deal for working people.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) on securing this debate and on talking eloquently about this important issue. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of his private Member’s Bill that he talked about.
As we know, the right to join a trade union is a basic democratic right. Trade unions play an invaluable role in ensuring that justice is served, defending their members’ workplace rights, pay, and terms and conditions. As I have said many times in this place and will always say, the best thing anyone can do to protect themselves at work is to join a trade union. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of GMB and Unite.
As my hon. Friend said in his excellent speech, the European convention on human rights provides that everyone has the right to form or to join a trade union for the protection of his or her interests. Given that, we might think there would be no need to introduce his Bill to remove restrictions on trade unions conducting business in workplaces in the UK, but sadly both the law and the culture in this country place little emphasis on workplace protection and do little to support or respect it.
Far too many people experience insecurity, uncertainty and exploitation at work. As we have heard, in-work poverty is on the rise and zero-hours contracts are widespread. Anti-trade union legislation introduced by the Government has actively sought to clamp down on trade unions and to diminish the voice of ordinary working people. In my opinion, that is based on a ridiculous and outdated view of trade unions and their role in society.
As we heard, there are 6.5 million trade union members in the UK. Every hon. Member present today will have constituents who are members of trade unions. They are ordinary men and women who want to organise themselves collectively to strive for better working conditions, and who can argue with that as an aim? We should be supporting them in their efforts to improve working conditions, not attempting to thwart them. As my hon. Friend said, a happy workplace is a productive workplace; it is good for employers and good for the economy.
We should therefore be saddened to hear that research by the TUC has found that one in three workers do not feel comfortable approaching managers about a problem with work, that more than one third do not feel that they or their colleagues are treated fairly and that nearly half say that their line managers do not explain their rights at work. Trade unions were founded exactly for those reasons, to fight for the rights of every worker.
Union representatives in the workplace can inform workers of their rights, help to ensure those rights are enforced and provide workers with a collective voice in negotiations with employers. They provide the safety net we all need. That is why it is vital that trade unions should have a legal right of access to workplaces in the UK.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the fundamental problems now, with so many workers working for small and medium-sized companies, is the lack of a place to meet? Often, workers just need to discuss some of the issues, but they have no opportunity to do that, and that makes it difficult for them to join a trade union. Does he agree that that is something we could look at seriously?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I think there is more we can do to meet in the electronic sense, online; there can be more discussion forums that way. The old workplace messes are a thing of the past, but we can improve things in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South spoke about various examples around the country where employers have prevented unions such as the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, Unison, GMB and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers from accessing workplaces. We have heard about some of the largest employers in the country, including McDonald’s, Amazon and Bupa, actively seeking to prevent trade union activity through restricting access, banning visits or manipulating shift patterns to prevent opportunities for engagement. That is a shameless way to behave and is ultimately self-defeating.
In my area, trade union recognition in the construction industry has been a particularly hot issue recently. We have a lot of industrial construction, but for some reason some of those involved refuse to engage with trade unions on recognition issues, to their detriment. National agreements are important for pay, training and safety—all things we want to see in the construction industry.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the construction industry. I have a constituent who found that she is blacklisted not only from a particular company but from the whole sector and is therefore unable to get employment in the field she is an expert in, all because of her trade union activity. Does he agree that that has to be wiped out? We cannot have people unable to get work because of trade union activity.
Justin Madders
I absolutely agree. We have had a number of debates on blacklisting, particularly in construction, but it applies in other areas. Whistleblowers often find that, once they have blown the whistle, they are unable to gain employment. It is a disgraceful activity that needs outlawing.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend was just coming on to health and safety. Our area has a lot of heavy industry manufacturing. Does he agree that all the evidence demonstrates that where there is an active trade union branch, there is a much better safety culture than where trade unions are not welcome or, in some cases, prevented from organising?
Justin Madders
Yes. We have a lot of potentially dangerous industries in our area. The ones I tend to deal with have been around for a long time. They all have long-standing recognition agreements with trade unions, and excellent safety records as a result. It is a learning process, not an adversarial process, particularly in health and safety.
Some companies ought to take a leaf out of those employers’ books and learn how to treat and to deal with employee representatives in a much more reasonable and engaging way. A number of employers behave despicably, adding to employees’ fears about victimisation, which leaves many individuals not wanting their employers to know that they belong to a trade union. How sad is that? How damning is it that some companies are so vindictive to their staff that their employees will not tell them that they belong to a trade union?
Only last week I met a constituent who told me what it was like in his workplace, where unions are not welcome, where arbitrary decisions are made about who is retained and who is let go, and where all the workers are too worried to put their head above the parapet. I hope to discuss my concerns with the company in due course, but does it really need a Member of Parliament to remind an employer of how to treat its staff? If a trade union official was allowed access to the site, they would be able to do that, and in the end everybody would benefit—the workers and the company. At the moment they are locked out, which is simply not good enough. It is shocking that these kinds of things still take place in the 21st century.
What is the point of someone having the right to join a trade union if they cannot exercise that right because an employer refuses to engage? What is the point of their being a trade union member if they cannot be represented? I have lost count of the number of times companies have lied to employees about their right to be accompanied by trade union reps at disciplinary or grievance hearings by saying that, because the company does not recognise a particular trade union, those unions do not have the right to attend the hearings. The Government should clamp down on that.
We have a culture of weak employment rights, greedy corporations and a Government that obstruct trade unions. We need to get away from that and towards a period of renewal and rebuilding of one of the pillars of a decent society: job security. Without job security, people have no security. How can they plan for their future, for a home or for their family if the labour market is so cut-throat, so insecure and so parasitic that they are always just one step away from disaster? The stabilising force of trade unions is a vital component of a decent society.
“Rights” is not a dirty word. Rights are not only about individual dignity and respect in the workplace; they give people a stake in society, when they know that if they do a good job and their employer runs the business well, they will be rewarded. We need an economy —and a country—where everyone has a stake in its prosperity, but to do that we must have a system that values the security and sustainability of a job itself as much as the principle of job creation. Good employers want to work with unions, and in an ideal world all employers would be able to do so without the need for the legislation that we have talked about.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions insecure employment. Does he agree that while those on short-term or rolling contracts are among the least organised of the workforce in the United Kingdom, they actually need to be members of a trade union probably more than any other group of workers?
Justin Madders
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen an explosion of insecure employment in this country in recent years. We wonder why people are so fed up with the way this country is run. People have no security and do not know what they are doing from one day to the next. Let us not forget that until someone has two years of continuous employment somewhere, they have no employment rights whatsoever. What kind of country is that? We do not really want to live in a place where people have no protection until they have been somewhere for two years. Their whole life could change in that period. We absolutely need more support at an earlier stage for people who live in these precarious times.
This is not only about improving workplace rights, but about sending a message to employers that we need to move to a much more stable system, and we need the Government to bring forward legislation to encourage that. A good example is New Zealand’s Employment Relations Amendment Act, which has already had a positive impact on the workforce, restoring protections and strengthening the rights of workers without causing disruption to business. Just as importantly, it has changed people’s attitudes towards their right to represent themselves. I think the people of this country deserve the same. It is a shame that there are absolutely zero Members on the Tory Back Benches. That tells us absolutely everything that we need to know about the priority that the Conservative party places on this issue. In these circumstances, the idea that it could rebrand itself as the party of the worker is a joke.
In conclusion, it is only through improved access to workplaces that unions will be able to inform individuals of their rights and, critically, ensure that those rights are enforced—people’s rights are only as good as their ability to enforce them. Only then will we see real changes and improvements to people’s working lives. It is my belief that it is the duty of the Government to be an enabler in that process, not an accomplice to those who would deny people those basic rights.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the previous speakers in this important debate. Having worked for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—USDAW, the shop workers’ union—for 18 years before coming to this place, I have seen an enormous amount of good practice in a trade union. I am sad to say that, since being elected as a Member of Parliament, I have seen the opposite side of the coin. Constituents come to me with employment cases, some of them really serious, and my first question is always whether they are a member of a trade union. I am really sorry to say that the vast majority are not; if they were, they would not end up in these situations with their employers.
Only 14% of workers in the private sector are in trade unions, so it is a very rare breed who have the benefit of trade union protection at work. While working with USDAW and the retail sector over many years, I often heard from skilled and experienced reps; they had been trained and had done training courses on employment rights, and were far better at negotiating under their companies’ grievance and disciplinary procedures than the managers, who were often straight out of business school, or were moved around shops in different areas and so were never able to build up the expertise that the reps had.
Employers are missing a trick by not seeing trade union representatives as an asset to their workplaces and workforces. Having helped to put together presentations for employers on the value of a trade union in the workplace, I know that a trade union can absolutely bring value for money and productivity to a company. A union can also ensure that a company is doing everything by the book, and can certify that at national level; at local level, the presence of a trade union rep can give people confidence in the management in the company—confidence that things are being done right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned health and safety. I am honoured to have the laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive in my constituency. It is really useful to be able to talk to people there about how best to implement health and safety at work, particularly given the decline in the resources that the Government give to the Health and Safety Executive. We have seen inspections decline—they are now done on a risk-assessed basis—but where a workplace has trade union representatives who are trained in health and safety, those health and safety reps do risk assessments and take soundings from their work colleagues, who often feel more able to raise problems with their trade union representatives than with their management, particularly if they are concerned about their safety. That is even more the case where there are people in the workplace with a disability or some other form of impairment. It is so important that they feel that they have that support.
We have some basic rights at work, but in the UK they are particularly basic, and we often see that even those are not provided. We have a system of employment tribunals whereby individuals have to put their head above the parapet, as has been mentioned; they have to show that they are able to make a complaint in order to access an employment tribunal. That does not help the rest of the workforce, who are probably suffering in exactly the same conditions, particularly where the issue has to do with the minimum wage, holiday pay, sick pay, parental leave or flexible working. Those are basic rights at work that we expect to be in place, but too often they are not, and individual employees have to put themselves forward in order to be able to access a particular right. Many feel that it is not worth it; many feel that it is better to move on to a different place of work. That does not help the other people there.
To access the protection from unfair dismissal, a person now has to have been in a workplace for two years. We have an increasingly mobile workforce, so a growing number of people are not able to access the right to claim unfair dismissal, and do not feel that they can access any of the other rights that enable them to take a case to their employer or to a tribunal, especially where they cannot get the support of a trade union representative in that. That is why, as I have said, it is so important that trade union representatives are able to come in and support individual members in a workplace. Even where the union is not the recognised trade union, the trade union reps need to be able to support their members, who are paying for the privilege of membership. If they are paying for that service, it is not right that their employer should be able to deny it to them.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree, at this moment, when we are trying to deal with cultures of bullying or sexual harassment, that it is very important that when people take complaints forward, they have somebody with them to give them confidence and comfort in what can be a stressful and sometimes distressing situation?
Ruth George
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. People often spend the majority of their waking lives at work, and the relationships in the workplace are some of the most important to them. If they are subject to bullying or harassment, that affects their whole life and their confidence in taking the issue forward, so having a trade union representative, or a trade union office that they know they can phone for expert support and advice—having someone on their side—is so important, particularly when they are taking forward a case against a manager or another colleague with whom they work closely. That creates very difficult situations for individuals.
It is not just individuals who benefit from trade union membership. The state also benefits from higher productivity and from better pay and conditions, which reduce the reliance on in-work benefits that comes from low pay and low hours at work. Universal credit is being rolled out, and the only thing that employers have been told by the Department for Work and Pensions is that they no longer have to give people set hours of work. With tax credits, people used to need to have a contract to work 16, 24 or 30 hours a week, for access at different points. Employers knew that and were prepared to give those contracts to ensure that people could afford to live on the contract of work. Under universal credit, yes, people can access mini jobs, with fewer hours of work, but that will encourage employers to provide more flexibility within contracts; I am afraid that the Department for Work and Pensions is actively encouraging them in that. They may not be zero-hours contracts—those are bad enough—but they are short-hour contracts, sometimes for as little as four or eight hours a week. People simply cannot afford to live on them, but employers are happy to give those sorts of contracts and to ask people to flex up when they are busy. It gives employers maximum flexibility, but it does not mean that people who are in work can get by.
That is why we are seeing such a huge increase in in-work poverty. Up to 8 million workers—more than one quarter of the workforce—are now in poverty. That is a crying shame for any decent economy, any decent society. If someone goes out to work, they should be able to support themselves; if there are two of them, they should be able to support a family. There are rising house prices, housing costs and rents, but there have been reduced real wages for almost a decade, and people simply cannot afford to live on the wages that they get.
The issue is not just pay but pension provision. Employers with trade unions provide far better pension entitlements than employers who do not recognise a trade union. Again, the state benefits, because it does not then have to provide a top-up where pensioners are falling into poverty. Trade unions that I saw in the workplace helped to keep better pension schemes going for their members. We have seen innovative schemes, such as the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail scheme, that will help far more workers continue to have a decent standard of living when they retire, and will save the state from having to step in where people fall into poverty because they have an inadequate pension scheme.
Trade unions can bring benefits across the whole range of rights at work, pay and conditions, and pensions. That is why it is inexcusable that no Conservative Back-Bench MPs have bothered to turn up to this debate to, at the very least, discuss the value of trade unions in the workplace and have a robust discussion about their merits and what they can bring to working people who particularly need that support.
We certainly need trade unions in the workplace at a time when employers are possibly facing a lack of labour. Workers from the European Union are returning to their own countries, or countries of origin, and many workplaces are desperate to recruit. They are seeing a recruitment shortage, and they need to ensure that they can provide the best standards and conditions of employment. Trade unions will help them to do that. They help them to stamp out cultures of bullying, which unfortunately can exist in the workplace. They ensure that there is always a trusted third party. They ensure that people have a friend at work whom they can turn to—and everybody needs one of those at times. I really hope that the Minister will reflect on those points and respond to them.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Ms McDonagh, for allowing me to speak in this very important and timely debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) on securing it and on speaking so passionately in his introductory remarks. He raised issues that resonate very strongly with me and, indeed, with the wider trade union movement across this country.
It is good to start on a positive note: trade union membership in the United Kingdom has gone up in the past year by 103,000. Now 6.35 million people are members of a trade union in the United Kingdom. However, the long-term trends still give cause for concern. Trade union membership is half of its peak in the late 1970s, when there were 12 million members of trade unions. Over that time, we have seen a 5% fall in the labour share of our economy—the share of our gross national wealth taken home by workers in wages has fallen. There is a strong correlation between the trade union organisation and collective bargaining power in our economy and the amount of wealth that workers are able to secure from the fruits of their labour.
We need to return that fundamental analysis to the heart of how we understand our economy and the relationship between working people and the owners of capital. It has been forgotten from the mainstream narrative in this country, which is about shirkers, people not working hard enough and how people need to be more flexible and sacrifice more, rather than about unity, organisation and agitation against exploitation and in favour of workers’ right to receive the fruits of their labour. The correlation is stark; it is a fact of economic history. The long-term trend in the past 40 years is a diminishing share of wealth for workers.
It would not be half as bad if that share, which workers once took home in their pay packets, was invested by companies and private capital to improve the efficiency of our economy. However, it has not been invested at all. Investment as a share of GDP has flatlined throughout that period. I wonder where that share of capital has gone. The workers are producing wealth and productivity continues to go up, but the share taken home in wages is declining. What happens to that share? It is extracted in profits by companies, which are often not based in the United Kingdom. The wealth is taken overseas, often to opaque tax havens around the world, or invested elsewhere. It is never seen by the people who produce the wealth.
That is the stark reality that we face. That is why, I would argue, having a Labour Government is so critical to restoring the collective bargaining powers in our economy, which are so essential to recapturing the share of the wealth that working people rightly deserve and produce in this country. Workers put in great innovation, productivity and effort every day in many workplaces across the United Kingdom. However, we have seen the hollowing out of their collective capacity to fight for their share of the wealth they produce.
We have seen an increase in trade union membership. Of the total UK workforce, about 23% of workers are in trade unions. However, there are regional disparities in the way trade union organisation works across the United Kingdom. Trade union membership in London and the south-east is 16% to 17% of workers, yet in Scotland, the north-west, north-east and Wales it is between 28% and 30%. There is significant regional variation. There are a number of reasons for that.
First, in areas with traditional manufacturing and labour-intensive employment, where there are large industrial employers, there seems to be more cultural recognition of trade union membership—it is an accepted fact of life. Secondly, in some regions the public sector forms a much more important share of the economy. In public sector workplaces, 52% of the workforce are trade union members, whereas in the private sector, membership is at a mere 13%. That is a huge contrast, which has evolved and become more stark in the past 40 years.
There is a significant age disparity in trade union membership, which reflects the increased casualisation of work. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South mentioned McDonald’s employees being exploited. Many in the retail and food sectors see that happen on a daily basis. Just 4% of 16 to 24-year-olds are members of trade unions, and 77% of trade union members are over 35. The age disparity is significant and we need to tackle it.
We need to introduce information about trade unions into our education system. When I first entered work, I was exploited by employers. I undertook unpaid trial shifts. I worked minimum-wage jobs. I was denied tips. I started in a pizzeria and then worked in a supermarket. When I started working in fruit and veg at Morrisons supermarket, we had a presentation from the USDAW official. At that time, I did not really understand what a trade union was or why it would be significant to me. Why should I give up the precious little money I was paid to a trade union when I could take it home and spend it on going out and having a good time with my pals? Believe it or not, I did have a good time. Education is required on why trade union representation is important, particularly for young people for whom exploitation has never been more critical.
Ruth George
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend had a positive experience of the USDAW official. Unfortunately, I have met too many people, young and old, who started their first job in fruit and veg in a supermarket and injured their back, often for life, because of incorrect lifting practices, and who did not have trade union representation in the workplace to support them and ensure they were lifting correctly. That happens to too many young people. I hope it did not happen to my hon. Friend.
Mr Sweeney
Believe it or not, that did not happen. I managed to survive my experience in fruit and veg largely unscathed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. People never know when they will need a trade union until they do. It is critical that people join, because it is like an insurance policy. We need to educate people in that necessity.
My first adult job was in a shipyard. It was a traditional engineering and manufacturing company—a large-scale employer—where there was significant trade union density. At that point, I joined the Unite and GMB trade unions, because they were the shipyard trade unions. They ably represent the workforce on the Clyde and are often mentioned in this place. I ran into trouble from time to time in the shipyard and my trade union was critical in helping me get through those difficult periods. If I had a dispute with my bosses or another issue, the officials were very helpful. I did not know when I would need them—when a bit of bad luck could strike. It is critical that people understand why trade union membership is so important.
Danielle Rowley
My hon. Friend is giving a detailed analysis and a great speech. Does he agree that there is less trade union membership in the third sector? It is often seen to be the nice sector, but it employs a lot of young people and women, and we need to encourage more trade union membership within it.
Mr Sweeney
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes a good point about the gender disparity. It is interesting to note that female membership of trade unions has increased in the past year, but male membership has decreased. That does not read across the different sectors that she mentioned. It is important to recognise that issue, particularly when we look at casualisation in the workforce, which is a key driver of why workers are taking home less in their pay packets than they ought to.
Traditional collective bargaining in large-scale organisations and traditional large industrial workplaces are fragmenting, and the way people work is continually atomising. We need to adapt our trade union regulation and organisation to reflect the changing nature of our economy. The charity sector has not been penetrated by the trade union movement to the same extent. We need to tackle that. Great thought must be given to how to increase recruitment to trade unions in those non-traditional workplaces.
I will offer another view as to why trade union membership is so critical. In the past few months, I have been dealing with a major industrial dispute in my constituency. The Caley railway works, which has been around for 160 years, faces closure. From 1948 to 1995 it was part of British Rail, but it was privatised and sold off. It has been through myriad different owners, culminating in an overseas company purchasing it in an asset-stripping exercise. There are 200 people on that site, which faces closure. Thankfully, they have high trade union density—90%, which is fantastic—because the railway works was a traditional workplace. The trade union was able to swing into action immediately when the closure was announced.
In stark contrast, when the immediate closure of Jamie’s Italian was announced, the workforce were completely blindsided and had no capacity to organise and effectively agitate against that exploitation. People were told to go home with no recourse, redundancy payment or share in the liquidation of the company. With the potential closure of the Caley railway works, the trade union was able to organise to bid up the terms and conditions of severance for the workforce. The liabilities of the workforce were originally assessed as being about £700,000 to close the site. The trade union has now managed to negotiate almost £4 million from the employer to wind up the site. That is an amazing achievement, and the company has even offered to try to sell it or pay the Government to take the site off its hands, because the owners just want rid of it. That is just one example of how effective negotiation by trade unions can massively improve the hand of workers who face really difficult disputes with their employers.
I pay tribute to the tenacity of the Caley railway works workforce, who are facing the most testing conditions and were told just before Christmas—as is often the case—that they would lose their livelihoods. People have been working there for generations. Families have grown up and lived around the railway works their whole lives, to the point that in some cases people felt there was no other way out but to take their lives. The stress that the workforce have had to deal with has been absolutely appalling. I pay tribute to their tenacious work, particularly by Pat McIlvogue of Unite the union, in organising the workforce and keeping their spirits high at a really tough time. I hope the Government in Edinburgh will step in and take action to save those jobs and the workforce, because they deserve it. They deserve to have that commitment shown to them by the state.
The Government and trade unions can work in co-operation to ensure that we salvage the collective knowledge and skills of our workforce and redeploy them in the future, rather than see the industrial vandalism that has so often happened across this country, where we have seen industrial capability destroyed. With the lack of a trade union to organise, agitate and struggle against it, there has not been the fight that could have been mounted. I pay tribute to everyone in the trade union movement who has fought so hard for workers’ rights to capture a better share of workers’ efforts—in the form of labour—in wages, and to secure their rights and those of future generations who will follow in their footsteps, so that we have a prosperous society that gets a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) on securing this debate and on bringing forward his ten-minute rule Bill, which I support—he has my guarantee.
It is traditional in these trade union debates to make our declarations. I declare my 20 years of trade union activity before I was elected to this place, my membership of Glasgow City Unison, and my position as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. I will in the next few days declare a settlement agreement with my former employer as a result of an equal pay claim.
I make those declarations not just to show my trade union credentials; it is obviously important to mention the trade union role in the education and personal development of workers. I have no shame in saying—I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament present who would say this—that I would not be here without the skills, knowledge and experience I gained as a trade union representative and activist.
The hon. Member for Warrington South described the historical and present contexts. On the current context, it is very interesting that the governing party is having a leadership election—a so-called grand national, although I think the grand national is for thoroughbreds, not necessarily for people putting themselves forward for leader of the Conservative party. Many who are seeking to be the next Prime Minister have the inclination to deregulate markets—an inclination not too dissimilar to that of Donald Trump. It seems that some will argue over the next few years that the solution to a deregulated market is to deregulate it even further. It is complete and utter political nonsense.
Mr Sweeney
The hon. Gentleman mentions the contenders for leadership of the Conservative party. The Foreign Secretary presides over a Department that is in dispute with PCS over Interserve. The Department has essentially hived off core staff into an arm’s length company that fails even to recognise the trade union that is mentioned in employees’ contracts. Is that not shameful? The Foreign Office should act immediately to resolve the situation.
Chris Stephens
I agree wholeheartedly, but on this occasion the hon. Gentleman underdoes his criticism of the Foreign Office. It gave a contract to a company that will be the next Carillion, because it is in administration. It is absolutely and utterly ludicrous that the Government are giving contracts to companies that are failing.
Members including the hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) have mentioned the historical context and blacklisting. We know that it has been going on in the construction sector. The difference between that sector and other sectors of the economy is that people in the construction sector found the blacklist, but I know there are blacklists in other sectors. Given my trade union activity over the past 20 years, I would be very surprised if I were not on a blacklist.
We have seen the erosion of trade union rights over the past few decades. There is the anti-trade union Bill, which I will touch on; the erosion of facility time in the public sector; the publishing of that facility time, and the suggestion that it is a cost to the public purse when it is not; a public sector pay cap; and the erosion of collective bargaining. In Scotland, 81% of workers were covered by collective bargaining agreements for pay in 1979. The figure is now 23% as a result of the deregulation of markets.
The examples provided by the hon. Member for Warrington South are very alarming. As far as the Scottish National party is concerned, all workers should have the right to trade union membership and to organise as a collective trade union. Multinational companies purposefully stopping trade unions from recruiting staff is against employer best practice, and does not bode well for the prospect of positive workplace relations. These incidents can make workers feel isolated and alienated, further frustrating cohesion in the working environment.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the benefits of a trade union workforce have been consistently documented by research—not just by the TUC, but by others—that suggests members are more likely to be paid more, more likely not to be dismissed, more likely to have better leave provisions and more likely to work fewer hours of unpaid overtime. Those are important gains. Members are also more likely to find themselves in a pay and grading scheme that complies with the Equal Pay Act 1970, and trade unions have played a vital role in ensuring that employers comply with that very important piece of legislation. As the chief economist of the Bank of England has said, the weakening of trade union power in the United Kingdom has hit workers’ pay over the past few decades.
Trade unionism should be viewed as an opportunity to improve workplace relations, as trade union representatives and officials bring a vital perspective to a workplace, and do more than play a role in collective bargaining; for example, they ensure effective communication between employers and workers. Indeed, trade unions provide workers who go on to become trade union representatives with the opportunity for personal development through lifelong learning. They ensure a common footing on communication between employees and employers.
I want to highlight the great work being done by organisations such as Better Than Zero, which is highlighting some awful employment practices, particularly on zero-hour contracts and the status of workers—the bogus self-employment that is increasing in the economy. Since I support the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Warrington South, I hope that he will support mine, the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill, because it is important that we deal with zero-hours contracts. Under my Bill, such contracts would be allowed in only one circumstance: where there is a collective agreement with an organised trade union. That would nail once and for all the view espoused by some people that workers like zero-hours contracts. Having trade unions in workplaces where there are zero-hours contracts would put that to the test.
My Bill would simplify the status of workers, because there is far too much bogus self-employment—people are finding out that they are self-employed when they thought that they were employees. It would also provide another opportunity to expose the anti-trade union Act that was passed in the last Parliament and has significantly reduced the mobilisation and organising power of trade unions. The Act has in particular impacted on facility time, which is integral to a trade union’s ability to prepare for collective bargaining. That law pits the Government and employers against trade unions and is needlessly divisive. Publishing details of facility time and its so-called cost to the public purse is frankly outrageous. The fact is that trade union reps save both time and money by improving workplace relations and enforcing best practice.
I support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, and I hope he supports mine. It is a pleasure once again to support the trade union movement—the best partner with our society.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) on securing this debate, on introducing his ten-minute rule Bill, and on bringing trade union issues to the House of Commons. With some exceptions, it is only Labour Members who press these issues continuously and bring the worker’s voice into this space.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important issue for workers everywhere. I declare my interest as a member of Unite the union. We know from information provided by a number of unions, including the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, GMB, Unite and Unison, that union officials are routinely denied access to workers by many employers. There are examples of trade union officials being locked out of workplaces, prevented from speaking to workers or forced to meet members in car parks—some horrifying stories have been outlined by comrades in this room today.
What is this debate really about? In my mind, it is simply about trade unions and workers exercising their fundamental right to meet, discuss and organise on issues that workers face. That right is being systematically denied in this country; for most workers, it does not exist and has not existed for some time because of the serious restrictions placed on unions, because of employers’ anti-union practices and because of the fear that is whipped up in workplaces and that often prevents workers from having the confidence to exercise their rights.
Here are just a few examples, from across the UK, of what happens when workers take part in union activity, want to meet their trade unions or talk to fellow workers. As has been mentioned, a young worker from Watford was enthused by winning positive change in his workplace through the union, but was then banned from going into any McDonald’s in the area. He was told that he was not allowed to talk to other workers. Managers are being trained to notice the signs and language of a union and report them to senior management. Managers are telling workers that they can be sacked for joining a trade union. Portuguese workers in McDonald’s in Cambridge were told that they could be sent to jail for taking strike action.
Tim Martin, chair and founder of Wetherspoon, has refused even to speak to the general secretary of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which has many members in Wetherspoon. What kind of disregard is that? The general secretary of PCS had to address his civil servant members in a blizzard in a car park in January. What kind of respect did that show to all his members, or to him as general secretary? Union organisers are routinely banned from workplaces.
If we want to open workplaces up, the law needs to be changed so that workers can realise their rights. The Labour party has been clear that to improve dramatically the rates of pay—and therefore wages and terms and conditions—of workers, a system of collective bargaining needs to be restored. If the balance of power in the workplace is to be redressed, workers need to be able to negotiate; that is a fundamental principle. I am sure that every Conservative Member has read “For the Many, Not the Few”, the Labour party’s 2017 manifesto, which many Opposition Members were elected on. It promised that a Labour Government would
“roll out sectoral collective bargaining…Guarantee trade unions a right to access workplaces—so that unions can speak to members and potential members.”
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights established 11 years ago that the right to bargain collectively is a fundamental human right that is protected by the European convention on human rights, yet the latest statistics show that the percentage of workers in the UK covered by collective bargaining has fallen from 82% in 1979 to 26% today, and the figure is even lower in the private sector. Of course it has been political ideology that has forced that percentage downwards, yet the International Labour Organisation, the OECD and even the International Monetary Fund have shown that extensive collective bargaining is essential to a successful economy, as colleagues have outlined so eloquently today. Crucially, it is also essential to reducing inequality.
Trade union access to members and workers is essential for the restoration of collective bargaining. With that in mind—this has been mentioned, but I will say it again—many trade unionists have looked with envy at legislation in New Zealand, where union representatives have a right to access workplaces to
“discuss union business with union members…seek to recruit employees as union members”
and
“provide information…to any employee on the premises.”
The Minister might want to take note of those very simple asks. Does he agree that workers who are not trade union members should have a fundamental right of access to information that allows them to consider membership?
The New Zealand legislation also allows union representatives to bargain with the employer for a collective agreement; deal with health and safety issues for members; check that the employer is complying with the collective agreement and with employment law; help individuals to implement employment agreements; and ask the employer to comply with any relevant requirements if non-compliance has been detected. So many of those things are crucial to helping workers to access their basic rights, yet there is no comparable right of access in this country. It is true that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has a code of practice that gives unions access to the workplace during recognition ballots, but Labour must, and will, build on that to provide a general right of access to the workplace for trade union officials for the lawful purposes of the union.
Under Labour’s plans, trade unions will, on giving reasonable notice to the employer, have a right of access to a workplace for the purposes of organising, meeting and representing workers on any matter relating to their employment. The employer will be under a duty to provide an opportunity for meetings to be held on the premises, in conditions that are reasonable and appropriate and that respect the confidentiality of the workers and the union.
I stress two points. First, “access” must mean both physical access and access by email, where email is provided or controlled by the employer. In both cases, access should be free from employer surveillance, and the fear of intimidation should not prevent workers from speaking to a union. Secondly, we have to deal with employers who refuse to provide access despite the law; access delayed is access denied, as the saying goes. We may need to look again to New Zealand, where denial of access can lead to financial penalties on the employer. We will look at all ways of ensuring that the denial of trade union access rights and of other trade union rights is dealt with effectively and appropriately by enforcement.
Any effective right of access introduced by a Labour Government along those lines will go a long way towards helping to restore the balance of power in the workplace. It will enable trade unions to speak to workers about the benefits of trade union recognition and expand the coverage of collective bargaining, and it will enable trade unions to speak for workers, ensure that they are effectively represented and address the abuses that we know are taking place. Colleagues have talked about workers being scared to go to the toilet, or having to go to the toilet in really degrading circumstances, and about heavily pregnant women not being given a seat. It is clearly men, who have never been heavily pregnant, who have designed those rules. The Government just refuse to address those abuses through serious legislation. They think, “Just leave it to the free market. Leave it to the employers to do whatever they want to do.”
I am mindful that rights of access can only be the very beginning of a programme to restore trade union presence in the workplace; it is only the start of giving workers a voice, and of ensuring that high standards and a good quality of work are a reality for everyone. We need to look again at trade union recognition legislation to remove obstacles that make it difficult for trade unions to secure recognition for collective bargaining. We also need to look again at legislation for dealing with trade union facilities, so that trade union representatives in the workplace have the time, space, resources and powers to carry out their duties. We also need to look at legislation dealing with the right of workers to be accompanied by a trade union representative, to ensure that all workers have the right to full trade union representation at work.
We are under no illusions; trade union access to the workplace is just one of several crucial steps in strengthening workers’ rights. It is, however, an essential step in our plan to roll out sectoral collective bargaining. The reintroduction of that bargaining, so that sector by sector, workers can negotiate on and determine pay, terms and conditions, hinges on workplaces being opened up. This is critical.
I finish with a political point, because this is a political Chamber, is it not? So often we look at the technical details of all these issues, but what do they actually mean for workers? Throughout our history, has there not been constant tension between workers and the state, with the state often removing the rights that workers have fought for, or ignoring and resisting the rights that workers demand? Trade unions’ access to the workplace goes to the very heart of how our society is set up, the cultural norms established, and who they benefit. Often, those cultural norms are not established by working-class people.
In the current climate, workers are scared to talk about the issues that affect them. Our culture makes them petrified of losing their job; it says that that should be their No. 1 fear, and it should dictate how they act and what they say in the workplace. The system and the norms that we live by support this climate of fear, so that the worker defers to the employer all the time, worried that they could be replaced at any time. As was mentioned, the system is rigged against workers, to enable those who own the capital or the business to extract as much value as possible from the worker for the smallest reward—and, it seems, with the least comfort for workers.
The consequence of all this is that power is concentrated in very few hands, which is really unhealthy. It means that entire workforces are stressed, tired, underpaid, undervalued and—let us be honest—deeply dissatisfied with life, with little to look forward to.
In the Labour and trade union movement, we have a totally different way of viewing the world of work. We believe that it is workers who create the wealth, and that they deserve the right to negotiate freely their rate of pay; and that it is a fundamental right of workers to assemble, associate with one another, organise and bargain with the employer with one voice. It is therefore common sense that trade unions should have access to the workplace; it is their space, and it is their right to meet the people they represent, or wish to represent. That should not be a difficult concept to grasp. If policies were won on the strength of argument alone, the Labour side would clearly have won this argument, and not just because nobody from the Government side has spoken. Our argument is not that weak; it is a powerful and common-sense one, even though Government Members did not turn up today. To my mind, those on the other side of this argument do grasp the simplicity of enacting those rights, but I think they are deeply scared of and worried about its transformative potential for working-class people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) on securing today’s important debate, and commend the impassioned speeches by the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for High Peak (Ruth George), for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock).
I am very pleased to engage in this debate. Before I address the individual points made by hon. Members, I want to put it on record that the Government recognise the important role that trade unions play across the United Kingdom, and I personally recognise the important role that they play. In my role as a constituency MP, I have worked closely with trade union representatives at Rolls-Royce, which has a site at Barnoldswick in my constituency, and since my appointment as Business and Industry Minister, I have met trade union representatives at BAE Systems here in Parliament and trade union representatives at British Steel on a visit to Scunthorpe.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am glad that the Minister mentioned all of those organisations, but there is another organisation that he should mention, which is the Council of Europe, of which we are a member. The Council of Europe has always taken a very strong line on this issue. For example, it runs facilitation courses to help people to understand the role of trade unions and how they can participate in them. That is something that we should be proud of.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. He is not just a powerful advocate in the Council of Europe, but a powerful advocate in this place for the role it plays in helping to make positive change, not only in this country but across Europe.
Trade unions have played a long and positive role in our society; they have long represented their members and lobbied for wider changes in society. They have campaigned on equality issues for women and other groups, helped to tackle child poverty and fought against modern day slavery. They have shown how we can bring about change that benefits everybody in society.
Over the decades, unions have improved the working lives of their members, and this Government hope to see that continue. Throughout the country, trade union health and safety representatives have made our workplaces safer, which not only benefits workers but contributes to our economy, by reducing accidents.
Unions have also invested in people, working to develop the skills of their members. Unionlearn is an excellent example of that. It has helped to engage with more than 50 trade unions in more than 700 workplaces. Unionlearn has helped those with low literacy and numeracy and also helped to recruit and support thousands of apprentices. That is why the Government continue to support initiatives such as Unionlearn with over £8 million over the previous and coming years.
Justin Madders
In the spending review, which may or may not happen some time this year, will the Minister advocate for Unionlearn’s funding at least to continue at that level or perhaps to increase?
Andrew Stephenson
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as a fellow north-west MP, I am a passionate advocate of the positive role that unions can play. I have stepped into this debate today because the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), who is the Minister with responsibility for small business, consumers and corporate responsibility, has to take an urgent question in the main Chamber. This is her policy remit, but I will certainly speak to her to see what we can do to ensure that we lobby for things such as Unionlearn in the spending review. I am passionate about trade unions. In 2015, I helped to re-establish the Conservative workers and trade union movement in my own party, so Members have a friend of the trade union movement stood before them today.
Let me turn to the points made in the debate. I think it would be helpful if I set out the legislative position. Workers in the UK have a right to join a trade union. That right is protected under our trade union law. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee on the grounds of trade union membership or for being active in a trade union, and employers cannot subject their workers to detriment in attempting to deter union membership or participation in trade union activities.
All union members have the right to participate in union activities, which includes members who are union officials. They have the right, for example, to organise union meetings and consult their members. Furthermore, the right to be active in the affairs of a trade union is enhanced where the union is an independent union that is recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes. Officials of such unions may seek time off work with pay to discharge certain union duties. Members who are union learning representatives may also seek paid time off in order to carry out their functions. Individual workers can enforce these rights at an employment tribunal.
Faisal Rashid
I want to emphasise that the debate is about what happens before people become members of a union. The Minister is explaining exactly what members’ rights are, but we are not talking about those rights; we are talking about what happens before employees become union members.
Andrew Stephenson
I appreciate that point, and I hope I will get to address it slightly later in my remarks. I was trying to emphasise that those rights, as they exist, amount to the right for a union, through its individual members and officials, to recruit and organise in a workplace.
It is important that I address the argument about the UK’s general commitment to human rights. In particular, I wish to refute the argument that the right, under article 11 of the European convention on human rights, for workers to join a trade union and to organise is effectively being denied. That could not be further from the truth. The UK has a long-standing commitment to uphold human rights. The Government are satisfied that our trade union legislation complies with our international obligations, including article 11 of the European convention.
As I have set out previously, workers are free to join a trade union and to participate in trade union activities. That is protected by law. Unions are also free to organise and seek collective bargaining arrangements with employers. Where an employer refuses to recognise a trade union voluntarily, our legislation provides for a statutory recognition procedure. That allows independent unions to apply to the Central Arbitration Committee to be formally recognised for collective bargaining purposes. Unions that can demonstrate majority support for recognition in the workplace will secure statutory recognition from the committee.
Chris Stephens
The Minister defines the legal position. Does he believe, therefore, that the Government could do more to enforce that legislation, to ensure that the many alarming examples that the hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) gave us are not repeated anywhere in the United Kingdom?
Andrew Stephenson
I do not wish to comment on any of the individual cases that have been raised by Members today, but it is always important to keep these things under review, to look at the evidence and to see where legislation can be changed if there is a need for that, to reflect what is happening in the labour markets.
Returning to the Central Arbitration Committee, the UK courts have found that the statutory recognition procedure complies with article 11. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has accepted the Government’s view that the UK’s trade union legislation strikes the right balance between the rights of trade unions and their members, and the legitimate interests of others. The UK’s system is based on the democratic wishes of workers in the workplace. If workers in the UK want to organise and be represented by a trade union, they have the means to do so.
Ruth George
I think the Minister will find that in practice individual workers do not have the ability to organise themselves and to join trade unions, as all the evidence presented by Opposition Members has shown. Employers frequently victimise trade union members and do not allow trade unions into the workplace to support their members, even when they are needed.
Andrew Stephenson
I take the hon. Lady’s point. As a constituency MP, I have come across companies whose practices I would not approve of, and I have taken the matter up with managers and been able to secure better access for trade union officials. The hon. Lady will know that workers have the right to bring a union representative to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. Unions have the right to accompany workers in such cases, even if the union is not recognised. It is fundamental that we allow unions access and that we remind workers all the time that they have that right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Stephenson
I want to make progress because there were many speakers and there are lots of points to cover.
Ruth George
On that point, the member might have the right to be accompanied but the trade union representative does not have the right to speak in the meeting, so their presence is pointless. Does the Minister not agree that that makes the regulation fairly useless?
Andrew Stephenson
No, I would never describe trade union representatives as pointless. It is important that they are able to attend and support workers in grievance or disciplinary meetings. They do not have to be able to speak to support someone.
On giving practical effect to article 11 rights, let me turn to a matter that a number of hon. Members have raised: facility time for union representatives to carry out union activities. I agree that without facility time union representatives cannot carry out their trade union duties in relation to collective bargaining and related matters, and our trade union legislation provides for that. Where an independent union has been recognised by an employer for collective bargaining purposes, the employer is required to provide facility time to the union’s representatives and its members. Union representatives are entitled to paid time off to carry out their union duties as well as paid time off for training. That allows them to negotiate with the employer and carry out their functions in relation to matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Stephenson
I have to make some progress.
Union members are also entitled to unpaid time off during working hours to participate in union activities, for example to attend union meetings or vote in internal union elections.
In relation to access to facilities, the ACAS code of practice on time off for trade union duties and activities states that employers should, where practical, make available to union representatives the facilities necessary for them to perform their duties efficiently and to communicate with their members. The provisions of the code are admissible in evidence in proceedings before an employment tribunal relating to time off for trade union duties and activities. Provisions of the code that appear to the tribunal to be relevant should be taken into account. The Government therefore believe that the current arrangements in relation to facility time are sufficient. The arrangements have been in place for a long time, and are well understood by both employers and trade unions.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for his generosity. Why, therefore, is it necessary for the Government to publish the so-called cost to the public purse of facility time for civil service trade unions? It seems to me that there is no cost and that the benefits of providing facility time outweigh the so-called cost.
Andrew Stephenson
I will raise that matter with the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, and I am sure she will be more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with an answer.
In his speech on 15 May introducing his Bill, and again today, the hon. Member for Warrington South referred to strengthening collective bargaining in the workplace. In the UK, collective bargaining remains an important method whereby pay and other terms and conditions are set. The UK takes a voluntary approach to collective issues. Collective bargaining is largely a matter for individual employers, their employees and their trade unions. Most collective bargaining in this country takes place because employers have voluntarily agreed to recognise a trade union and bargain with it. The Government do not believe that they should be in the business of forcing employers or their workers to enter into collective bargaining arrangements if they do not wish to do so. Instead, we prefer a voluntary and democratic approach. However, where an employer refuses to recognise a trade union voluntarily, our legislation provides for a statutory recognition procedure.
In 2018-19, the Central Arbitration Committee received 56 trade union recognition applications. Of those, six were able to reach agreement without the need for a ballot, including that reached between the employer Babcock Mission Critical Services Onshore and Prospect. A total of 25 applications were withdrawn and, encouragingly, 13 of these were because the employers and unions were able to reach agreement voluntarily. The key point I wish to reiterate is that if a majority of workers in a workplace want to organise and be represented by a trade union, they have the right to secure trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes.
The Government recognise the important role that trade unions play in the UK economy and society and, personally, I hope that that continues for many years to come. Individual workers have the right to join a union and take part in union activities. Unions, through their individual members and officials, effectively have the right to recruit and organise in the workplace. Unions are also free to seek collective bargaining agreements with employers. If necessary, they can obtain statutory trade union recognition as long as they can demonstrate majority support for union recognition in the workplace. Our legislation therefore does not need amending. It is well established, and has been backed by successive Governments. If workers and unions want collective bargaining in workplaces across the UK, they are free to organise to achieve that.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I apologise that we have until only 6 o’clock.
Faisal Rashid
I thank all my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate. Every one of them has made excellent and eloquent points. In the few seconds I have left, I wish to respond to the Minister. I am very disappointed, because 80% to 90% of his response was about what union members can do rather than about trade unions’ access to the workplace. I totally appreciate that he is substituting on his colleague’s behalf; however, I reiterate that he should go back and do some real thinking about what we on this side of the House are, with some common sense, proposing.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Cost of Policing Football
(5 years, 5 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
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cost of policing football.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I am grateful to have been granted this important debate. Football policing is an interest of mine and is of particular local interest in my constituency, which is home to the famous Hillsborough stadium—one of England’s largest grounds and home to Sheffield Wednesday, which my family have supported for generations. Let us hope they do better this season, but there we go.
I am proud of our football history and of having such an important football ground in our community. However, the cost of policing matches is increasing, and the burden is falling on our already stretched police forces. Despite Wednesday’s extended stay in the second tier of English football—something that I am sure will end soon—South Yorkshire police incurs significant match day costs. According to the BBC, the steel city derby between Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United in September 2017 was the country’s most expensive match to police that year, costing over £200,000. Figures from South Yorkshire police, using a recent improved methodology for calculating match day policing costs, put the cost of this April’s steel city derby at Hillsborough at £203,000. That is against a backdrop of unprecedented cuts to our police services.
The Tories’ record on policing is one of failure and broken promises. Over 21,000 police officers and 7,000 community support officers have been axed since 2010, despite a promise to protect the frontline. While officer numbers have been slashed, the police have recorded the highest number of offences in a decade, and violent crime has doubled under the Tories and is now at record levels. The Tories have slashed billions from the police since coming into office and broken their promise to protect police budgets after 2015.
Our police forces have had resources drained out by a Government intent on policing on the cheap. Sadly, that means competing and conflicting demands on those vital, yet limited, resources. Knife crime continues to rise, as do other forms of violent crime. Alongside large sporting events such as football games, the police are struggling to keep pace with the scale of incidents to be responded to. In a sense, this debate is regrettable, in that if the Government had not abandoned our police forces, we might not be in the position of asking clubs to help foot the bill. However, given the overstretched nature of policing, we are where we are. The Labour party will invest in our police forces, giving them the proper resources to ensure that our communities are safe.
Professional football clubs rely heavily on the support of police to ensure football matches are safe for fans. Police officers do not just provide safety and reassurance within the bounds of a stadium, but have essential duties in preventing disorder around football grounds before and after matches. I will use my time today to highlight three factors that threaten the ability of our police forces to maintain order at football matches. First, as I said in opening, police forces are under the biggest strain they have faced in modern times. They have vastly reduced budgets and are dealing with a rising tide of violence and organised crime within our communities—something that, sadly, I know too well in my constituency. The number of officers available to cover matches is lower than it was, which unfortunately means that police officers must be taken away from neighbourhoods to support match day policing.
Secondly, disorder at football matches is rising. The figures presented to me by the UK football policing unit are stark: disorder has risen, with nearly 38% of professional matches reporting some form of violence or disorder incident during the 2017-18 season, compared with 25% of matches during the 2013-14 season. I have seen police footage of recent disorder at football matches, some of which is truly shocking. Many of those incidents took place away from the ground, where police are often less well positioned to respond. The consistent and sharp rise in hate crime at football matches is particularly concerning: police received reports of hate crime at 127 fixtures in 2017-18, and the campaign group Kick It Out received over 500 reports during the same season. As a society, we still have a long way to go in stamping racism, homophobia and sexism out of our beautiful game. Although education is at the heart of that work, police officers need to be able and ready to clamp down hard on the tiny minority of people who pollute football.
The third problem facing the police is that despite the rise in disorder over recent years, they are able to recover only a small proportion of the money they spend on policing. Mark Roberts, the football policing lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, has put the cost of policing professional football matches in England and Wales at over £48 million a year, of which police are able to claim back only around £5.5 million from clubs. Why are the police repaid only a fraction of their costs? The question of who pays for football policing is complicated, and has been in dispute for many years. The argument chiefly centres on the cost of policing outside stadiums, whether on closed streets immediately surrounding them or routes to and from the match. Despite the huge wealth that many football clubs have, they consistently challenge the extent to which they should refund the police for their expenditure outside the ground itself.
Currently, the legal position on the extent to which police can charge clubs for match costs is based on an October 2017 Court of Appeal ruling that went in favour of Ipswich Town and against Suffolk police. The ruling in that case was that the police could recover only the costs of policing the stadium itself—not even the immediate surroundings, let alone the wider area. To any of us who attend matches, it is clear that police do a significant amount of extra work outside the stadium to ensure that fans can go to and from matches safely. In giving their judgment, the judges recognised that the situation seemed unfair, but argued that it was for the Government to fix it. That difficult legal situation is significantly worse than it was previously, when the roads around stadiums were often deemed to be under the control of the football club, and policing costs were therefore recoverable.
The three combined problems of severe police cuts, a rise in match day disorder and legal rulings that are unfavourable to the police mean that both the safety of fans and the sustainability of policing are under threat. It is hardly for me to talk in detail about just how much money is in football, but a few figures will illustrate the resources available, and therefore the ability of clubs to pay a higher percentage of policing costs. In 2017-18, the 20 Premier League clubs alone had combined revenues of over £4.8 billion—almost double the entire budget of the Metropolitan police. One particularly stark fact, which comes from analysis undertaken by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, is that the £211 million paid to football agents last year is more than the annual budgets of 27 of the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales. We should be in no doubt that there is far more money available to top football clubs than to local police forces.
What might be done to create a better situation? I would not want to be too prescriptive in suggesting to the Minister how the situation could be resolved. However, I ask whether he agrees that action needs to be taken. I also ask whether he agrees that any such action needs to be proportionate in how it targets clubs. We need to be aware of those clubs that may suffer incidents of disorder but do not have the financial resources of the top leagues. Full cost recovery could be damaging for many local league clubs, which leads me to support a suggestion by the police that a levy on football TV rights might be the fairest way for police to receive additional funding. The Premier League’s total TV rights are now expected to exceed £3 billion a year. To illustrate, a 1% levy could recover enough money to cover a substantial portion of football policing costs and relieve clubs and the police of expensive and time-consuming arguments about the extent of payments.
In public policy today, there is often cross-party support for policies that ensure the costs of dealing with a problem for society are borne by the organisation responsible for the activity causing the issue. We see that with recycling levies for packaging firms and carbon taxes for power companies. Does the Minister agree that the taxes paid by football clubs or footballers cannot be used as an argument against clubs contributing properly to policing costs? Taxes pay for the benefits we all share as a society; football clubs should bear a more representative fraction of the burden for the costs incurred in keeping fans safe.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She is making a strongly argued case. The problem is that football clubs are their own worst enemies. They say, “No spectators on the pitch,” but they blatantly ignore that when spectators do come on the pitch, as they do when fans bring pyrotechnics or provocative signs into the ground. Clubs owe a responsibility to the vast majority of fans to stamp that out. Does my hon. Friend agree that they could do much more on that?
Gill Furniss
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which makes exactly the point that I am raising. Being a lifelong Wednesday fan builds character, as my nana used to say, but it also helped me realise that football is wonderful. I am in no way anti-football. We love football; we are a footballing country. I am seeking fair play and a level playing field for police and football clubs. The clubs absolutely can do more. We do not want to go back to the bad old days of 30 or 40 years ago, which some of us will remember, when football was not the family game we have now successfully made it. That is really what I want to get over to the Minister today.
To conclude, I will not let up campaigning for police funding to tackle knife crime and to better protect our communities, but I hope that today’s debate raises some important issues for us to consider. Will the Minister outline what the Government will do to share the costs more reasonably between the large clubs and our police forces? In that way, we can not only ensure that football events are properly policed, but support our local police services and ensure that they have sufficient resources to meet all the demands that are placed upon them.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am most grateful to you, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) and the Minister for allowing me to say a few words. At the outset I must declare an interest, in that I am a lifelong supporter of Ipswich Town. I am a season ticket holder and a shareholder, although those shares are worthless following the club’s administration and the subsequent sale of a controlling interest in the club to the Marcus Evans Group in 2007.
The 2018-19 season goes down as the worst in the club’s history, as we finished rock bottom of the championship. Next season, we shall play outside the top two divisions for the first time in 62 years. In that period, we have achieved a great deal. Under the management of two football knights—Sir Alf Ramsey and Sir Bobby Robson—we won the league championship, the FA cup and the UEFA cup. We are the only British club never to lose a home tie in a mainstream European club competition—a record, I sense, we may well retain in perpetuity.
Ipswich’s 2018-19 annus horribilis is not the only recent stain on the club’s reputation. I am afraid we are one of the reasons for the hon. Lady having to secure a debate on this matter. It was Ipswich Town, under the ownership of Marcus Evans, that took Suffolk constabulary to court, and in so doing overturned the principle whereby police forces were able to charge for the deployment of officers on land “owned, leased or controlled” by football clubs. That ruling changed the interpretation of the word “controlled”. Land outside the stadium that is used by a football club, such as to facilitate the entrance and exit of supporters, for granting concessions, such as to burger vans, or for restricting vehicle access by way of temporary road restriction orders, is now defined as “public land”. Police forces are unable to charge full cost recovery on such areas.
I should briefly explain what happens at Ipswich on match days. A few hours before the match until a few hours afterwards, two public roads—Portman Road and Sir Alf Ramsey Way—that immediately adjoin the ground are closed to traffic. They, in effect, become part of the stadium. In the court case, Suffolk constabulary’s contention was that policing the roads during those periods is inseparably linked to activities taking place inside the stadium, and thus they fall within Ipswich Town’s responsibility. To me, that seems a logical conclusion. While in many ways I am not qualified to question the court’s ruling, its decision appears perverse.
At Ipswich, the away supporters are seated in the Cobbold stand, which is on Portman Road. A potential trouble hotspot for policing is the junction between Portman Road and Sir Alf Ramsey Way, where home and away fans mingle. That risk was heightened in the matches with Leeds United in the past two seasons. Season ticket holders were moved from their seats in the Cobbold stand so that the whole upper tier could be used by away fans, which generated additional income for Ipswich Town.
In that context, it is wrong that Suffolk police are currently not able to recover in full the cost of policing Portman Road and Sir Alf Ramsey Way. For the two matches against Leeds United, it was necessary for them to deploy additional resources, including mounted police from a neighbouring force. The system before the court case, which had operated since 2012, worked well and thus I urge the Government to bring forward legislation as soon as practically possible. I think there would be strong support from all parts of the House for embedding the previous 2012 framework in statute as soon as possible.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to respond to a debate secured by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss). I was delighted to be shadowed by her when I was Minister with responsibility for industry. I know she is passionate about steel and Sheffield, but we now learn that she has long had the character-forming habit of supporting Sheffield Wednesday. There was a whiff of nostalgia in the air during the debate, which has taken us back to the glory days of Sheffield Wednesday and Ipswich Town. I declare an interest: I am a proud but disappointed Spurs fan. I am ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who is a proud and exhilarated Scouser.
Three issues underlie this important debate. First, are the public more or less safe than they were at football matches? That matters. Secondly, are we in the right place with regard to the role of the police and how they recover their costs for their work at football games? Thirdly, there is the much bigger issue of whether the police have the support they need to do difficult and invaluable work on our behalf. I hope to address all three issues in the time I have.
First, are the public more or less safe in attending a football match now? The answer has to be yes, they are safer. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough alluded to that when she harked back to the bad old days of the ’70s and ’80s, when the beautiful game was marred by what we saw and heard in our football stadiums and arenas. They are a completely different place now. The number of football-related arrests has reduced steadily since 2000 and is down 50% since 2010. We now have a combination of preventive football banning orders, targeting, public order policing, stadium ejections and modern in-stadium security. Frankly, there have also been changes in supporter attitudes. We are in a different place, as a result of very good work over the years by the Government, football authorities, football clubs, the police and fans. Everyone has played their part.
We must keep this in perspective, but a minority of supporters will always be prepared to organise violence, engage in disorder and, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, indulge in racism, homophobia and hate crime. That is where we are, so of course the police need to continue to be involved in keeping the peace around big football games. I will now address how that works, and how they recover costs.
As the hon. Lady pointed out, the police can charge for special police services under section 25 of the Police Act 1996. Legislation and case law—a point raised powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous)—means that the police can claim back only those preventive policing costs that were incurred on land owned by football clubs, which in practice normally means inside the grounds, and they must be asked to do such policing by the club. The result is that football clubs often rely on stewards inside the grounds, with the police waiting outside, ready to be called in. That means that the cost of the police is borne by the taxpayer.
What does that mean for costs? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough rightly reported the costs relayed to us by the police. I pay tribute to the work of Deputy Chief Constable Mark Roberts, who was passionate and assiduous in pressing Ministers at the Home Office on the issue, and in making the case for rethinking how the partnership between police and football works. The numbers presented to us are exactly those presented by the hon. Lady. The police estimate a cost of around £48 million a year, of which they feel they can recover just over £5 million, leaving a £42 million shortfall. That is a significant number when broken down into the number of police officers, for example, and as the Minister with responsibility for the police, I am concerned about that.
The hon. Lady made a point that I think everyone will understand about the enormous amounts of money in the game or, more specifically, at the top of the game. People will rightly wonder why on earth rich football clubs do not do more to contribute to the costs of policing their games, given how much money they earn from them. The hon. Lady was typically thoughtful in her approach. She did not have much time for the arguments of the Premier League in this context, but we should recognise and place on the record that my colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport negotiate with the football leagues a very significant—£100 million a year—contribution to grassroots projects.
The Premier League pays a great deal of tax. Football supporters are taxpayers—indeed, they will argue that they are entitled to a service—and the Premier League will ask why football should be singled out in this context. Those are all arguments to be had and to be made. I give a commitment to the hon. Lady, and to other interested colleagues, that I will meet the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), next week to talk specifically and exclusively about how we can structure a better, fairer partnership between police and football and, in doing so, reduce the demand on police resources. I am open-minded about how we do that, including about looking at all current frameworks and arrangements.
My third and final point is that we have to put this conversation into the much bigger picture of the funding and resources available to the police. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough referred to this directly and made political points about it. The £42 million shortfall, if the number from the police is accurate, sits in the context of the £14 billion a year that we taxpayers invest in our police system. The honest truth is that we are asking more and more of our police. The police are extremely stretched. Yes, there continues to be scope to improve their efficiency, but I have been persuaded, almost since I started as Minister with responsibility for the police almost two years ago, that they are too stretched, and that we as a society and as a Government need to give them more support. That has been my priority ever since I have been in the job.
As a result of that work, and the support of successive Home Secretaries and senior colleagues, we as a country are investing over £2 billion more in our police system this year than three years ago. I agreed with almost everything that the hon. Lady said, but I am afraid that she was playing some old tunes from the Labour jukebox around cuts to policing. The music has changed; the Government have recognised the pressure on the police. The demand on the police has risen and become increasingly complex, and they are too stretched and need more support from us and from the taxpayer.
Overall, crime is stable. Some crime is rising, but police work is becoming increasingly complex and resource intensive. They need more support, and we absolutely get that. I have been very clear on that as the Policing Minister. There will be an additional £1 billion this year—£2 billion more than three years ago. For South Yorkshire Police, that is an additional £16 million this year, on top of three years of special grant funding of £24 million, and an additional £2.5 million this year to support the work against serious violence to which the hon. Lady referred. I am sure that she will welcome the fact that the chief constable is recruiting more officers in South Yorkshire, though she will argue that more needs to be done. For what it is worth, I agree.
Although we have made considerable progress in securing more resource for the police, looking forward to the comprehensive spending review and considering what is likely to happen in terms of the demand on the police, I am clear that we need to go further. I am delighted to have the support of the Home Secretary, who has made it crystal clear, explicitly and in public, that should he remain Home Secretary, which is not the summit of his ambitions at the moment, he will prioritise police funding in the Home Office bid for the comprehensive spending review.
I reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough that we are working more closely than ever with the police on building a credible bid to secure additional resources, so that they can: increase their capacity and capabilities, which is necessary; do more crime prevention, which is necessary; upgrade their technology, which is necessary; and give better support to frontline officers—the most important assets in the police system—which is necessary. Those are all necessary conditions if the police are to improve the service that they deliver to our constituents and the public. That improvement is necessary given the rapidly shifting picture of rising demand on the police. I am committed, as I know the Home Secretary is, to doing more to support the police in that way.
On the points about funding and football, I make the following commitment: I will sit down with the Minister with responsibility for sport next week to discuss further what we can do as a Government to get a better balance in this relationship, to make the partnership between police and football work more effectively, and to reduce the cost on policing. We should keep things in perspective; going to a football match is a lot safer than it was many years ago, and it is a much more enjoyable environment. The police do extremely important work in that area, and will continue to do so.
We must get the structure right. I am not persuaded that we are in the right place at the moment, and I value the debate, and the contribution made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and other Members. She has my full undertaking that I will follow this matter up next week. Critically, when it comes to the comprehensive spending review, I fully intend to build on the work of the last two years in ensuring that our police officers and police system have the support that they need to do such incredibly important work on our behalf.
Question put and agreed to.
Education Funding
(5 years, 5 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
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered education funding.
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As hon. Members know, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but following the letter I received in April from the Secretary of State for Education about school results and resourcing, nationally and in Kent, I am tempted to add Department for Education briefings on school funding to that list.
To begin with a positive reaction to that three-page letter, my constituency is in Kent, so mention of our county was an encouraging start. To be fair, the letter contained information that was, on the face of it, good news. For example, 91% of children in Kent attend schools rated good or outstanding, compared with just 64% in 2010. In addition, 67% of Kent pupils reached the expected standard of reading, writing and maths at key stage 2, compared with 65% nationally. So far, so good. Except that when we consider what is happening on the ground in my constituency, those county-wide figure hide an inconvenient truth.
Let us take the standard of reading. A ward in my constituency is in the bottom 100 of 10,000 local council wards in England for adult literacy. That is an historical, long-term problem that will be solved only by targeted intervention and extra funding for adult education. A couple of years ago, I decided to try to do something about it, so as a first step I approached a local housing association to see if we could identify adults in our area who needed help. Our plan was to set up local clubs that would allow volunteer mentors to teach illiterate adults how to read and write. The stumbling block, as always, was the lack of funds. When I wrote to the Department for help, I was told that no grant funding was available. Those illiterate people in my constituency had been let down by the education system when they were at school as children, and they are still being let down by the system as adults.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that per-pupil funding has been squeezed, particularly for 16 to 18-year-olds. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should make that a priority, especially to enhance social mobility in the areas he is discussing?
Gordon Henderson
I agree; I will come to the national funding formula later, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
I will continue my thread about illiteracy, which is a huge problem in my constituency. We had several skills companies in my area, which taught adults basic literacy in preparation for the vocational training that they provided. Because of the new funding system for skills providers, however, which discriminates against constituencies such as mine, one of those companies has had to close and another is struggling financially.
The Secretary of State’s letter boasted that in Kent, an extra 27,300 school places have been added since 2010, including the establishment of 10 free schools, and that a further 13 new schools have been cleared to be created in coming years. Again, however, that statistic hides an inconvenient truth, which is that many schools in my constituency are bursting at the seams, particularly the secondary schools in Sittingbourne, where an already dire situation is being made worse by the ludicrous independent appeals procedure.
One of my local schools has a published admission number of 285 pupils, but because of the shortage of places in Sittingbourne secondary schools, and following a request from Kent County Council, the head agreed to increase this year’s intake to 330. In turn, Kent County Council committed to fund the building of a new classroom block to accommodate the extra 45 children. During the building work, which is due to start in the summer, four classrooms will have to be decommissioned, but despite that, the school was confident that it would be able to accommodate the additional pupils.
Then the independent appeals panel stepped in. It heard appeals from 53 parents who wanted to send their children to that school. Bizarrely, it upheld all 53 appeals, so the school is faced with finding accommodation for a total intake of 383 pupils. The knock-on effect of such a dramatic increase is horrendous. The head’s first question is, if there was room to build additional accommodation—which, incidentally, there is not—who would fund it? Nobody has been able to answer that question yet. Kent County Council has made it clear that it will not borrow any more money to fund the building of additional schools or buildings. Quite rightly, it believes that the Government should fund those schools via the basic need grant system.
Other secondary schools in Sittingbourne face a similar situation of demand outstripping the number of available places. That problem was brought about by the rapid population increase in my constituency, which was driven by Government housing targets that were imposed without any additional Government funds being allocated to ensure that the necessary infrastructure was put in place first. It is all very well for the Department to claim that 27,340 additional school places have been created in Kent, but few of those places are in the areas of most need. Frankly, without the funding to provide more schools where places are needed, the statistic is meaningless.
On funding, the Secretary of State talks in his letter about the 2019-20 national funding formula allocation to Kent and explains that the county will get £3,793 per primary pupil and £4,941 per secondary pupil. Those figures graphically illustrate the historical underfunding of Kent schools, which is put into sharp relief by the comparable funding figures in Greenwich, which are £4,907 per primary pupil and £6,698 per secondary pupil. Hon. Members might point out that Greenwich is an outer London borough with areas of deep social deprivation, but I have news for them: Kent is not entirely made up of affluent areas such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells. Many areas, particularly in Thanet and Swale where my constituency is, have council wards with social deprivation as deep as any found in outer London.
To take another example, I am sure that hon. Members agree that Essex is a comparable county to Kent; indeed, we are neighbours, albeit separated by the Thames estuary. Essex is due to receive £3,843 per primary pupil and £5,018 per secondary pupil. I appreciate that they are not huge differences individually, but they make a big difference to school budgets collectively. Why does the Department think that Kent pupils cost less to teach than those in Essex? They do not—indeed, the reverse is often the case—but the difference highlights a long-standing funding deficiency for Kent schools. The figures speak for themselves.
Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is talking so much truth there. It is not just in Kent; it is not just in Essex; it is in Cheshire, and across the country. We are crying out for more funding for our schools. We had £1.3 billion, and that was good. That is why I pledge the £4 billion more that we need for our schools, so that the education standards that my hon. Friend is talking about are the same for everybody throughout the country.
Gordon Henderson
I agree with my right hon. Friend. As a proud man of Kent, and a Kent MP who is doing the best for my constituency, I want to focus on Kent, but I understand that she will have problems in her constituency as well.
The figures speak for themselves. In terms of schools block funding, Kent is ranked 139 out of 152 local authorities. How can that be right or fair, particularly when we consider Kent’s location, so close to London, with all the cost pressures that that entails? As we move towards implementation of the national funding formula, Kent will still be 7% below the national average, while inner London boroughs will be 32% above the national average, which means that per pupil funding in inner London will be £1,774 more than in Kent.
That leads me on to another problem that faces many Kent schools, including those in my own area—one that I have raised before in this House and will no doubt raise again and again, until something is done about it. London boroughs are buying up or renting homes in our area into which they place homeless families, many of whom have special social and educational needs. Although the London boroughs pay the housing costs for the families, it is Kent social services and Kent schools that are expected to meet the costs of providing the social and educational help that they need. London boroughs are also increasingly placing cared-for children into Kent, once again without providing the financial support needed to look after and educate those children.
Let me make it very clear that schools in Kent willingly accept their responsibility and meet the financial commitment needed to educate those children. However, their benevolence is putting an additional strain on already stretched school budgets. The strain is particularly acute when it comes to providing special educational needs support. There is already severe pressure on the high needs funding block, and that is being made worse by the ever-increasing number of children in Kent who require SEN support.
The letter from the Secretary of State presented a rosy picture of education funding that simply does not reflect what is actually happening in our schools, nor the problems they face.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The chief executive of a multi-academy trust in my constituency, Gary Lewis, says that next year there will be no A-level French or German in three of its sixth forms because the schools are no longer able to fund small class sizes. We have to look at education as more than just per pupil funding. We have to look at what we can deliver on the ground. We are not just making our schools poorer; we are making our country poorer. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me?
Gordon Henderson
I do agree. I sympathise with the hon. Lady when it comes to schools losing the opportunity to teach their children German. I want to get my schools teaching proper English. That is one of the problems we face. We face illiteracy not because people cannot speak German in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, but because they cannot read and write English.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I have teachers in Brighton who are absolutely desperate because they can no longer provide the kind of SEN support they used to be able to. There was a wonderful programme called “Every Child a Reader”, and one of the teachers from Brighton came up to the House of Lords to celebrate taking part in that project. They have now been sacked, and the project no longer works, because they cannot fund it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular irony in that? When there are good projects like that, and we see that they are doing good work, it is an absolute tragedy that they cannot continue.
Gordon Henderson
I am sure that the hon. Lady is right and that many other Members have similar stories to tell. I would just say this about the outlook being presented by the Department for Education: all is not rosy in the garden of England.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the problems is that the special schools in all our constituencies are having to contend with a level of demand and complexity that simply was not there 10 years ago? We need to make sure that the funding is there to meet the need that exists.
Gordon Henderson
I agree, but I do so hesitantly, as I have a very good special school in my area, which teaches children with acute physical disabilities. We have now been told by the DFE that my constituency is to get funding for another special school for people with learning difficulties. I am immensely grateful for that, because currently 70 children from my constituency have to travel to the other side of Maidstone every day—some get up at half past 6 or 7 o’clock in the morning and do not get home until half past 5 in the evening—to attend a special school there. I agree, but I do so slightly reluctantly because I am going to get some funds for a special school in my constituency.
I would like to list some of the other problems that headteachers in my constituency say they face, in no particular order. First, they tell me that there is a need for an increase in the overall funding for schools, which should be coupled with a long-term plan that would ensure that the growth in our population is properly addressed. That is very pertinent to my constituency. Secondly, they want to scrap the current system of requesting a three-year forecast from schools without providing any firm information about likely costs and incomes. Thirdly, we need to find a solution to the growing problem of poor mental health among students and staff, which is coupled with a lack of funding to help those who suffer. Fourthly, headteachers in my constituency are frustrated when they see the DFE focusing on workload reduction while insisting on schools cutting their costs, which inevitably reduces the workforce and increases workloads for the remaining staff. Fifthly, they feel pressurised by the funding arrangements into replacing experienced teachers in order to save money.
Sixthly, headteachers have to manage the impact on school budgets of unfunded mandatory costs, such as the increase in the pay level of support staff brought about by an increase in the living wage. Seventhly, headteachers often struggle to fund the £6,000 needed for each education, health and care plan, and to find the additional money involved in preparing those plans. Eighthly, inflationary pressures continue to undermine any increases to school funding under the new national funding formula. The so-called fair funding formula is simply not fair.
Ninthly, schools are having to divert scarce resources to cover services that were previously supplied by either local authorities or the NHS, and no longer are. Finally, research has found that Kent schools have lost £149.5 million between 2015 and 2019, which averages out at £270 per pupil. Some 510 out of 535 schools in Kent have experienced cuts. One secondary school in my constituency has lost £780,000.
I am lucky in Sittingbourne and Sheppey to have some fantastic, committed school leaders and teachers. However, I fear that without a real boost in investment and funding better targeted to areas where it is most needed such as mine, we are going to lose our best educators to better resourced areas, which would be to the detriment of the children in my constituency.
I know the Education Minister, and I am sure that, in their heart of hearts, he and his colleagues understand the financial challenges faced by schools and that they are lobbying the Treasury hard. I just hope the Chancellor —whoever that turns out to be in November—listens and delivers more money for education in this year’s Budget.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The debate can last until 7.30 pm. I am obliged to call the Front Benchers no later than 7.12 pm. The guideline limits are five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister, and then Mr Henderson has two or three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. Until 7.12 pm, we are in Back-Bench time. There are six Members seeking to contribute—I have a galaxy of talent before me—and I am determined that everybody should have the chance to speak, so there will have to be a time limit of three and a half minutes. That way, everybody will get in. The first contributor will be Kate Green.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing the debate; I agreed with much of what he said.
In the spring term, I conducted a survey of headteachers in my constituency to ask about funding pressures in their schools, and the majority were very pessimistic about their prospects over the coming three years. They spoke of having to cut support for vulnerable learners, of the impact of having to make support staff redundant, of having to cut classes—for example, music and swimming lessons—or having to ask parents to pay for lessons, and of the impact that that is having on staff morale. What is worse is that it is the schools serving the most disadvantaged and deprived intakes that are suffering some of the greatest funding pressures, in part for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. The local newspaper, the Messenger, reported that four of the five worst affected schools in Trafford, in terms of losing funding, are in my constituency. Those include Broadoak School and Lostock College, which serve particularly disadvantaged intakes and have suffered a real-terms loss in funding of almost £1,000 per pupil since 2015.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that Trafford—I know this is true for other colleagues—is one of the f40 authorities, which have particularly suffered under the new national funding formula. Although previous Secretaries of State for Education have made efforts to address the inequities that existed, it cannot be right that schools in my constituency in Old Trafford, which serve very similar demographics to those in Salford or Manchester just across the road, should be so poorly funded. That is not to decry the very real need for funding of schools in those boroughs. We must address the fact that the funding formula is still not delivering for poorer and more disadvantaged communities in overall wealthier authorities, or for some of the schools that the hon. Gentleman spoke about.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
My hon. Friend obviously shares my concern about reports that vulnerable children are being denied access to education because schools are not being given adequate resources. Does she agree that the recent demonstrations—the protests by young people and parents—highlight the enormous strength of feeling about this issue?
Kate Green
The feeling is shared by teachers, students, parents, governors and, indeed, the wider community; my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
My final point in the very short time I have left is that the situation in my borough is even further exacerbated by our selective secondary system. The House is well aware that I am deeply opposed to it, but this is not a debate about the merits or demerits of a selective education approach. However, it cannot be right that the additional funding that the Secretary of State announced last year for grammar schools to expand has in no way benefited the poorest and most disadvantaged children in my constituency. Indeed, the funding that has been secured for Trafford has gone not to schools in my constituency, but to the constituency next door. All the evidence I have seen shows that grammar schools educate a lower proportion of children with special educational needs or children on free school meals—children who need the very best education if they are to achieve their full potential. I strongly urge the Minister to look again at whether putting funding into the grammar system is the best way of improving the life chances of our poorest and most high-need kids.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
On the Wednesday before the recess, I submitted a petition to the House that had been signed by just under 1,000 residents of Henley. I will not read it out, but I hope the Minister will agree that it is a friendly petition. I am concerned about the gap between the enormous figures that are increasingly being put into education and what is actually happening on the ground in schools. The petition asked for a review in advance of the comprehensive spending review to settle once and for all what it costs to run education and how we can get that money to schools.
We have tackled a number of issues separately—we have tackled teachers’ pay and pensions, and agreed to fund them—but we need to know in what other areas funding is falling short in the squeeze that has occurred between keeping the budgets more or less as they are and inflation. Every year, the Minister makes the honest claim that we are spending more on the revenue budget for schools than we were the previous year. That is a very laudable thing to have done, provided the money actually gets to the schools themselves.
One of the things that will help is to bring out the difference between a soft formula and a hard formula. We have a soft formula at the moment, and local authorities have a role in distributing and, indeed, top-slicing the funds before they get to the school. It might be thought that they do not top-slice very much, but they do, and it can make a big difference to the schools. That also applies to schools that are part of multi-academy trusts. We must ensure that, in creating such trusts, we are not just creating another local authority equivalent that is able to top-slice more and more funds, resulting in schools getting less and less. A review and a move to a hard funding formula would be a very good way forward.
I will finish on a completely different matter. Apprenticeships form a large part of further education colleges’ income. In the Henley constituency, I am organising an evening to bring together schools and businesses in order to see what apprenticeships they want to fund and how they can be funded.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on raising this issue. Although I realise that this is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland—the Minister knows that—I want to add to the debate to show how far these issues go in the United Kingdom. Indeed, they go as far as Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is recognised worldwide as having one of the best education systems. I have said many times over the years that I take great pride in that, but we are in danger of losing our wonderful education system due to the budgetary issues. The money is there, but it is not being allocated in the way that it should be.
I see a budgetary allocation that leads to parent teacher associations fundraising to pay for classroom assistants’ wages, rather than buy additional extras that enhance the children’s education. I see primary and post-primary schools being forced to take classes up to the statutory maximum without adequate support, as they need every penny of funding for children to make ends meet. I see staffing issues, such as staff being instructed by their unions not to organise after-hours meetings or run after-school clubs, or staff having to cross the picket line—such is their love for their children. I see qualified teachers working as classroom assistants or subbing for two days. When older teachers on the top pay band retire and are replaced by a new teacher, the savings should go to the school, not to the board that is negotiating the exit package. I see education authorities and boards with sufficient funds to send staff on team-building days. At the same time, I see headteachers attempting to teach classes as well as run their school. I see P1 parents being asked to bring in baby wipes and toilet rolls, as the school is no longer in a position to supply them.
I thank God for the parent teacher associations, the teachers and classroom assistants who work well beyond their paid hours, and the music volunteers who teach at no cost to the school. That does not make me less ashamed of the predicament of our education system because of the unwise and reduced allocation of funding. The stress on headteachers who are trying to balance the books is a disgrace. Only love for their school and their pupils would allow anyone to do that work.
We need to allocate an acceptable level of funding per child, as determined by their school’s area. I am concerned about the strain on teachers and schools to provide a world-class education that they can provide only with a decent budget. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has conducted an inquiry into the education system in Northern Ireland because the Assembly is not functioning correctly. I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility to answer to those things, but they tell us about the crisis in education across the United Kingdom.
Let the PTA fundraise for school outings or for the latest gadget for the school. Let the Education Authority do its job by paying for the heating, lights, teachers, classroom assistants, cleaners and dinner staff, and the pens and paper. It was not too much for the Government to provide for my education during my time in the education system in Northern Ireland, so why does it seem so far out of the grasp of the Education Authority right now?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The spring statement came and went, and I am still here making the plea for the worst-funded schools in the country, which are in York. We cannot go on like this; we have had many debates about funding for schools in this Chamber, but the situation does not improve. Schools are struggling more and more every week, which I experience as I talk to schools across York.
There are particular things that need urgent attention, such as the capital funding of many of our schools. Some schools are crumbling, such as Tang Hall Primary, where the children are so cold as they study, or Carr Junior School, which desperately needs building upgrades but is unable to access the funding it needs. All Saints Roman Catholic School, a secondary school, is on a split site and needs a new location in which to educate its children.
I want to focus on disadvantage. In my constituency, Tang Hall Primary, which as I mentioned needs infrastructure upgrades, saw a spending drop of £559 per pupil, whereas in more affluent areas of the city, the drop was smaller. The Government funding formula is therefore punishing disadvantage and the children who most need resources to advance their education. That is driving inequality into the system for the long term.
In York, we already have real issues, with an attainment gap of 31 points—the largest attainment gap in the country—as well as the worst funding. I say again to the Minister that the two are correlated. I still wait for a response and for recognition of that fact. The cuts across the city are resulting in some of the largest increases in class sizes in the country and the biggest reduction in staff numbers. Those facts cannot be denied.
It is the wider impact that that is having on children’s opportunities and on their health and wellbeing that causes me the most concern. A secondary school in my constituency wants to employ more mental health staff to support the children. I recognise that schools might not have had to deal with those challenges a decade ago, but they do have to deal with them now. It is therefore incumbent on the Minister to ensure that schools are properly resourced to ensure the holistic wellbeing of the children. Only when that is in place will children be able to learn as best they can.
I will turn to my secondary schools. Archbishop Holgate’s School, for instance, will not have the capacity to teach children next year, because of the expansion of class sizes and the demands on space. South Bank Academy is also struggling for space, yet the Government have just refused to build a new school in York.
We are struggling and it is time that the Minister recognised the challenges faced by different places in the country, instead of hiding behind figures and saying, “More money is going into schools.” We recognise that they can talk about headline figures, but the money is not going to the right places. Per pupil funding is falling, which is evidenced by the statistics that we continue to churn out, and the money is not going towards building the school system that we desperately need for our children in the future.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing this important debate.
The issue of general funding is beginning to sound a bit like a broken record. The Government claim to spend record amounts on education, but claiming to spend a pound more this year than last year is irrelevant, because it is meaningless in real terms. That is the basis of the debate; per pupil funding is falling in real terms. It is widely known that it has fallen by 8.8%.
The Government have succeeded in delegating the risk and responsibility entirely to schools. Warwickshire is 120th of 140 in the funding per pupil rankings and is one of the worst-off areas in the country. Although Warwickshire does not have it as tough as what my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) illustrated, it has it tough none the less, and is a member of the f40.
I do not want to dwell on other areas of education—we have recently had debates about nursery education and further education, which have also suffered severe cuts—but will illustrate some of the challenges in our primary, secondary and special needs education sectors. Just 10 days ago, I visited one of the best primary schools in Warwickshire. The headteacher just sat there frustrated, saying, “This afternoon I will have to decide how to cut £50,000 from our budget. That is a further £50,000 and I am not sure who I will have to let go.” Those are the real challenges faced by the headteachers and leadership teams across our schools.
I spoke to one of my secondary schools a couple of months ago and it said that in the past three years it has had to cut 11 full-time teachers, leading to larger class sizes. The remaining teachers have to cover their colleagues who are off sick. The school has had to make cuts in associate staff in the back office and in frontline services, such as teaching assistants.
Schools face the consequences of austerity because of cuts to wider public services. Just this week, one school said that because of the cuts to the council’s children’s services, it has closed yet another case. The responsibility to pick up the pieces of a very challenging situation will now fall to that school, bringing ever greater pressures. It had to lose its school counsellor last term. It is faced with a dilemma: does it replace that counsellor or invest in support for students with the most complex needs?
One of our fine special needs schools in south Warwick has had to lose its comfort dog, half its playground and its minibus, which it cannot afford to replace, because of the cuts that it faces. Those are some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and they are being hurt the hardest. That is just not right.
Our sixth forms have seen cuts of 24% to their budgets and a reduction in their choices. One of my sixth forms has had to close. Education is an investment not just in our young people, but in our future. It is time that we invested in them, stopped the cuts and held a review of the fair funding formula.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this important debate. My experience in Brighton and Hove echoes the many stories that we have heard from around the country. It is quite clear that our schools are buckling under the pressure to do more with less. With their general budgets savaged by more than 8% in real terms, it is not surprising that they have to make devastating cuts.
As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, we have this debate time and again. The Government tell us that austerity is supposed to be over, so let us see that in our schools. Right now, our schools know that Ministers are not being straight when they say that they are spending more per pupil or in real terms; actually, less is being spent per pupil and in real terms, and any attempt to say otherwise glosses over a serious and damaging crisis.
Headteachers in Brighton write to me regularly and in desperate terms about the sleepless nights that they face because of the impact of the funding crisis on their ability to support pupils, particularly those with complex needs. The Local Government Association identified a potential £1.6 billion deficit in special needs education funding, but the Government responded with an inadequate £350 million. Headteachers say that that is obviously too little, too late.
These are the kinds of things that headteachers have said:
“We have less support staff than we need to run the school effectively and give the children the support they need”,
and
“We will have to drop our counsellor service”.
One described
“having sleepless nights trying…to make the budget work”,
and another said:
“We have already closed our nursery, reduced staffing through redundancies and not replacing those who have moved on to save money. The support we have for children with special needs is now at a basic level particularly for those who struggle socially and emotionally.”
I have many more quotes from our teachers, who are struggling so much to make ends meet. The Minister needs to listen far more closely to them.
I want to say a word about sixth-form funding. Sixth forms, too, are in a difficult position, with huge funding pressures. I have two fantastic sixth-form colleges in my constituency: BHASVIC, the Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College; and Varndean College. Funding for 16 to 18-year-olds has also been savagely cut: according to research by London Economics, in real terms, sixth-form colleges received about £1,300 less per student in 2016-17 than they did in 2010-11. That is a 22% decline in funding. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“Funding per student aged 16–18 has seen the biggest squeeze of all stages of education for young people in recent years.”
At the same time, costs have risen, the needs of students have become more complex, and Government are asking more of school and colleges. The purchasing power of sixth-form funding has been hugely diminished as a result. I am sure that the Minister has seen the powerful funding impact survey by the Sixth Form Colleges Association, which makes genuinely shocking reading. It reports that 50% of schools and colleges are dropping modern foreign languages, and 34% are dropping STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects. The only way to address that funding crisis in 16-to-18 education is to raise the rate per student. I implore the Minister to do that, and to listen to the many people who say exactly the same.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this timely and important debate. I thank everyone else for contributing, including my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). To make a parochial point, at least Trafford now has a majority Labour council, under the superb leadership of Councillor Andrew Western; that will mitigate some of the pressures on schools in our borough. I also thank the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western).
In a moment, the Minister will say that more money is going into education than ever before, but Members—not just in this Chamber, but Conservative party leadership candidates—are saying that it is not enough. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said that all schools should “level up”, that there should be no differentiation in funding formulas, and that school funding should be protected “in real terms”. There are no facts or figures behind that statement, but he obviously does not want the truth to get in the way of a good story on education.
The right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), a former Education Secretary, said that he wants £1 billion extra, but this Government took £5 billion out of the system. He plucked another figure out of the air, just as he threw this country’s education system up in the air in 2010 and let it shatter. We are still trying to reassemble the pieces.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said that some of that £20 billion extra going into our NHS should be used for our schools, which is robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is my favourite: the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) wants private companies to run schools for a profit—so it will not just be the NHS that is open to trade negotiations. The right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) made a spending pledge that the Minister will like: he pledged an extra £3 billion a year, in a spending spree that would go on for five years. I make that £15 billion. I can see the Minister smiling, but that gets us towards where we need to be.
We can be in no doubt that schools are in crisis. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Education Secretary have both stated in the main Chamber that every school in England will see a cash-terms increase in their funding, but that flies in the face of reality. Our schools have experienced cuts across the board. Since 2015, the Government have cut £2.7 billion from school budgets in England. Only last week, concerned parents and teachers protested in their thousands about cuts to special educational needs provision. According to research by the National Education Union, such provision in England is down by £1.2 billion, because of shortfalls in funding increases from the Government since 2015. The Government’s own data show that 4,000 children or young people with an education, health and care plan or statement were awaiting provision in January 2018. In other words, they were waiting for a place in education.
As we have heard in Members’ stories today, the cuts mean that teachers are buying essential supplies, bringing in breakfast cereals for food-hungry children, and having to source shoes, uniforms and coats for children whose parents can no longer afford to provide them. Schools are starting late or closing early to save money, and the curriculum is narrowing. There is a crisis in our schools and this Government are turning a blind eye to it. They have made a concerted effort to fudge the figures, and to deflect attention from the school funding cuts over which they have presided. Across the country, schools are having to write to parents to ask for money to buy basic resources. They need money not for little extras, but for essentials.
If funding per pupil had been maintained in value since 2015, school funding overall would be £5.1 billion higher now, so 91% of schools face real-terms cuts. People in this Chamber know all too well the impact on the ground. The average shortfall is more than £67,000 in primary school budgets, and more than £273,000 in secondary school budgets. Our schools have 137,000 more pupils, but 5,400 fewer teachers, 2,800 fewer teaching assistants, 1,400 fewer support staff and 1,200 fewer auxiliary staff. The Government need to stop their sticking-plaster approach to school finances and give schools the funding that they really need.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate and on his excellent opening speech.
The Government are determined to create a world-class education system that offers opportunities to everyone, no matter their circumstances or where they live. That is why we are investing in our education system, to ensure that schools have the resources that they need to make that happen. The point of our investment is to help children to achieve, and I will first emphasise the significant progress we are already making towards creating a world-class education system.
Thanks in part to our reforms, the proportion of pupils in good or outstanding schools has increased from 66% in 2010 to 85% in 2018. My hon. Friend cited the figures in his local area as well. In primary schools, our more rigorous curriculum—now on a par with the highest-performing ones in the world—has been taught since September 2014. Since it was first tested in 2016, the proportion of primary school pupils reaching the expected standard in the maths test has risen from 70% to 76% in 2018; and in reading, which is dear to my hon. Friend’s heart, from 66% to 75% in 2018.
In secondary schools, the more rigorous academic curriculum and qualifications support social mobility by ensuring that disadvantaged children have the same opportunities for a knowledge-rich curriculum, and the same career and life opportunities as their peers. In primary schools, the attainment gap between the most disadvantaged pupils and their peers, measured by the disadvantage gap index, has narrowed by 13.2% since 2011.
To support such improvements, the Government prioritised education funding while having to take some difficult decisions in other areas of public spending. We have been able to do that because of our balanced approach to the public finances and our stewardship of the economy, which has reduced the annual deficit from an unsustainable 10% of GDP, or some £150 billion a year, to 2% by 2018. The economic stability that that has provided has resulted in employment rising to record levels and unemployment being at its lowest level since the 1970s, halving youth unemployment and giving young people leaving school more opportunities to have jobs and start their careers.
It is that balanced approach that allows us to invest in public services and education. Core funding for schools and high needs has risen from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to £43.5 billion this year. That includes the extra £1.3 billion for schools and high needs announced in 2017, which we invested across 2018-19 and 2019-20, over and above plans set out in 2015. That means that, while we do recognise the budgeting challenges that schools have faced, funding remains high by historical standards. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that real-terms per-pupil funding for five to 16-year-olds in 2020 will be more than 50% higher than it was in 2000. However, that does not mean that we do not understand the pressures that schools face.
We are committed to direct school funding where it is needed most. This is why, since April last year, we have started to distribute funding to schools through the national funding formula. The formula is a fairer way to distribute school funding because each area’s allocation takes into account the individual needs and characteristics of its schools and pupils. That means that, as indicated by my hon. Friend, Kent’s allocation will not be the same as that of an area where pupils have a greater amount of additional needs. It is right that schools with a higher proportion of pupils with additional needs, such as those indicated by deprivation or low prior attainment, should get extra funding.
My hon. Friend cited the overall average funding per pupil in Kent compared with Greenwich. Those figures are averages and reflect overall numbers of children with additional needs in those two local authority areas. In each authority, Greenwich and Kent, a child with particular additional needs will be funded on the same basis. The only difference between the funding that the pupils will attract will be the area cost adjustment, reflecting salary costs in the two areas. That represents about £831 million in overall funding out of the £34 billion school funding total. Areas will not receive the same amount, but they receive per pupil on the same basis.
I refer my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to the schedules that show how the national funding formula is made up. Local authorities will attract the same figure for every primary school pupil in 2019-20, regardless of where they are in the country, and the same figure for secondary and key stage 4. That represents about 73% of the total funding per pupil. The remaining 27% is made up of additional needs. For example, a pupil who has qualified for free school meals in the last six years will attract £540 in primary and £785 in secondary. If that secondary school pupil is in band D of the income deprivation affecting children index, they will attract another £515. If that secondary school pupil has low prior attainment based on primary school results, they will attract an additional £1,550. If that secondary school child has English as an additional language, they will attract an additional £1,385. That applies whether that pupil lives in Sheppey, Greenwich or York. The only difference will be that those figures are multiplied by the percentage area cost adjustment.[Official Report, 15 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 6MC.]
Schools are already benefiting from the gains delivered by the national funding formula. Since 2017, we have given every local authority more money for every pupil in every school, while allocating the biggest increases to the schools that the previous system left most underfunded. This year, all schools have attracted an increase of at least 1% per pupil compared with their 2017-18 baselines and the most underfunded schools have attracted up to 6% more per pupil compared with 2017-18. A caveat to that is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell): the local authorities will receive that on the basis of the national funding formula, but we are still using the local formula to allocate that funding to schools. That is why there is a discrepancy between the national funding formula allocations and the actual amounts allocated to the schools. At the moment, we are allowing some discretion and flexibility in the system, so that local authorities can decide how that money is allocated to local authority areas.
Under the national formula, schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey will attract an extra 4.8% per pupil in 2019-20 compared with 2017-18. That is what Kent will receive for schools in his constituency. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), schools will attract 2.6% more per pupil in 2019-20 compared with 2017-18. In York Central, schools will attract 5.4% more per pupil in 2019-20 compared with the baseline of 2017-18. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned Tang Hall Primary School. I add my congratulations to that school, where last year 77% of pupils achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with 64% nationally. They are above average in reading and well above average in writing.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate that the Minister praises the hard work of the teachers in supporting children’s learning in that school; however, it is the 23% that I am most concerned about. That we have the largest attainment gap in the country while our funding is the lowest is of great concern.
Nick Gibb
I am concerned about that too. I want that 64% nationally to be significantly higher. That is the drive of this Government. Since 2010, standards have been rising. I am particularly proud of what we have achieved in reading in primary schools. Our nine-year-olds have achieved their highest ever score in the progress in international reading literacy study test—we rose from joint 10th to joint eighth between 2011 and 2016. I hope that, in the long term, that will address the real concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of capital funding. Government funding for school places is based on local authorities’ own data; we fund the places that they report are needed. Local authorities can use that grant funding to provide places in new schools or through expansions of existing schools, and can work with any school in their local area in doing so. Kent has been allocated £328 million to provide new school places between 2011 and 2021. It is for Kent County Council to decide how to allocate that capital. Nationally, the Government have already committed £7 billion to create new school places between 2015 and 2021, which is on top of investment in the free schools programme. We are on track to create 1 million more school places this decade—the largest increase in school capacity in at least two generations.
As important as the funding that schools receive is how they spend those resources. It is essential that we do all that we can to help schools to make the most of every pound. That is why we have set out a strategy to support schools to make savings on the more than £10 billion they spend each year on non-staffing costs. That strategy provides schools with practical advice on how to identify potential savings, including deals to buy energy, computers and so on.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid we have run out of time; this is the equivalent of the school bell having rung. The Minister may want to send his remarks to the Members present. I call Gordon Henderson to give his closing remarks.
Gordon Henderson
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I intend to be brief, so the Minister could probably have finished his speech. I would like to thank all the Members who have taken the trouble to come along to the debate. Westminster Hall debates are often difficult if only the Minister is present. I am delighted that more people have shown an interest.
I thank the Minister for his response. He gave us a lot of statistics—I refer to my opening speech, in which I talked about lies, damned lies and statistics—and I will read Hansard with great interest to take them in more fully. I do not think there is anything he could have said or did say that will convince me that it is right that a secondary school in Greenwich should get so much more—£1,700 more—on average than secondary schools in my constituency.
Nick Gibb
I failed to mention that, in addition to the funding formula, there is a transition—a minimum floor standard whereby we protect schools that would have received less under the formula. That will be another reason for the discrepancy between Greenwich and my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Gordon Henderson
I appreciate that, and I hope that my schools will feel the benefit. I would be very surprised if they are as grateful as some might expect them to be. I reiterate that education is the most important gift that we can give people. Sadly, historically, too many people living in my constituency—I am talking about people in their 40s, 50s and 60s—are still unable to read the language of their nation. I think it is shameful that we are not able to find a way through our education system to enable those people to write and read the English language.
Written Statements
Post Office Network
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I wish to provide an update to hon. Members on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure the long-term sustainability and resilience of the post office network.
The Government set the strategic direction for Post Office Limited, to maintain a national network accessible to all and to do so on a sustainable financial basis and allow the company the commercial freedom to deliver this strategy as an independent business.
We recognise the Post Office’s distinct social purpose and the important role post offices play in communities across the country, which is why our 2017 manifesto committed to safeguard the network, protect existing rural services and work with the Post Office to extend the availability of business and banking services to families and small businesses in rural areas.
Between 1997 and 2010 the post office network reduced in size by 37%, resulting in the loss of over 7,000 post offices. Since 2010 we have invested over £2 billion in the network. This funding sought to increase the viability of the network by making it more accessible, modern and tailored to customers’ needs while reducing the long-term burden on the taxpayer.
The Government have no programme of post office closures. Post Office Limited has opened over 400 branches since April 2017 and the Government are committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of the network. We not only place a contractual commitment on Post Office Limited to maintain a network of 11,500 branches, but also stipulate stringent access criteria to ensure that this large network is accessible to citizens across the country. More than 93% of the UK population live within one mile of their nearest branch, with more than 99% within three miles.
There are now over 11,500 branches and the post office network is at its most stable since 2013, having changed in size by under 1% over this period. This overall change accommodates a level of churn in what is an extremely diverse network, as branches close and are replaced, and Post Office Limited is therefore used to working quickly with local stakeholders to provide replacement services.
Government subsidy ensures that branches serving our rural communities that need additional support receive it so that they can stay open. In order to provide value for money for the taxpayer the subsidy to the post office has reduced. This fact reflects the progress that the business has made: returning to profit after 16 years of losses, providing a stable network and reducing its reliance on the taxpayer.
Beyond 2021, Government remain committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the network and will work with Post Office Limited to achieve this.
It is crucial that running a post office is attractive and sustainable for postmasters, and they should be fairly remunerated for the services they provide. Post Office Limited’s successful renegotiation of the banking framework with 28 high street banks, announced on 15 April, secured a significant increase in the overall fees they receive from the banks. As a result of this, they will double and, in some case, treble the rate that agents receive for processing deposits from October 2019. For example, in a main post office branch, postmasters will receive £8.16 for processing a £8,000 cash deposit, compared with the £3.12 they currently receive.
98% of the post office network is franchised and postmasters are vital to the delivery of the network. The remuneration for delivering post office services should be combined with a successful retail offer in order for postmasters to thrive in today’s competitive retail environment.
The Government have rightly moved with the times as many of us now prefer to access services online. Whilst this has an impact on the Post Office, we cannot ignore people’s desire to transact with Government digitally from the convenience of their own homes. However, we are also committed to ensuring that its services are accessible to all citizens and the post office network does and will continue to play a key role in this.
We are committed to working with Post Office Limited and our postmasters to develop the business and offer, in order to maintain the delivery of services that our constituents want and need, so that the Post Office remains at the heart of communities across the country.
[HCWS1592]
Independent Panel Report on Post-18 Education and Funding
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Today I will provide a statement to the House, announcing that the independent panel, chaired by Philip Augar, set up to provide input to the post-18 review of education and funding has now published its report. The report is available in full on gov.uk and was laid as a Command Paper last week.
[HCWS1589]
Student Finance: EEA and Swiss Nationals
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
I am confirming that eligibility rules for students from the EEA and Switzerland, and their family members, who commence courses in England in the academic year starting in August 2020 will remain unchanged. EEA/Swiss nationals will remain eligible for home fee status, undergraduate, postgraduate and advanced learner financial support from Student Finance England for the duration of their course under the current eligibility rules. This will provide certainty to providers and their prospective students from the EEA and Switzerland.
This announcement also applies to funding for apprenticeships, advanced learner loans and further education 19-plus.
EEA and Swiss students and staff make an important contribution to our universities and it is testament to our system that so many students from abroad choose to come and study here.
[HCWS1593]
Interim NHS People Plan
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
Today I am depositing in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the interim people plan, which sets out the steps the NHS will take to ensure the health system has the people, culture and leadership it needs to deliver the long term plan.
The interim people plan has been developed by Baroness Harding, the Chair of NHS Improvement, in partnership with front-line staff, NHS employers and representative organisations including trades unions and royal colleges. The plan takes an unflinching look at the challenges facing people working across the NHS and, importantly, for the first time considers what action employers and NHS leaders need to take to make the NHS a great place to work. In future, careers in the NHS will better reflect the different lives, aspirations and expectations of those who choose to work in it.
In addition to the action the NHS will take to ensure the NHS is a great place to work, the interim people plan also sets out a number of practical steps the NHS will take now to increase the supply of clinical staff. A consultation is planned exploring proposals to introduce greater pension flexibility, which are designed to address disincentives that may encourage senior clinicians to limit or reduce their workloads whilst participating in the NHS pension scheme. A final people plan will be published soon after the conclusion of the spending review.
[HCWS1587]
False and Authentic Documents Online System: Schengen Opt-out
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The Government have decided not to opt out of the draft regulation that establishes a new legislative basis for FADO and repeals joint action 98/700/JHA.
This is a continuing measure and the Government value the benefits of FADO. It is a very useful EU tool which helps us to validate identity and travel documents, primarily for border, immigration and wider law enforcement purposes. It is a database which contains detailed images of genuine travel and identity documents issued by EU member states and false documents encountered at the border and elsewhere.
We have always been a key contributor to the FADO database and the draft regulation will ensure the continuity and development of FADO. The FADO system itself will remain fundamentally unchanged.
Until the UK leaves the EU we remain a full member, and the Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s opt-out from EU legislation on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising the UK’s efforts to collaborate with EU on a security partnership once the UK leaves the EU.
[HCWS1588]
Justice Devolution to Greater Manchester: Refreshed Memorandum of Understanding
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
On 31 May the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), signed a refreshed memorandum of understanding (MoU) for justice devolution with Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).
This agreement replaces the current MoU, published in July 2016. It details the priority areas for the delivery of justice outcomes within GMCA. The commitments agreed between the Department (Ministry of Justice) and GMCA build on the previous agreement, recognise new challenges, and identify new opportunities for developing a broader, more integrated approach which improves outcomes and experiences for victims, witnesses, and offenders, as well as the communities and neighbourhoods in which they live.
The aim of the MoU is to increase local influence and improve partnership working to increase efficiencies and reduce reoffending. Delivery will take place within the context of the whole system approach to public services which is advocated by GMCA. The MoU fits with the Government’s priority to reduce reoffending and our 2017 manifesto commitment to further enhance the role of police and crime commissioners.
The areas covered in this refreshed MoU are youth justice, smarter justice, adult offender management and the victim’s journey. In summary:
Youth justice
With the aim of targeting resources where they can be most effective, the MoU focuses on adopting a preventive, problem-solving approach which puts the people in the right service at the right time. This includes establishing a local consortium to focus on resettlement from custody and prioritising specified cohorts in youth justice policy initiatives, including data sharing. The focus of this section aligns with the youth justice board (YJB) national standards which were published earlier this year.
Smarter justice
We will work towards greater family involvement to support compliance with regular judicial supervision. Along with GMCA we will develop inter-agency planning to increase confidence in community sentences and ensure pre-sentence reports identify vulnerable cohorts. There will also be work carried out to help identify where family-centred principles are best integrated at different points in the system.
Reforming adult offender management
We want to optimise the opportunities created through the new probation model to improve delivery within the context of Greater Manchester’s unified approach to public services. This will include a programme of work to support increased viability of community disposals and to co-design approaches to delivery of probation services that support place-based integration. We will also explore co-commissioning options through the Greater Manchester reform investment fund.
The victim’s journey
We will work with GMCA as they seek to improve services for victims to provide a seamless service by using innovative approaches, including digital path- ways, jointly evaluating the effectiveness of nationally commissioned services for victims, agreeing a programme to develop stronger links and ways of working at local level for the benefit of witnesses in GM and working to understand the impact of the criminal injuries compensation scheme on victims of terrorism.
This summary covers the main commitments of the MoU. It is available in full at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/moj-gmca-memorandum-of-understanding-for-justice-devolution. Work will begin now to ensure we jointly deliver these commitments.
[HCWS1591]
Grand Committee
Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 4th June 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 View all Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 175-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF) - (31 May 2019)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as my script says—although I shall go off script in a minute—if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which I venture to say is extremely unlikely, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1: Amendment of the Census Act 1920
Amendment 1
Baroness Barker
“( ) In section 3 (regulations with respect to proceedings for taking census), after subsection (1)(f) insert —“(fa) providing guidance on how the particulars relating to sex and gender identity should be answered, including —(i) whether this should be on the basis of self-identification;(ii) how intersex and non-binary people are expected to address these questions; and(iii) whether gender confirmation surgery or a legal gender recognition process is required.””
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is good to be back on this small but none the less important Bill. After Second Reading, I found myself reflecting on the importance of the census. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said about the fact that these days there are many more sources of data that the Government can call on to establish various aspects of citizens’ identities. She, largely I think on economic grounds, questioned whether there needed to be a census at all. That is a legitimate debate to have, and no doubt we will have it at some later stage. However, from talking to people who watched our debate, there is agreement that the simple process of the Government engaging in an exercise to establish information about their citizens is in itself important. It is an aspect and example of citizenship that has quite a lot of meaning for individuals. However we may come to do this in future, and in whatever mode, for the moment it is important to recognise that, for all citizens, having the right to engage in a meaningful exercise of registering the details of one’s existence with the state is important. That is why, for the very small group of people we are talking about today, it is important to take great care.
In the Bill we are primarily talking about making whether one registers one’s gender identity voluntary and making sure that anyone who wishes not to do so will not face a penalty, as they would for failing to answer mandatory parts of the census. However, we are going into this new area for the census of questioning people about their gender identity, which is a sensitive matter, so we need to do so with great care.
The purpose of the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire is, in essence, to get to the heart of what is important about the Bill—not the legislation but the guidance that will accompany it and will inform or assist people when they make their return. I should tell the Minister at this stage that I have no intention of pressing my amendment, the purpose of which is to enable us to clarify one or two points on which there may not have been sufficient understanding from our debate at Second Reading.
The first thing I want to establish is whether the question asking a person to say what their sex is will remain binary, as it has been since 1801, and whether it will be the case in 2021—as it has been for the two censuses in the past 20 years, if not before—that people answer on the basis of their lived identity: that which they present to the world. I have to say that I hope that is the case. If not, and we go for a far more limited definition, we run the risk of requiring people to give answers that would contradict those given in good faith in the censuses of 10 or 20 years ago because they have changed their gender and recognise their new gender. If we were to require them to go back to an earlier iteration of their existence, we would confuse the matter. Can the Minister confirm these things?
As I have just demonstrated that these are enormously complicated matters in practice, the second thing to ask is whether the officials testing the questions on sex and gender identity—who have, I believe, consulted civil servants in Scotland engaged in a parallel exercise—might engage quite widely with a number of different groups who have been working on these sorts of issues for some considerable time. There are questions for officials about what they have discovered during the extensive testing already done, and perhaps about the further testing that will need to be done leading up to 2021. That is the basis of my amendment; I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I have very little to add. I concur absolutely and reinforce the importance of the census, not just as a purely numerical thing but as rather more. I am sure the Minister will not have heeded too much the pleas of one of his predecessors, the noble Lord, Lord Maude, or the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. We should question whether we have this.
As was clear at Second Reading, we support the census and the initiative in this Bill. However, everyone agrees—this is not new—that it will be key for it to be done correctly with everyone’s confidence, particularly the populations who will now be able to answer questions deeply relevant to them. I also think it means that there should be no surprises when the census appears, either for the relevant groups, for whom this will be a welcome move forward, or for the rest of the form-fillers. There should be no surprise—or, if you like, antagonism—and I do not think there will be from the non-involved groups when these questions appear.
While we need to have the questions tested on those with a particular interest in answering them, we also need to test that they are understandable to those to whom they do not particularly apply. I am sure that the consultation on the questions will take account of this so that even those not interested in answering these questions will understand why they are there. We should not confuse people so we need to test the questions with all those who will fill in the forms.
My second point goes beyond my amendment in this group. We need to make sure that we see a very high completion rate of the census as a whole as well as on these additional questions. A lot of good PR will be needed to achieve that. Explanations and preparations need to be made well before the census form arrives, whether online or through people’s letterboxes. While I realise that this is beyond the scope of the amendment before the Committee, it would be useful if the Minister could say a little about the publicity covering the questions once they have been agreed.
I want to raise only one other point, perhaps a little cheekily because again it is not part of the amendment. At Second Reading we asked about the additional question on military service. Is there any update on how the consultation on that issue is taking place?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Hayter, for their amendments. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about the census. It is an important civic event and we recognise it as exactly that. The amendments relate to the guidance on how census questions on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity should be answered. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that we need to approach this matter with sensitivity, and I think we have done so.
Before we turn to the detail of the amendments, perhaps I may clarify a point regarding the questions for Armed Forces veterans, a point just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out the difference between a note circulated by the Royal British Legion and the proposal in the White Paper on the Armed Forces question. I said that the ONS will consult the Royal British Legion and others on the detailed question or questions. I can confirm that they have indeed been consulted during the preparation of the ONS proposals for the Armed Forces question. The RBL has confirmed that it is content with the question and the guidance proposed. It accepts that as the census is a household questionnaire, it can capture only dependants who actually live with a veteran.
Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to clarify a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, at Second Reading on the guidance to accompany completing the sex question in the next census, an issue that she has raised again today. The guidance accompanying the 2021 census is already in development. I can confirm that draft guidance for the sex question makes it clear that people do not need to answer according to the sex on their birth certificate, and that that is case whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate. This is consistent with the guidance that accompanied the 2011 census. The draft guidance for 2021 states that you can fill in whatever you prefer. I hope that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the reassurance she seeks on the question she posed. I have written to her to clarify the point and copies of the letter are available in the Library. I have also had the pleasure of meeting the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to discuss the issues. The proposed guidance for the sex, sexual orientation and gender identity questions has been shared with those noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the importance of intelligibility. These questions must be understood by everyone. There are four key guiding factors in the terminology that the ONS is using. First, the census form must be understood by the whole of the usual resident population. Secondly, it must be inclusive of the whole of the population of interest; that is, those whose gender is different from the sex they were registered with at birth. Thirdly, it should be publicly acceptable to the whole of the usual resident population. Finally, it should allow individuals to identify as they wish and should not be limited by overarching terminology.
I turn to the probing amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Hayter. As I have just set out, the proposed guidance is already in development. This House need not wait for the Act to be passed to consider this guidance, and it can be assured that we are consulting on it. I can confirm that the ONS is in the process of sharing the proposed guidance for the sex, sexual orientation and gender identity questions with interested parties, including LGBT, equality and women’s groups. These include Stonewall, the Equality and Diversity Forum, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In all, the ONS is consulting with over 50 organisations. The Scottish Trans Alliance is among these organisations and I can confirm, further to my meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that officials from the ONS have held a constructive meeting with it to discuss the research informing the questions, design and guidance. I know that officials will be happy to continue that dialogue to answer any further questions they may have. Of course, the views of noble Lords as the Bill passes through this House will also be taken on board. The ONS has offered to host dedicated sessions for noble Lords to discuss the guidance.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that—does he wish to add a further point?
Lord Young of Cookham
I have received some in-flight refuelling about the pertinent question the noble Baroness asked about the campaign and publicity. She is absolutely right that we have to inform people about what is happening. The ONS will undertake a national campaign as well as local campaigns. It has been working closely with the GEO on the campaigns and it will also work closely with local authorities and the third sector to reach out to all communities to help them fill in the census and to identify as they like.
Baroness Barker
I thank the Minister for that; it is extremely helpful. It reflects, albeit in a condensed form, a longer and rather more detailed conversation that we had about these matters.
I stress that this is not only an important matter of civic engagement. As officials from the ONS have been at pains to point out to us in briefings, this is an opportunity to gather data not otherwise available. Therefore, it is extremely important that the data gathered is as true, full and inclusive as possible. Apart from anything else, this data will inform public policy for decades to come. It is therefore important that we enable people. The people I have talked to often struggle to know how to fill in a form. They wish to fill in forms honestly but they struggle to do so, because it is not always clear. Therefore the more that can be done to include people, the better. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that it is important that, in seeking to make this as good as it can possibly be for a minority population, we do not end up confusing everyone else as well. That is not the intention. I welcome the offer to look at this in greater detail over the summer and the autumn as the census rehearsal happens—what an exciting prospect that is.
This is an important matter for us all. I thank the Minister very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judge
“( ) In section 8 (penalties), after subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) A person does not commit an offence if that person does not state any particulars with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity.””
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, these are simple amendments directed to an issue of principle. The issue is very simple. It is a criminal offence to fail or refuse or neglect to complete the census form—note “to complete it”: that is, to answer every question. Over the years, it has come to be accepted that some of the answers should not be matters of obligation—in particular, in 2000, providing answers to a question relating to matters of conscience such as religion; or, now, in the current Bill, sexual orientation and gender identity, matters which are obviously intensely personal. The reasons are obvious and I support them.
It is plainly the intention of the legislation that each individual responding to the census will have a choice on these questions: you may choose to answer or you may not. If you choose not to answer, you will, in the words of the legislation, not,
“be liable to a penalty”.
Even if you are prosecuted, no penalty could be imposed: you would get an absolute discharge.
What, then, is the problem? Why am I making a fuss? I am making it in the company of the Constitution Committee, of which I have the privilege to be a member, which expressed its concerns in one of those very short, simple letters. In summary, it comes to this: because no legislative provision expressly decriminalises the choice not to answer, the Bill should be amended explicitly to state that such a failure is not a crime.
By letter dated 31 May, the Minister gave a very considered, lengthy reply to a very short letter. My experience is that, on the whole, those with the best points write short letters. However, ignoring that general experience, which may not be true here, I have discovered from the letter that, based on a starting point for the legislation in 2000 relating to religion—dare I point out, before we had a Constitution Committee?—the promoters of the Bill confused, conflated or perhaps simply failed to understand that the removal of the risk of a penalty meant that answering or not those questions was voluntary, and therefore there was no criminalisation. They confused crime and penalty. They are distinct concepts. Normally, the conviction comes and the penalty follows. What we have done—what is proposed here and was proposed and carried in 2000—is to wipe out the penalty but leave the crime. At the very least, it is arguable—I would say strongly arguable—that what we have now, and will continue to have without the amendments, is a crime of not answering the question but no penalty for choosing not to do so. That does not seem very sensible.
It is obvious that the Bill’s objective to decriminalise any such failure. That is the point of it and why it is supported. Why is conduct that carries no penalty and is not intended to represent even minute contravention of the criminal law allowed to disfigure it by remaining on the statute book? I respectfully suggest that that is wrong in principle. The Bill should be amended expressly to decriminalise any such conduct and any necessary amendments in relation to questions about religion in the 2000 Act made subject to identical amendments within the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendments.
It is not an answer that the Crown Prosecution Service would not prosecute. It is not an answer that if the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted and someone were convicted, no penalty would be imposed by the court. I mention that in this context. We hear rather a lot about private prosecutions these days. If there were a private prosecution—I know that this is hyperbole; there would not be, but let us examine this as a matter of principle—the court would no doubt have in mind that on conviction there would inevitably have to be an order for absolute discharge. Of course it would. The court might rage in the way that old judges did but do not any more because they are much more polite than they used to be. It might rage against the absurdity of any such prosecution, but I respectfully suggest that it could not as a matter of certain law say that the failure to answer the question did not constitute a criminal offence. We really cannot have that situation; there must be certain law about this. We must do better and decriminalise a failure to answer such questions. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. I apologise to the Committee that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, but the discussions in the Constitution Committee, of which I am also a member, have brought to light the seriousness of this problem within what is otherwise a highly commendable and necessary Bill. I am afraid that I have form on this subject: on 25 March 1975, I moved an amendment to the census order—it was possible to move amendments to those statutory instruments unlike to almost all others—precisely to assert the principle that, so far as the procedure allowed in that case, the state should not turn people into criminals because they had some good conscientious reason for declining to answer questions in such areas as were not fundamental to the state knowing where its population was, how many people there were and in what kind of properties they lived.
I remain of the view that it is undesirable for the state to extend its reach by way of criminal offences that put people in that position. As my noble friend did in the context of the previous debate, I hope that the guidance and what is said to people by those who hand out and collect census forms will assist in reassuring them, but, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the Constitution Committee, I believe we are legislating unsatisfactorily. The primary reason for doing so given by the Minister in his careful and lengthy letter was that, unless we made certain further provisions to tidy up other legislation, we might create a degree of ambiguity. I found that unconvincing; I do not think any court would be in any doubt as to what Parliament had intended if it phrased this part of the legislation so as to make it quite clear that it was not creating or continuing a criminal offence of failing to answer questions relating to sexual identity and gender.
Everybody seems to agree with what we are trying to do. Let us for heaven’s sake do it in a way that makes our legislation both sensible and not threatening to individuals who perhaps do not view these matters in the detail that we have been required to do today.
Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as one would expect, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has made an extraordinarily powerful case. I really think that the Minister, as well as restating his case, which is wide of these amendments, is obliged to expand on “why not”, preferably in words a normal person could understand and that are not deep in a complicated letter.
All sorts of people may come to us during the census period and ask, “What’s my legal position if I don’t want to fill this in?” Does everybody feel confident, having heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that they could readily explain the situation to those who came in and saw them? Can they readily show that those people would understand immediately that, although they may be committing a criminal offence—though not one to which any penalty attaches—it would be perfectly all right and no future employer would ever hear about it? I am not trying here to construct a legal case, because I am not a lawyer; I am trying to reflect the reality that may exist if the Bill goes through without the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and apologise for being unable to speak at Second Reading. As we have said, this is a very sensitive issue. This is about people making very sensitive decisions about whether to put something on an official form that will be used by the Government. When people come to express their sexuality or gender identity, the threat of it being a potential criminal act could sway people on whether they answer that question.
I want to talk about the context of how the census will be filled in. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, says, if there is ambiguity—if people do not understand the difference between a criminal offence and a penalty—there could be a social media campaign, maybe by a group that, for genuine reasons, does not want people of a particular gender identity or sexual orientation to be seen to be breaking the law. There could be a social media campaign to prevent people openly and honestly answering this question because it is perceived to be breaking the law, and people do not wish to break the law. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I am not a lawyer, but I am somebody who understands the sensitivity of this particular question and the questions that will be posed. Any ambiguity or overarching threat that this is breaking the law, even though there is no penalty, will be counterproductive. Therefore when the Minister answers, could he do so in a way that is very clear to the ordinary man or woman in the street who will be filling in the form? Will he clearly state why it does not create ambiguity and a potential threat to answering this question openly?
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I have a very simple point to make. On a constitutional principle, something as important as this should be in the Bill. It will not be sufficient for it to appear in guidance, in the autumn or thereafter. If it is not in the Bill, any explanation or qualification that may result from the ONS rehearsal if this turns out to be an important issue will not be satisfactory. Something as important as this should be in the Bill. I therefore strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, talk of crime and penalty; I expected him to talk about crime and punishment—the more commonly used word.
I have two points. The secondary one is that, hearing this, I have a slight worry about the issue I raised before, about military service. Albeit that it is not in here, it is nagging at me. It is possible that some people would not want to declare that they had served in the military. I know we have not exempted that in the Bill. It does not come under the voluntary category. It will be added, and will be a compulsory question. There is something vaguely nagging at me. Maybe this is not the point at which to raise it, but perhaps a letter could be sent about what consideration was given to why that was not an area where people could choose not to declare. It is not just about old cases from Northern Ireland; there may be other reasons. I have a slight nag about that distinction, which I raised at Second Reading.
I hope that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, does not get a satisfactory answer on this issue, he will bring it back on Report. It is something we would want to support. When I walked into the room, I thought this would take just a second and assumed that the Government would accept this. Not having seen the letter, I was absolutely astonished to hear that they were not. I hope there will be a change of heart by the Government and, if not, that the amendment will be brought back on Report.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, let me try to deal with the very serious issues raised by the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, has trumped my Second Reading story of having moved the 1981 census order by going back to 1975.
I take very seriously any amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He will not remember this, but two years ago we crossed swords on the Higher Education and Research Bill, when he tabled an amendment which it fell to me to answer. It was on a legal matter, so it was a home game for him and an away game for me. I gave what I thought was a very considered, detailed and lengthy response to his amendment. I just looked up what he said in response:
“My Lords, we have just heard an utterly reasonable argument but, with great respect, it is wrong”.—[Official Report, 8/3/17; col. 1419.]
With a judicial flick of the wrist, in a few sentences, my argument was disposed of; a Division was called and the Government lost. Therefore, I take this amendment very seriously and I hope to set out the reasons why we have real difficulty in accepting it.
The two amendments insert two new subsections after Clauses 1(3) and 2(3), seeking to clarify that omitting to provide particulars concerning sexual orientation or gender identity is not an offence. Amendment 2 applies to England and Wales and Amendment 3 to Northern Ireland. A similar amendment was debated in another place during the passage of the Census (Amendment) Act 2000, which noble Lords may recall added the possibility of asking a question on religion to the census Act in England and Wales, and removed the penalty for non-response. That amendment was rejected, following reassurances from the promoters of the Bill, and I hope to provide similar reassurances to noble Lords today.
The short point is that the current drafting already achieves what these amendments aim to do. Unlike the amendments, they do so in a way consistent with the existing law. By removing the penalty attached to a failure to answer, the clear parliamentary intention is to remove the criminal offence. This reassurance was given in 2000, and I give it again today. “No person shall be liable to a penalty” is tried-and-tested legislative language. It was used in the National Insurance Act 1911 and the National Health Insurance Acts 1924 and 1936. It was used in the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 in respect of religion. Most recently, it was used by this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament in the Census (Amendment) Act 2000. Its meaning is clear.
I shall quote what is in the letter, which some noble Lords may not have seen. It is an extract from Hansard by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, speaking on behalf of the Government against the amendment similar to the one we are debating now. It says:
“I can assure the House that the legal opinion that my officials have taken on this matter confirms the view … that the removal of the penalty for anyone failing to provide particulars on religion makes the census question on religion voluntary, as only the criminal sanction in section 8 of the 1920 Act makes it statutory to comply with the census in the first place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/00; cols. 1150.]
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I am not aware that there is any doubt in the public’s mind at the moment, since the 2001 or 2011 census, about the status of the voluntary nature of answering those questions.
I will go on to some other reasons why we have real difficulty with the amendments. They would—inadvertently—land a pebble in what we regard as clear water. They are limited to the questions on gender identity and sexual orientation, as required by the scope of the Bill. However, the effects would go far and wide. They would imply that where the law removes the penalty alone, the intention is to leave in place the offence. That would cast doubt on what was previously clear. In this way, they would risk the voluntary nature of the religion question being called into question, both now and historically. They would entail the same risk for the Scottish census. This risk would extend to other law, historical and current, which uses the same language.
I am grateful for the close and proper attention to and scrutiny of this measure by the House, particularly the Constitution Committee. It is right that we ensure that the law is clear and coherent, and that the public are clear, as the noble Baroness said, that in refusing or neglecting to answer questions on sexual orientation or gender identity they will not be committing an offence. The Bill, consistent with the Northern Ireland Parliament’s approach in 1969, and the approach of this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament in 2000, achieves that.
If the noble and learned Lord has doubts, I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with relevant officials and other noble Lords between now and Report, to see if we can find a way through, given the narrow scope of the Bill and therefore the limitation in impact of any amendment such as the one we are debating. Against that background, and in good faith, I hope the noble and learned Lord feels able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Judge
I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken, and to the Minister—I sometimes think of him as a sort of ministerial Hercules. Getting this right is not a Herculean task, and I should certainly welcome the opportunity to talk to him about it. I shall withdraw the amendment for the time being, on a wait-and-see basis.
House of Lords
Deaths of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, and of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Blackburn, both on 29 May. On behalf of the House, I extend our sincere condolences to the noble Lords’ families and their friends.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Ouseley
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should also like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 24 May, of the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to this House.
Housing: Social Rent
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of new homes built for social rent.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, in October 2017 we announced £2 billion towards the now £9 billion affordable housing programme, which will support the delivery of at least 12,500 social rent homes in areas of high affordability outside London. We have also removed the HRA borrowing caps for local authorities, announced a further £2 billion of long-term funding for housing associations, and are setting a long-term rent deal for councils in England from 2020. It is now for housing associations and local authorities to accelerate delivery and build more homes.
Lord Shipley
I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that there is a difference between affordable and social housing. He will also be aware that this year marks the centenary of the housing Act 1919, which created council and social housing. Given the scale of homelessness today, and given that waiting lists for social housing stand at over a million households, does the Minister accept that a new generation of social housing is required, rather than just a few thousand new homes a year?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that there is a challenge. We have just had the best year of housing delivery for 30 years, bar one year, but that is not to be complacent. There is certainly a challenge; I accept that we need to build more social homes. The raising of the £2 billion budget will certainly help in that regard, as will the elimination of the HRA borrowing caps.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the Affordable Housing Commission, which I have the honour of chairing, has been looking at issues around affordability. Our evidence clearly demonstrates that rents, not just in the private sector but increasingly in the social sector, are leading people into all kinds of serious difficulties, such as debt, arrears, personal problems and indeed homelessness. Does the Minister agree—with the CSJ, the housing commission, Shelter and so many others—that we need more social housing but at genuinely affordable rents, which are less than the rents that housing associations are required to charge today, otherwise this will cost the Government greatly in housing benefit, homelessness, temporary accommodation and, indeed, the misery of the people affected?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as always, the noble Lord makes a powerful point and speaks from great experience. He is right that the current welfare budget, excluding pensions, is £119 billion per annum—a large amount. We have to be conscious of the link between housing and welfare, so I take the point. However, I am sure he will appreciate that the affordability measure enables us to provide more housing. It is about getting that balance right.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, is it not encouraging that shared purchase, as a concept and now as a practical arrangement, is increasing? Are the new figures for council housing, which my noble friend has mentioned, not equally encouraging? But what exactly is happening with garden towns? They are the catalyst that could help part of the problem in our great urban areas. The new towns projects—and I had the privilege of sitting for a new town—were highly successful in moving people out of conurbations so that those who had to stay could move into the vacated homes.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there are encouraging features, and about the garden towns concept. I am conscious that I owe him a letter; I checked just before leaving and it should be with him tomorrow. It is right to say that this is the successor to the new towns programme. There are many exciting features, not least the Oxford-Cambridge arc, which we will appoint a business manager to oversee. It should provide many of the homes that we need for the future.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that, in recent years, local authorities have spent over £1 billion on temporary accommodation over three or four years. He talked about getting the balance right; surely this is not getting the balance right. That amount of money is going on accommodation which will not last, and children in those families will suffer hugely: their education and home life will be damaged. This is a matter of real urgency. The Government’s programme is not sufficient in the funding being made available to local authorities and housing associations to solve the problem of social housing.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I have already acknowledged that it is important to deal with this issue. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the Homelessness Reduction Act has resulted in a lowering of the number of people who are homeless. It is difficult to make the comparison with the statistics, but the evidence tends to suggest that. Yes, there is work to be done, not least on the provision of homes at social rent. As I have indicated, that is something we are determined to do.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Does my noble friend envisage that the solution to the need for social housing would be met by nationalising all available building land throughout the country, including presumably land owned by charitable trusts, Church Commissioners and others?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I think my noble friend is referring to the policy initiative of the leader of the Opposition, and I tend to agree that that will not help solve the problem. We are intent on getting the balance right and ensuring that, in tenancies, there are the right measures to deal with disreputable landlords. However, the compulsory purchase of people’s property is not the way forward.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. How many homes for social rent have been lost since 2015 by the conversion to the affordable rent model?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I do not have that specific figure to hand, but I will write to the noble Lord with it. As I have indicated, it is important that we build more homes for social rent, and we are intent on doing that outside London. Within London, there will be provision of affordable homes at the level of social rents; that is part of the programme and we are delivering that with the Greater London Authority.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government’s own social rent policy is a key component in creating a sustainable funding model for building social housing? As this policy is due for review in 2021, will the Government take this opportunity to provide renters, housing providers and investors, including councils, with some clarity, predictability and stability in this market, which at the moment they do not feel they have?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness said that. As I indicated, we removed the HRA borrowing cap, which was a substantial barrier to provision of housing at social rent, as was acknowledged across the board. It has been widely welcomed, not least by her own party, and will make a real difference. I am not sure what additional clarity she is referring to, but I am happy to meet her separately if it is helpful.
Creative Industries: Apprenticeship Levy
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that Apprenticeship Levy contributions from creative industries companies are invested in creative industries skills development.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
On behalf of my noble friend Lady Bonham- Carter of Yarnbury and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the apprenticeship levy is helping employers in all sectors to make sustainable investment in the skills that they need to grow and is driving up the quality of apprenticeships. We have acted on feedback from employers in our world-leading creative industries about how they can realise the benefits of apprenticeships. That is why this year, we introduced additional flexibilities in how the levy can be used and continue to support employers in building their programmes.
Lord Foster of Bath
I thank the Minister for the response, but it is widely accepted that for the creative industries, the apprenticeship levy is simply not fit for purpose. New figures now show that unless still greater flexibilities are built in, nearly half of the creative industries’ levy money will go unused. Why cannot levy-paying employers give even more of their unspent levy funds to apprenticeship training agencies or for other training purposes? Why can we not introduce an Open University-style credit scheme to help the many would-be creative industry apprentices who cannot meet the current minimum 12-month employment rule?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord alluded to the fact that we have raised the transfer percentage rate from 10% to 25%, and we believe that that is the right approach. Much work is being done regarding the creative industries. For example, the focus, as the noble Lord will know, is on standards rather than frameworks. We have already developed and put through 26 standards in the creative sector, with another 16 on the go. I recognise that the creative sector is more of a challenge, in that it is quite disparate, being made up of a number of small businesses, partnerships and single people working in that sector.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not clear that the Government do not understand the creative industries? Is it not about time that they set up a Joint Committee of all the departments of government to work with the creative industries to actually help rather than hinder them?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I completely disagree with the noble Lord—we are engaged with the creative industries to understand their needs. We hear directly from the sector that it is more of a challenge because, as the noble Lord will know, it is taking on apprentices from a standing start. As I said, many people are employed freelance, so there are greater challenges. But one thing that came out of our discussions with the sector is to ask apprenticeship training agencies to employ trainees. That is quite innovative. We are taking that forward and of course, it has to be monitored by the Institute for Apprenticeships.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, 50% of the apprenticeship levy money is not actually spent, but the position cannot be clarified because there is no transparency in the way that the industry’s sectors are broken down. Can the Minister tell us how the levies are spent and break that down by employment sector?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, I can. I will need to write to the noble Viscount to give him the detail on the last part of his question, but the indications are that the change from 10% to 25% has led to some movement. Employers are realising that there is greater flexibility in the system and they are indeed beginning to consider passing funds on, particularly to their supply chains. It makes sense to benefit their sector in terms of taking on more apprentices.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend think that there is sufficient recognition of the time it takes for an apprentice carver or woodworker—the sort of person who works on Lincoln cathedral—to reach real proficiency? What recognition is there in the Government’s policy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We absolutely want to take account of roles such as masons, so there are different flexibilities in the apprenticeship programme. There are the one-year and three-year schemes and 20% off-the-job training, so they get to a really good standard of apprenticeship when they come out.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that last year Peter Bazalgette led a review on how best to frame the apprentice levy to drive the creative sector. In an Answer to my noble friend Lord Foster, the Minister undertook to read that report and perhaps take some lessons from it. Now, nearly a year on, will the Minister tell us what lessons were learned by his department from the Bazalgette report and what it is doing differently now from what it was doing nearly a year ago?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
There is a lot more that we are doing for the creative industries regarding the apprenticeship scheme. For example, we are working very closely with industry bodies such as the Creative Industries Council, Creative & Cultural Skills and ScreenSkills, so on the back of the Bazalgette report we are looking in greater detail at what more we can do in this important sector for the UK.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, despite what the Minister said, the Government have raised the transfer rate. According to ScreenSkills, the skills body for the screen-based part of the creative industries sector, a total of £55 million a year in creative apprentice levy payments is wasted because two-thirds of levy payers in the sector are able to use only 20% of the funds, for the reasons already outlined by noble Lords. One means of clearing that blockage would be to introduce new flexibilities which would allow employers to pool vouchers and share apprenticeships through a specialist apprentice training agency. Will the Minister agree to press the Skills Minister to meet urgently with creative sector companies to find out how that can be achieved?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, I have heard about that scheme, and as the noble Lord has raised the issue I will certainly do what he has asked and take it back to the Skills Minister.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, it is very worrying that much of this levy is not being spent. Does the Minister believe that some of the viable suggestions that the industry, including ScreenSkills, has made need to be acted upon quickly, otherwise this money will be lost from the system? It is an incredible waste in a sector that is crying out for skilled workers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It is important to say that a lot of work is being done in marketing apprenticeships. For example, we had National Apprenticeship Week in March, which generated more than 25,000 visits to the GOV.UK page. My point is that there is every opportunity for employers to take up the levy that is unspent.
Bus Services
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage more people to use bus services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, using buses can lead to less congestion, greater productivity and more connected communities. We are pioneering technology such as the bus open data digital service which will give passengers the information they need to catch a bus with confidence. The Bus Services Act 2017 also enables enhanced partnerships for buses. This means that local authorities and the bus operators in their area can work together to improve services.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, local authority funding cuts mean that they can no longer afford to subsidise many services, so we need to encourage more people to use the buses to make them commercially viable. Does the Minister agree that since young people now have to stay in school, education or training until the age of 18, it is grossly unfair to expect them to pay full fare as they have to in many areas from the age of 16? Does she agree that a nationwide scheme of concessionary fares up to and, hopefully, beyond the age of 18 would help to encourage young people to use the buses?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I have some good news for the noble Baroness. More than 50% of people use the bus twice or more a year but young people aged 17 to 20 use buses at a much higher rate—nearly 70%. I also point out that 71 of 89 travel concession areas already offer discounted fares to young people through the operators. Other discounts are available from local authorities and, of course, it is up to them to offer discounts in their areas.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, is it not time that the Government recognised that the bus service in London, which is cheap, reliable and effective should be rolled out across the whole country? That means having fares comparable with London ones, rather than about four times more. That is what it needs—money. All this new technology is wonderful but unless there is some money for services around the rest of the country, we are not going to get the changes to emissions and the pollution reductions that the Minister has referred to.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the Government support public sector spending of £2.2 billion on buses—12% more in real terms than under the previous Labour Government. A significant amount of money is going into the buses. There is no one-size-fits-all solution—it cannot happen. For example, within the large conurbations metro mayors can now use the franchising opportunities, and Transport for Greater Manchester will be doing that. In other areas, enhanced partnerships, where the local authority works with the bus operators, work well. In rural areas, there is also an awful lot we can do and the Government are committing funding to help them support their local bus services.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, how accessible does my noble friend the Minister believe the UK bus service to be for wheelchair users in terms of audio and visual announcements? What will the new technologies do to increase this accessibility?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I pay tribute to my noble friend for his long-standing interest in this area. I am pleased to be able to say that the consultation into the provision of audio and visual services, which we undertook in the summer of 2018, will report soon. We will also set out the next steps for making the regulations and publishing the guidance that will make sure that these audio and visual services are available across the country.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, can the Minister expand on what she said about rural access? There is no point trying to encourage people to use buses where there are none. In parts of my diocese in the north of Yorkshire, to suggest that there may be increased funding or increased conversations does not change the fact that many people are isolated. Buses and transport need to be part of a holistic, integrated rural strategy that sees the various matters interconnected.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I completely agree with the right reverend Prelate when he talks about transport being integrated. So often we think about one particular sort of transport system and do not think about how it integrates into the rest of the community. Turning back to his point about rural communities, it is a big challenge where you have isolated communities and it is not commercially viable to operate regular services into them. However, the Government have allocated £43 million from the Bus Services Operators Grant to rural local authorities. A particularly interesting project is the total transport pilot. It looks at rural communities that often have coaches, which might serve schools or take people to non-emergency doctors’ appointments, to see how we might also use them to help people to get around. These pilots are coming to an end and we will report on them soon.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, one very good way of finding a lot of money for more bus services is to do what the Welsh Government have just done and scrap all road-building schemes. They have just scrapped the M4 expansion because of cost and environmental destruction. How about taking their example and investing more in our bus services?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I do not think that cancelling all road-building schemes would be beneficial to buses. One of the biggest barriers to entry for bus usage, which was identified by the Transport Select Committee is reliability, and reliability is a function of congestion. For example, the Government are investing £2 billion in the Transforming Cities Fund. What these funds are trying to do with the six metro mayors and other city regions is to ease congestion, put in bus prioritisation schemes and make sure that the buses connect with other forms of transport. Cutting road building would not be beneficial but there is money available for people to improve their local infrastructure.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
With eight areas in Wiltshire having breached harmful nitrogen dioxide levels, last week the Gazette and Herald local newspaper carried an editorial headed “More buses key to beating fumes”. It stated:
“Priority must be given to the pollution caused by heavy traffic”,
before concluding:
“A good start would be to ensure public transport is improved to such an extent that thousands upon thousands of private cars are left at home when they would otherwise have been belching fumes and contributing to an environmental disaster”.
In the light of the reduction by 46%, or £171 million, in spending by local authorities in England on supported bus services since 2010-11, with over 3,000 routes being reduced, altered or withdrawn largely as a result of the severe government squeeze on local authority finances, do the Government now agree with the Wiltshire Gazette and Herald editorial on the need to ensure that public transport is improved for environmental reasons?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I agree with the noble Lord that public transport needs to be improved for environmental reasons. That is why we need to take a cross-modal approach and look at all possible ways of improving it. He mentioned the environment, and we are cleaning up our bus services. Since 2010, we have committed £240 million to replace or upgrade buses—that is, 7,000 cleaner buses. At the moment, local authorities that have not succeeded in this have access to specific funds to make sure that they can get their dirty buses off the road and replace them with cleaner buses. Nowadays, nearly one in five buses is a low-emission vehicle.
Council Funding
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Institute for Fiscal Studies report English council funding: what’s happened and what’s next?, published on 29 May, what steps they are taking to provide additional resources to councils to enable them to (1) continue to provide, and (2) extend and improve, their existing services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting councils and recognise their efforts to deliver critical services for communities. The 2019-20 settlement confirmed that core spending power is forecast to increase in cash terms by 2.8%—a real-terms increase in resources. This allows councils to deliver the services that residents need. The upcoming spending review is the vehicle for agreeing funding from 2020-21 onwards for the sector, and the department’s preparations are well under way.
Lord Bird (CB)
I think that any of us going around most of our communities would agree that they are being hollowed out. If you look at what is happening with homelessness, libraries and youth services, you will see that there is a lot of feeling in the community that the Government are not standing behind local authorities, so I am sorry but I have to contradict what the Minister says. Any of us walking around will see what is happening. Is it possible that we could raise taxes so that we could give more money to the local authorities, or is it possible that we could give them the right to raise the money locally so that they could improve their communities? The way things are going, the hollowing out and the problems will carry on, and we will be the recipients of very bad anti-social behaviour.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord’s Question refers to the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which I have read. The authors of the report, Neil Amin-Smith and David Phillips, are fair in acknowledging some of the things that we have done with regard to local government spending—for example, they cite a 10% increase in children’s social services. But the noble Lord is right in that there has been a reduction in other areas. The report canvasses the possibility of a local income tax, but I do not think that that is the way forward, and nor does my party. However, I am sure that the noble Lord would want to acknowledge that there is much innovation. He referred to libraries—a subject which I know is close to his heart. In Warrington, for example, hubs provide library services with other services, which is an innovative way of improving the service. That has also happened in Leeds and in other areas. I think that that is the way forward.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I again refer the House to my relevant registered interest. Can the noble Lord tell the House why he thinks that so many councils are struggling to deliver services, one of the most serious examples being the difficulties faced by Northamptonshire County Council?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I readily acknowledge that there are challenges, but it is important to say that many facets indicate that things are improving. We know—the Chancellor has said—that we have ended austerity, and the comprehensive spending review is around the corner. It is also the case, as I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge, that the last settlement was a good settlement. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, acknowledged as much, and other people in other parties have done the same. Innovation is a way of improving services and so too are some central government grants for such things as the Future High Streets Fund, Stronger Towns funding and so on, which do not go through local government but directly to the towns concerned.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the most has been taken from the poorest communities. When you look around, you will see that the poorest communities have had the biggest cuts in their local services, whether local government or health. Why are the Government pursuing this?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would be the first to acknowledge that the fair funding formula is one way of addressing this to ensure that we get it right, so that local authorities with the greatest needs and challenges are properly funded. That is why we are progressing it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I refer Members to my registered interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Having watched the BBC programme on social care delivery in Somerset, in which both the providers and the carers were close to tears because of the inadequacy of the service they were able to provide through lack of resources, I wonder whether the Minister agrees that this is a shocking indictment of the state of funding of local government and that the Government have a desperate responsibility to put this right—and to put it right now.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I did not have the privilege of watching the programme to which the noble Baroness refers, but I have indicated the challenge we face on social care. She will acknowledge, I am sure, that £10 billion for the three-year period ending in 2020 has made a significant difference, but challenges still exist. I am sure she will also acknowledge that we have increased children’s social care spending beyond what it was in 2009. I am the first to agree that there are challenges, but I cannot comment specifically on Somerset as I did not see the programme.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Despite what the Minister has said, the IFS report says that cuts have been larger in more deprived areas than in more affluent areas. These are areas where local welfare assistance schemes to replace the national Social Fund are most needed, yet this ultimate safety net is being shredded and the Government say they have no responsibility. Will they now take responsibility, ensure that local authorities have a duty to provide such schemes, provide the funds for them to do so and ring-fence those funds?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, that was a pantechnicon of questions; any that I miss I will endeavour to cover in a separate letter to the noble Baroness. I am sure she would be the first to acknowledge that the IFS report is very balanced. There are certainly areas where it raises the issue of additional funding, including the possibility of local income tax. I am not sure of the noble Baroness’s position on that; my own, and that of my party, is that we do not think it would be a good idea. There are challenges on funding. Some will be met, I am sure, by increased spending via the comprehensive spending review; some can be met by innovation in delivery on which the IFS has commented favourably in the past; and some will no doubt by met by the direct funding which I have referred to such as the Stronger Towns Fund, the Future High Streets Fund and so on.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2019
(5 years, 5 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 30 April be approved.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, under this order, trials without a jury can take place in Northern Ireland for a further two years from 1 August 2019. The current provisions expire on 31 July. While this is the sixth such extension of these provisions, I hope to leave noble Lords in no doubt of the continued necessity of these provisions for another two years.
It is important to note that non-jury trial provisions are available only in exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland where a risk to the administration of justice is suspected by the Director of Public Prosecutions. This could be, for example, through jury tampering or due to jury bias. Non-jury trial provisions also protect against the risk of impairment to the administration of justice arising from a hostile or suspicious jury—a circumstance that is more likely to occur in Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK, with Northern Ireland’s unique security situation and troubled past.
Decisions for non-jury trials are made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances of both the offence and the defendant. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland must suspect that one or more of four conditions is met. The conditions are specified in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 and relate to association with proscribed organisations or offences connected with religious or political hostility. A case that falls within one of the four conditions will not automatically be tried without a jury. The DPP must also be satisfied that there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if a jury trial were to be held.
Let me be clear: this is not a Diplock court system. There is a clear distinction between this system and the pre-2007 Diplock court arrangements. The Diplock system saw a presumption that all scheduled offences would be tried by a single judge. Today in Northern Ireland there is a clear presumption that a jury trial will take place in all cases. At the peak of Diplock courts in the mid-1980s, there were more than 300 such cases per year. The peace process and ceasefires saw this figure fall to an average of 64 cases in the last five years of the Diplock system, leading to their end in 2007. By contrast, the average number of non-jury trials per year is less than a third of this. Non-jury trials are used only in exceptional circumstances; they are not Diplock courts. I assure noble Lords that the Government wish to end the exceptional system of non-jury trials as soon as it is no longer necessary, but this should happen only when circumstances allow: otherwise, we risk allowing violence, fear and intimidation to undermine the criminal justice process in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will be aware of the lethal threat still posed by terrorists in Northern Ireland. Violent dissident republican terrorist groups continue to plan and mount attacks with the principal aim of killing or maiming those who serve the public in all communities so bravely. Police officers, prison officers and members of the Armed Forces are the main focus of these attacks. Terrorists’ continued use of firearms, explosive devices and other weaponry continues to cause death and injury. Individuals linked to paramilitary organisations also continue to undermine the rule of law and the hard-won peace in Northern Ireland through the use of violence, fear and intimidation in both republican and loyalist communities.
While many attacks have been disrupted, the security situation today regrettably remains much the same as it was in 2017, when the provisions were last extended. The current threat level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism remains “severe”, meaning that an attack is highly likely. In fact, it has been set at “severe” for nearly 10 years. This year, in 2019, three national security attacks have occurred as a result of Northern Ireland’s terrorist activities. Although there has been a reduction in the overall number of national security attacks in recent years, vigilance in the face of the continuing threat remains essential.
Noble Lords will remember the car bomb in January that exploded outside the Londonderry courthouse. It was described by the PSNI as a relatively unsophisticated, crude device. Clearly, however, as noble Lords may have seen from CCTV imagery released at the time, it could easily have caused injuries or fatalities and was wholly indiscriminate. Noble Lords will also recall the postal packages that were sent to addresses in London and Glasgow. One detonated. Thankfully, no one was injured during these first two national security incidents.
No one will forget the tragedy in Creggan on 18 April, just seven weeks ago. Lyra McKee, a young journalist, lost her life standing behind a police line when a dissident republican gunman fired shots at police. The police had been in the area searching for firearms and explosives, doing their job trying to keep people safe. The sickening events that unfolded in Creggan remind us how volatile the security situation in Northern Ireland can be.
Noble Lords may have heard subsequently that the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service announced that every possible support, including witness anonymity, would be provided to those giving evidence as part of this murder case. This move highlights the fear and intimidation that exists in some communities in Northern Ireland. These are small, close-knit communities in which it is very easy for people to be identified. Violence, fear and intimidation are real concerns for the wider community because of the presence of violent dissident republican terrorists and paramilitary groups. A report commissioned by the Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) in March this year found that 29% of those living in mainly loyalist areas and 25% of those living in mainly republican areas think that paramilitaries create fear and intimidation, compared with 15% in Northern Ireland generally. This evidences a general fear of paramilitaries among people across Northern Ireland—but one that is exacerbated within certain communities.
We accept that having specifically designed non-jury trial provisions in Northern Ireland is not an ideal situation—but neither is the “severe” terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. We also accept that this is the sixth extension of what were designed to be temporary provisions. But the “severe” terrorist threat in Northern Ireland is a complex and enduring issue, and we must make sure that, for as long as it endures, it does not interfere with our ability to provide safe and effective justice.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I have considerable experience of jury trials, and of non-jury trials in other jurisdictions, and I know which I prefer. The jury trial is superior in efficiency and fairness, and, in particular, in maintaining public confidence in the system; but it is with a heavy heart that we accept the need for these provisions and we will not object to the order that is sought.
There is still a clear danger from small groups of dissidents, as we saw on 18 April with the tragic murder of Lyra McKee in the Creggan area of Derry, and last week in the placing of a bomb under a policeman’s car at a golf club in east Belfast. As Chief Constable George Hamilton said:
“Those who carried out this despicable attack have nothing to offer Northern Ireland but a return to the pain and suffering of the past”.
As the Minister has pointed out, the threat level remains at “severe”, where it has been for the last 10 years. Such actions make jury trials very difficult in a very small number of cases in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is a relatively small jurisdiction, but these actions reflect the fact that it is a divided society, despite the Good Friday agreement being signed 21 years ago, and paramilitary organisations are still active in many parts of Northern Ireland. Political motivations are no longer at the forefront. Paramilitary organisations have turned to crime, and they enforce discipline through violence and intimidation in those tight-knit communities. Any residents who informed on a member of a paramilitary organisation to the police would be at risk.
The independent reviewer, Mr David Seymour, cites figures from 2016 and 2017, which show that 197 offences—my Lords, I feel that I have to resume my place.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the need for this order arises from continuing paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. First, could my noble friend comment on the work being done by the Independent Reporting Commission—established by our Government in conjunction with the Republic’s Government in 2017—and its effectiveness? There was considerable debate in this House when the commission was under preparation. Its objective is,
“to monitor progress on tackling paramilitary activity”.
It would be useful to hear how this joint body set up by Dublin and London is getting on.
Secondly, could my noble friend comment on the panel set up by the Northern Ireland Executive? Its task is to provide a strategy for the disbandment of paramilitary groups. In view of the significance of paramilitary groups, a comment on the work of these two bodies would be useful.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister emphasised in his remarks a short time ago, this order is an indication of the ongoing situation which too often is visible in Northern Ireland. We are frequently told that we have moved on some acres, compared with the situation that many of us lived through in the Troubles. We are told that there is a great improvement in the security situation, but the realistic position, as we have been reminded all too often, is that incidents can occur which remind us that so much has not changed.
It is a great pity that this order is necessary and is, in fact, a legacy of the Troubles. I am sure the Minister will agree that it gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the judiciary in Northern Ireland: given the particular situation that we have had to contend with over the years, the pressure on individual members of the judiciary has been intense. It would be wrong if the opportunity were missed to pay tribute to that element of our society. I regret the absence from the Cross Benches, through no fault of his own, of my noble and learned friend Lord Carswell—my friend of many years and a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. He and I were students together many years ago and for a period we lectured together in the faculty of law in Belfast. I know that were he present today, he would welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to his colleagues of those years for the professional manner in which, with integrity and loyalty to the elements of the rule of law, they carried out their duties in the circumstances of Northern Ireland.
However, for those of us who were tasked with particular jobs during that period, it is worth asking certain questions about the need for this order. First, what criteria, exercised by whom, will come into play when it is found unnecessary to implement it? The Minister has rightly told us that the situation at the moment demands a continuation of this unique way of administering criminal justice but I am a little troubled by the assumptions that public speakers are wont to use. They say, “The situation continues”, or, “The problem exists”. It is easy to make bland assumptions, so can the Minister first tell the House a little more of the methodology that the Government will exercise to reach the point of deciding that an order of this nature is no longer necessary?
Secondly, in paying tribute to the judiciary, many of whom I have had the privilege of serving with in other capacities, I believe the demands made by such an order on the judiciary and the administration of justice—albeit in a limited number of cases—means that it questions so much of the jurisprudence of the administration of justice. Are we to be continually told that the situation continues to demand such exceptional measures? That is the reason for my question: what criteria will Her Majesty’s Government utilise when, please God, the time comes that this will be a thing of the past? Where exceptional methods are necessary in cases such as the administration of criminal justice, there is constant pressure on politicians to exercise the opportunities to create a level of peaceful coexistence in which to isolate those cases where this order, and others like it, are essential.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a debate on Northern Ireland, but I am moved to do so by the most eloquent expressions of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I have personal knowledge of the extent to which the judiciary in Northern Ireland have had to accept quite severe disruption to what we would regard as ordinary family life. It is right that this House recognises that, as the noble and right reverend Lord has done. Those of us who have practised in other jurisdictions have never had the misfortune to face the stresses which necessarily arise, particularly in the prosecution of cases which raise issues of the use of explosives or things of that manner.
In his introduction of this measure, my interest was aroused by the Minister’s reference to the comparison between jury and non-jury cases in relation to convictions. Is he able to provide a similar comparison in relation to appeals? It would be interesting to know how far the question of appeal was more or less reflected in the non-jury part of the system, rather than the part covered in the usual way by jury trial.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, in considering these proposals, I cannot but recall that we are standing on the eve of an anniversary: 75 years ago so many young men—and some women—from the Province of Ulster gave their blood, their lives and, in many cases, members of their family, to preserve the rule of law and the freedoms which we cherish so greatly. It is therefore noteworthy that the Minister implied—indeed, made explicit—that the measures before us are unfortunate and distasteful but necessary. I am no longer privy to the analysis which would suggest that that is the case, but I accept the point of view of the Minister and the Government on this.
Since we recognise the extraordinary and unfortunate nature of these proposals, it is therefore essential that not only will there be a regular review of this but that there will be a deep and meaningful study between each review. In the context of the very eloquent and pertinent words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, will the Minister tell us, in summing up, a little more of the detail of the oversight and review process and the criteria that the noble and right reverend Lord asked for by which such a judgment will be made? Ultimately, it will be made by the Government, but presumably they will give great weight to the recommendations of the independent reviewer. I think it would be helpful for everyone to know just how seriously that is taken, by understanding a little more about the process.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will join me in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, all the very best.
Recalling my first visit to Northern Ireland as a youngish shadow Minister 24 years ago, the situation was hugely different from what it is today. There were Diplock courts, of course, and juries before that had been severely intimidated by paramilitaries from both sides. Extreme sectarianism meant that that you were not guaranteed, in the proper sense of the word, a fair trial if that trial was to be held with a jury. As the Minister said, Northern Ireland is a very small place and it was even smaller, in population, in those days. We had to have these necessary evils: there had to be some system which meant that justice was fair and outside the realms of intimidation. It is also fair to say that between that time and 2007, when the Diplock courts went and the new system came in, we saw an enormous difference in Northern Ireland. The landscape changed considerably. Not least of this, of course, was that the nationalist and indeed the republican communities began to accept the criminal justice system and the police system, so that people from those communities sat on the Policing Board and involved themselves with the PSNI as well.
So there were huge changes. The Minister touched on the fact that in recent times—the last couple of years in fact—non-jury trials in Northern Ireland have become a tiny proportion of the whole. In 2016 there were only 12 non-jury trials out of 1,640. In 2017 it was nine out of 1,409. Those figures clearly indicate that there has been a huge shift in what happens in Northern Ireland. He is right, of course, to say that the security situation in Northern Ireland is still such that, at the end of the day, you cannot totally rule out a trial that would be unfair because of intimidation or extreme sectarianism. The points made by my noble friend Lord Reid and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, are very significant in terms of working out when we will actually see the complete end of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland.
Of course, in a general sense it is about security, and if the security situation improves to such an extent that they are unnecessary, then it will change by the next time we look at this legislation, in two years’ time. But we have to be a bit more scientific than that; as long as you have a system which is different from the rest of the United Kingdom—indeed, from the rest of Ireland—Parliament should be informed as to how and why it should continue, if it does. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how the oversight occurs and how this might eventually end.
The other issue is that, so long as there is political instability in Northern Ireland, the possibility of terrorist activity, which we have seen over the last couple of months and even in the last couple of weeks, fills the vacuum of political instability, albeit nothing like how it used to. But it is still there. In that context, I am sure the Minister can reassure the House that the talks in Northern Ireland are going well and that there is a possibility that the institutions might be brought back—bearing in mind that it is not long before the marching season and the holidays are upon us, which is always a reason why we cannot do things in Northern Ireland. The fact that there is political stability hopefully means at the end of the day that the dissident republican threat, if not evaporating, is certainly very much less and that, as a consequence, normalcy can come to Northern Ireland and all trials in Northern Ireland, where relevant, can be trials with a jury.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for recognising the need for this extension and that it is not the choice or preference of the Government to pursue this route. Were we in different circumstances, we would not be countenancing non-jury trials in Northern Ireland. But circumstances are different and we need to be cognisant of what those differences mean for the fairness of the trials themselves.
I too wish the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, a speedy return to the Chamber. He made the important point that paramilitarism, with which we are so familiar, has evolved. It has now become a gangsterism. It has moved from just being men wearing uniforms to being a corrosive element in so many communities in Northern Ireland. Many of these communities are close knit, and intimidation can be exercised in the most insidious and secretive of ways. That is why we need to recognise that a trial must be fair. In those circumstances, we must recognise that intimidation, tampering or any of the other means by which juries or witnesses can be affected must be taken into account in the exercise of justice.
I do not doubt for a moment—here I return to the comments made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames—that the judiciary in Northern Ireland has borne a significant burden. Those here who have practised law, especially those who have served on various judicial Benches, will recognise what a challenge that is. To do so in Northern Ireland is to embrace a different world, where traditional family life is disrupted on a daily basis. The fact that it exercises justice in an impartial way is to its credit, and the fact that it is willing to do so under what are sometimes the most perverse and difficult of situations is a tribute to it. I join the noble and right reverend Lord in paying tribute to it for the work it does and the duty it displays in the service of its country.
It is important to touch upon two key aspects that have come through in this debate. First, while accepting that there will be an extension for two more years, by what criteria will we ever be able to establish when we have moved beyond this moment in time? This is important; when I spoke to my officials this morning, that was the very issue about which I too was concerned. It is not enough to say, “When things get better” or wave your arms and say, “We will know when it is time”. There needs to be a suite of very clear criteria.
I can set out certain criteria to your Lordships today. Clearly, the warning about security in Northern Ireland is critical. That is based upon a whole series of assessments conducted by various organisations and bodies in Northern Ireland. That is quite a delicate thing to establish, because it is very easy to use the word “severe” but very difficult to then quantify how you got there. Clearly, we need to move to a situation in which the exercise of justice can be undertaken without threat. That can be done only when we reduce the various gradations down from “severe” until we reach the “normalcy”—the very word used by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy—of everyday life in Northern Ireland.
Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 April be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, consumers in the UK benefit from a high standard of food and feed safety and quality. The Government are committed to ensuring that this high standard is maintained when the UK leaves the European Union. This instrument is crucial to meeting our objective to continue to protect public health from risks that may arise in connection with the consumption of food.
This instrument, which concerns food and feed law, is made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary amendments to UK regulations. The UK’s priority is to ensure that the high standard of food and feed safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country is maintained when the UK leaves the European Union. The instrument will correct deficiencies in certain regulations to ensure that the UK is prepared in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
Amendments are limited to the necessary technical amendments to ensure that the legislation is operative on EU exit day. No policy changes are made through this instrument and we have no intention of making any at this point. While we continue preparations for an orderly withdrawal from the EU, it is the job of a responsible Government to prepare for all possible scenarios, including the potential outcome that we leave the EU without a deal. We are committed to ensuring that our legislation continues to function effectively and that public health remains protected in the event of no deal. It is for this scenario that this instrument has been laid.
This instrument will address a range of minor deficiencies in retained EU law relating to food and animal feed that have not been addressed in earlier instruments, and recent changes made to EU law that could not have been addressed in previous instruments. As in the case of previous statutory instruments recently presented to the House, I wish to make clear again that no policy changes are made through this instrument. It makes only the essential changes necessary to ensure we have an effective and fully operable statute book on exit day. Its primary purpose is to ensure that legislation continues to function effectively after exit day. These proposed amendments are critical to ensuring that there is minimal disruption to food controls in the event that we leave the EU without a deal.
This instrument also transfers powers to UK entities to support a UK regulatory regime. It will transfer responsibilities incumbent on the European Commission to Ministers in England, Wales, Scotland and the devolved authority in Northern Ireland. It also transfers responsibility for risk assessment from the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, to the food safety authorities, the FSA and FSS. They will continue to deliver independent, open, transparent and science and evidence-based advice. In addition, this instrument changes references to the import of food and feed into the EU to references to the import of food and feed into the United Kingdom. The contents of this instrument cover several policy areas, and I will address these specific areas.
The health mark for carcasses of certain animals—such as cattle, pigs and sheep—and the identification mark for all foods of animal origin will change once the UK has left the EU, with the letters “EC” no longer used. The Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 retain the requirement for the health and identification marks to contain either “UK” or “United Kingdom”. This instrument allows for the abbreviation “GB” to be used in the marks, as this is the International Organization for Standardization—ISO—two-letter country code for the United Kingdom.
The instrument also provides for a transitional period of 21 months after exit day during which UK food businesses can apply their current health and identification marks on carcasses and foods of animal origin respectively when placed on the UK domestic market. This transitional period will assist businesses by providing a smoother transition into the new requirements and permit them to use up existing labels and packaging.
The instrument also addresses deficiencies in retained EU law regarding trichinella testing requirements to ensure that these rules are fully enforceable, replacing references to EU institutions and bodies with appropriate UK bodies and authorities. EC regulation 2074/2005 is an EU tertiary implementing measure that provides certain technical and administrative refinements to the EU regulations for food products of animal origin. For example, it sets out specific rules on analytical methods and rules relating to fishery products used in the production of fish oil. The instrument will assign powers and responsibilities currently incumbent on EU entities to appropriate UK entities to ensure that this diverse regulation is fully operational. The model health certificates for imports of certain products of animal origin, such as fishery products, gelatin and collagen for human consumption, are amended so they can be used solely to import foods to the UK.
This instrument also amends the definition of “imports” within the existing legislation so that it is clear any new facilities approved by EU member states in the future would no longer be automatically approved for food imported into the UK. Without this instrument there could be a lack of clarity around the status of newly approved facilities. The instrument also includes provisions to set minimum charging rates for hygiene controls for fishery products by amending the Fishery Products (Official Controls Charges) (England) Regulations 2007. It updates provisions for these charges: for example, these rates are currently set in euros with an exchange rate to British pounds. It also updates the exchange rate from 2008, as it is now somewhat out of date and would not be in line with central DExEU and HMT guidance on amending outstanding references to euros. The current regulations are national and stipulate the necessary qualifications and experience required for an official control laboratory analyst in England. This instrument will not become completely inoperable on EU exit and can continue to be used to regulate qualifications of official analysts.
The proposed amendments address minor drafting errors in the previously laid Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 which were identified by the JCSI. The FSA provided an undertaking to the JCSI that this deficiency would be addressed in its response. EU authorisation decisions relating to genetically modified food and feed have also come into force since the laying of the Genetically Modified Food and Feed (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which will implement retained EU law on exit day. This instrument introduces amendments to make these decisions fully operable by specifying the UK entity to which the authorisation holders must submit annual reports on activities set out in their environmental monitoring plans and to remove references to the European Community in connection with the register of authorised GM food and feed.
This instrument makes equivalent changes to the relevant Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that the body of Northern Ireland food law can function properly and is enforceable once the UK leaves the EU. It also inserts a definition of “Northern Ireland devolved authority” or, where appropriate, identifies the department that is the correct and appropriate authority, replacing references to EU institutions and bodies in various EU regulations. The amendments also include naming the relevant legislature for Northern Ireland where the regulation-making procedure is provided in various EU regulations.
Let me be clear: there are no new changes for food businesses introduced into how they are regulated and how they are run. The formal public consultation was carried out by the FSA covering changes to the UK health and identification marking, which received overwhelming support for the proposal. The instrument will provide continuity for businesses and protection of consumers’ interests, and ensure that enforcement of regulations can continue in the same way. The changes will ensure the retention of a robust system of controls which underpins UK businesses’ ability to trade both domestically and internationally. Devolved Administrations have provided their consent for this instrument, and have been engaged positively. It provides the necessary controls for food to continue to function effectively after exit day.
I urge noble Lords to support the amendments proposed in this instrument to ensure the continuation of effective food and feed safety and public health controls.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her explanation of this statutory instrument. We are of course back in the territory of whether there will a deal or no deal. Even more bizarrely, this will depend on the machinations of her party over the coming weeks and on who ends up as our Prime Minister. It is a bit surreal really, much like the parliamentary world we inhabit at the moment.
Earlier this year, as we approached the Brexit deadline of 29 March, we were regularly rushing through statutory instruments. It is just as well that the Prime Minister was able to secure a Brexit extension because, if we had left on 29 March, some of the so-called minor deficiencies that emerged with regard to food and feed safeguarding, which we are discussing today, might have turned out to be major quite quickly.
Crashing out of the EU means that the regulatory framework for food and feed, which has protected us in the UK for so many years, will cease to exist. I can see that the proposed amendments are critical to ensuring minimal disruption of food controls in the event that we leave the EU without a deal, and we on these Benches will support them. The changes seek to ensure a robust system of control which will underpin UK businesses’ ability to trade both domestically and internationally.
The first question I have concerns trichinella, a parasitic nematode worm which can be extremely serious and can cause disease in people who eat raw or undercooked meat from trichinella-infected domestic animals or game. I appreciate that this instrument provides assurance that testing requirements that ensure protection will continue after EU exit. However, is the Minister confident that we have enough capacity in this country to continue testing for that worm and its associated health risk? How quickly can the government put in place our own testing facilities? I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House how much extra resource her department has allocated to make sure that we do not allow a loss of control in this area. I am aware that extra funding has been made available to the FSA to deal with Brexit, but the Minister could help the House by being specific about the amount of extra resource that would be available to ensure that those particular nematodes do not infect meat that might be imported into this country and eaten by people here. I am aware that the Minister in the Commons, Seema Kennedy, offered to write to my honourable friend Angela Eagle about this matter. Did she do so and can the letter be made available here?
The instrument states that facilities approved by EU member states would in future no longer be automatically approved for food imported from the UK. I repeat the question that my honourable friend Sharon Hodgson MP asked in the Commons: does the Minister know what impact that will have on supply and businesses? How long will the process be to approve facilities for food imported from the UK, and when will a list of approved facilities be available?
The instrument also includes provisions to set minimum charging rates for hygiene controls for fishery products by amending, as the noble Baroness said, the Fishery Products (Official Controls Charges) (England) Regulations 2007. Will the Minister outline what the charges will be and what impact any new set rates could have?
The Explanatory Memorandum for the statutory instrument states that functions currently undertaken by the European Commission in adopting some implementing regulations rendering applicable the controls on imported food will in future be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister provide information on how decisions on those controls will be made and managed? What will the arrangements be for collecting data monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations and for regularly reporting the findings? What bodies will be able to scrutinise performance and delivery? What assessment has been made of their capacity to take on that work, as my honourable friend Angela Eagle mentioned in the Commons?
Finally, what conversations has the Minister had with the devolved nations regarding this statutory instrument? Although the issues seem fairly technical, and potentially innocuous, they raise a few worries. This is about food safety, safety for consumers, consumer protection and food supply in general. Should we leave the EU European Union, a range of duties will transfer from where they have been carried out in the past for many years, in the EU, not just back to the UK but to four different bodies due to devolution, one of which is not even sitting at the moment because of what has been happening in Northern Ireland. So will the resources be available in the devolved authorities to cover these issues?
My honourable friend Angela Eagle said in the Commons:
“Despite the Minister’s attempts to engage with some of my questions, I am still not entirely sure whether this is irradiation of things such as collagen, which in specific instances is derived from animals for human consumption, or whether it is about more general irradiation of meat and vegetables that are for public consumption, which happens in the US”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 13/5/19; col. 9.]
I agree that the answer the Minister in the Commons gave begged more questions, so let us have another go. That is probably appropriate today, when the President of the United States of America has made it clear that all our regulatory regimes will be on the table and up for negotiation, along, of course, with the NHS.
It is important to remember that the horsemeat scandal was not discovered by the enforcement processes in this country, but by testing in the Irish Republic. So we are right to be concerned that, post Brexit, things could go wrong due to weaknesses that have been created in our own enforcement system. I am looking for further reassurance from the Minister that the system we have, weakened by austerity and divided by devolution, will be robust enough to take on the extra duties that the Minister is adding through this statutory instrument.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for outlining all the technical details of this SI. Of course, this instrument has been withdrawn from the Order Paper twice before. Some of the changes made since we originally saw it are small but crucial. We are lucky that they have been spotted, but that raises concerns for the industry that there may be others. Now that the leaving date has changed, are the Government planning on conducting additional scrutiny on the other SIs that are being rushed through this House to make sure that they are up to scratch? How do the Government intend to convey these changes to the relevant individuals and companies on whom they will impact?
I add my support to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the capacity of the FSA. This is probably about the 16th time that we have asked the same question and we are still concerned about the capacity to replace all of the other measures.
Some of these changes reflect very recent EU law that has come into force, as the Minister mentioned, so what do the Government intend to do about any new EU law that might come into force between now and 31 October or whenever we happen to leave? Will these SI and the ones that preceded them have to be further amended if there are other changes to EU law?
The Minister mentioned that the system for minimum charging rates for hygiene controls of fishery products is somewhat out of date. Will the Government confirm whether they aim to change the pound-euro exchange rate from the 2008 level at which it is currently set? Although these charges, as we know, are rarely levied by local authorities, any change in the exchange rate, which could happen after Brexit, could have a big impact on the ability to pay of those against whom the charge is levied. We saw a big difference in the rate of the pound against the euro after the 2016 referendum, and the way in which we might, unfortunately, leave the EU, could have a similar serious effect on the exchange rate. What are the Government planning to do about those charges if there is such a big change in the exchange rate? Are they planning to bring it up to date from 10 or 11 years ago?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baronesses for their important questions. We have been through a number of periods of scrutiny on FSA SIs between us, so I feel that we are old hands at this.
The noble Baronesses will know that leaving the EU does not change the FSA’s top priority, which is to ensure that UK food remains safe and is what it says it is. We are working hard with the FSA to ensure that the high standard of food and feed safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country is maintained when the UK leaves the European Union. That is one of the reasons for this SI.
The noble Baroness is right to identify that this is one of the ways that we are keeping up to date with EU changes in legislation while we remain part of the European Union, but of course once we have left we will be responsible for identifying how we want to proceed and whether we want to introduce our own legislation and additional food safety standards which mirror those in the EU or whether we want to go further. That is a commitment—excuse me, I am having a Theresa May moment—that has been made before.
I shall touch first on the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, at the end of her remarks about trade. I want to nail that one if I can. We have debated this before. The UK is committed to maintaining the high standards of food and feed safety which we currently enjoy. I shall repeat a line which has been used by No. 10. We have always been clear that we will not lower our food standards as part of a future trade agreement. From day one, we are committed to having a robust and effective regulatory regime in place which will mean that business can continue as normal. For most food and feed businesses there will be no change in how they are regulated and how they manage. Leaving the EU does not affect that, regardless of comments that may have been made this week.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Can we be clear that that very important undertaking she has just given the House also applies to animal welfare standards in the European Union and currently in this country?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
That is obviously not my brief, but I know that those commitments have been made from this Dispatch Box and I am very happy to give the noble Lord that commitment.
I shall move on to the important questions that were raised regarding trichinella resources. We have brought in these amendments today because we recognise the importance of maintaining standards when it comes to trichinella testing. The Food Standards Agency’s spend on trichinella testing in financial year 2018-19 was £565,000, of which £275,000 was recovered through charges for official controls. The figure includes the cost of taking samples and of the UK’s trichinella national reference laboratory. The figure is approximate and is a proportion of the total cost of official controls applied across the food industry. The UK will maintain the requirements of EU food safety legislation after leaving and will not only maintain the standards applicable to most domestic and imported food but will also ensure that UK food businesses can continue to apply controls that are widely accepted by other countries. The FSA has made a commitment that it will ensure that there are the resources required to maintain those standards and the level of testing for trichinella control after exit.
I know that I have given these statistics to the noble Baroness before, but I can reassure her once again that an extra £14 million was provided to the FSA for 2018 in order to ensure extra funding and capacity for EU exit and an extra £16 million was provided for 2019-20. This has translated into an extra 140 staff who have been recruited. More than 90% of them are already in place. That is supported by an expanded role for the independent scientific advisory committees on food. It covers risk assessment, for which the FSA has an outstanding international reputation. It was strengthened by recruiting new experts, establishing three new expert groups and expanding its access to scientific experts, who can provide scientific advice, and to other scientific services in order to meet the potential need for increased risk assessments in future. This is part of the wider priority of the FSA to ensure that it can maintain its current commitments to promoting robust food standards nationally and internationally, protect consumer interests and facilitate international trade and ensure that consumers can have confidence in the food that they buy—to know that the food is what it says it is. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness on that point.
The noble Baroness asked about official controls charges for fishery products. This was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. She is absolutely right regarding the exchange rate, and that is why we are updating the provisions for these charges so that they are in line with the more sensitive DExEU and HMT guidance on amending outstanding references to euros. The instrument does two things. First, it adjusts for the fact that in the future European Union member states will become third countries for the purposes of these charges. Therefore, we can no longer offer the European Union differential treatment in terms of costs levied for hygiene controls performed on directly landed consignments of fishery products. Secondly, as I have said, it addresses the references to euros. The Government do not anticipate any increase in the extent to which these charges are levied by local authorities in England after the UK exits the EU. It is currently reported to be a very low rate. As such, we believe that food business operators in England are not expected to face any extra costs. We will expect local authorities to keep it under review, but we anticipate that it will remain low. I hope that reassures the noble Baronesses.
I hope that I answered the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the way in which risk assessment is done in my earlier answer about the increasing staffing that has become available through the increased investment in the FSA to prepare for EU exit and strengthen its risk assessment capability. On her question about how decisions are made, obviously there will be some ministerial involvement but it is important to say that maintaining the UK’s high food standards is a top priority for the Government. Part of that is to continue the long-standing commitment to openness and transparency and evidence-based decision-making from the FSA. Food safety authorities will publish the advice they provide to Ministers as well as the evidence and analysis it is based on so that stakeholders can see the basis on which decisions are made. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness.
On the final point about devolved Administrations, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have provided their consent to these instruments. They have been closely involved in the development of them. The principles and rules that are set out in retained legislation and which these SIs will correct are intended to ensure the same level of food and feed safety and protection throughout the UK and the free flow of trade within it and—exactly as she said—to ensure clear lines of communication, engagement and co-operation between all four nations so we can, as has been said, pick up on any risks throughout the four nations. The FSA has a very close working relationship with the Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we are confident that, in practice, it will be possible to make arrangements to operate a framework for food and feed safety and regulation across all four Administrations.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and ask for their support.
D-day: 75th Anniversary
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, 75 years ago today, military forces in the United Kingdom stood poised to embark on the largest invasion—the greatest combined operation—in the history of warfare. I say “forces in the United Kingdom” quite deliberately because these were, of course, not only British forces. The largest elements of the armies that were to land in Normandy in the following days were drawn from American, British and Canadian forces, but other allied forces—in particular, from European countries whose homelands remained under occupation—also participated.
Among the first troops to land on the eastern flank of the invasion, as part of the 1st Special Service Brigade, were commandos of the Free French Forces. Naval vessels manned by personnel of the Free French, Polish, Royal Netherlands and Royal Norwegian navies formed part of the bombardment forces supporting the landings, and airmen from France, Belgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia, as well as from Commonwealth realms, operated with the allied air forces, providing cover for the invasion.
Of course, events in Britain and France were not the sole focus of military activity at the time. In Italy, allied forces had just occupied Rome, following the hard-fought battles at Monte Cassino; on the Eastern Front, our Soviet allies were preparing to launch Operation Bagration, one of the largest operations in an area where the numbers involved far exceeded those deployed in the West; in India, the siege of Imphal was drawing to its end; while in the Pacific theatre American forces were preparing to invade Saipan, in the Mariana Islands, as the next stage in their island-hopping campaign. This latter activity explains why the majority of the naval forces supporting the landings were operating under the White Ensign, rather than the Stars and Stripes.
However, it is of D-day itself—the landings on the coast of Normandy—that we speak today. This, despite the invasion of Italy in 1943, was the long-awaited Second Front, pinning large numbers of the enemy’s forces in western Europe and making possible a direct attack on Germany’s industrial heartland. The ultimate success of the invasion, in conjunction with the ongoing operations on the Eastern Front, is reflected in the destruction of Germany’s ability to continue the war and its end, in Europe, just 11 months later. Many noble Lords will be conversant with this history—indeed, there are Members of this House, although retired or no longer sitting, who themselves took part in those events—and I do not propose to rehearse the campaign in detail.
However, it is worth noting that there were very particular features of the campaign and the allied effort that have few, if any, parallels in our history. Although it is the anniversary of D-day itself that we are marking, preparation and training began much earlier and had a much wider impact. I will highlight just a few aspects. The accommodation and training of the large numbers of British, Canadian and American personnel meant the occupation of significant areas of the country and the evacuation of the civilian population from those areas. The most famous, perhaps, was the South Hams of Devon but many other areas became, in effect, closed, armed encampments.
The intelligence and propaganda efforts involved were remarkable. The story of Bletchley Park and Enigma, and the invaluable information that was provided to allied commanders, is well known. The tremendous effort that went into deceiving the enemy about where and when the invasion would take place, called Operation Bodyguard after a comment by Churchill that the precious truth should always be accompanied by “a bodyguard of lies”, is known in part—for instance, the story of Monty’s double—but some parts are still less familiar. The creation of a wholly fictitious First United States Army Group in southern and eastern England, commanded by the absolutely not fictitious General Patton, was intended to persuade the German high command that the real invasion was to be in the Pas-de-Calais. This deception was continued for several weeks after 6 June, until the general actually deployed into Normandy to command the American Third Army in July.
The last unusual aspect I would like to mention was the importance of weather forecasting. The invasion needed particular states of moon and tide times to offer the greatest chance of success. The original intention of General Eisenhower was that the invasion should take place on 5 June, in which case today would have been the anniversary of the start of the operation—indeed, 75 years ago today, some parts of the invasion fleet were already at sea and were recalled—but he was advised that weather on the invasion beaches would be so bad as to prevent the operation of landing craft. However, the RAF meteorological team had analysed the forecasts and predicted that conditions on 6 June would provide a suitable window. After much discussion, Eisenhower gave the order. This was particularly fortunate as in the next suitable period for tide, two weeks later, weather conditions were again so bad that the landing would have been impossible. The storm that took place completely wrecked the Mulberry harbour at Omaha beach.
This week we should speak not only of the past but of what we are doing in the present day. This 75th anniversary of the invasion is perhaps our last opportunity to mark such a significant milestone while we have a relatively large number of veterans still with us. Five years ago, when the 70th anniversary events were held in Normandy, we had about 400 British D-day veterans in attendance. The assumption was that this represented the majority of survivors. We were therefore surprised, although delighted, when the offer in 2014 by the President of France to honour all living veterans of the liberation with the Legion d’Honneur was met, within six months, by some 3,500 applications. In the years since, they have continued to come in—they are still being received—and we have now dealt with about 5,800 cases.
This year, we have significant commemorative events where, once again, our veterans will be centre-stage. We expect to have about 600 veterans present during the national commemorative event in Portsmouth and at events in Normandy. In Portsmouth, in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen and other world and European Heads of State and Heads of Government, those veterans from the UK and allied nations will form a thread of living history. The veterans and their memories are a direct link to the events of 75 years ago, and the assembled leaders will have the opportunity to hear directly from them.
About 250 of the veterans will then travel to Normandy on the “MV Boudicca”, a cruise vessel that has been chartered by the Royal British Legion, paid for by Libor funding, to take part in the events in Normandy on 6 June. I will have the honour and pleasure of joining the veterans for the crossing to Normandy, although regrettably I cannot stay for the whole week’s cruise that the veterans will be enjoying.
In Normandy, we will join the annual service held at Bayeux Cathedral and an event in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery. But perhaps the most significant event of the day will be the inauguration of the new British Normandy memorial at Ver-sur-Mer, overlooking Gold Beach where the 3rd Infantry Division landed. I should like to pay tribute to Members of this House, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Ricketts, who have played a major role in organising the creation of this memorial. It will bear the names of all those who lost their lives under British command from D-day through to 31 August, when the Normandy campaign was considered to be over.
I look forward to listening to the contributions of noble Lords in today’s debate, not least that of my noble friend Lord Reay, whom we welcome warmly to this Chamber. In conclusion, I should like to say to the House that we, who are fortunate to be living at a time when, despite other difficulties, we are not faced by mass war, should never forget the debt we owe to those who faced the dangers of crossing the Channel in frail aircraft and ships, and went ashore in the face of enemy fire to free Europe from the shadow of a tyranny whose like had never been seen before and, we can hope, will never rise again.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Earl, who put the Normandy landings so well in context. It is right today to mark the D-day landings and right to pay tribute to the meticulous planning of General Morgan and his team, based on Lord Mountbatten’s earlier planning. It was quite a feat—apart from the soldiers, the land forces—to organise 12,000 aircraft and 7,700 ships in the greatest amphibious operation of all time. It is right to recognise the success of the measures of deception and the work of Bletchley Park. Above all, it is right to salute the bravery of our air, sea and land forces. We should remember the sacrifice of so many lives, which will be commemorated in that memorial to be unveiled on Thursday at Ver-sur-Mer. With hindsight, of course, we can see hesitations, blunders and miscalculations, as shown by Antony Beevor in his perceptive Sunday Times article—but this happens in any military operation. Overall, the longest day was a total success; some say now that the victory was inevitable, but that is with the benefit of hindsight with 20/20 vision.
Paris was, of course, liberated by August. Casualties were severe on all sides. We should remember that 20,000 French civilians died in the fighting. They suffered then, and many also suffered as so much of the infrastructure was destroyed, such as the Seine and Loire bridges. The SS Division Das Reich came from the Mediterranean and up through France, wreaking havoc on so many French civilians, such as those in the Martyr village at Oradour-sur-Glane, the village of Dunes, and others. They left a trail of destruction en route to Normandy. There was so much destruction of towns—Caen, Saint-Lo, Falaise and Villers-Bocage. The terrain, the Bocage landscape, the Normandy farmhouses, the hedgerows and the ditches were ideal for defence. Above all, it was, as the noble Earl has said, an allied victory. Nine countries provided ships and nine provided aircrew, apart, of course, from the land forces. Perhaps President Trump should be reminded of this triumph of multi-nationalism when he visits Omaha beach and sees that magnificent US memorial at the cemetery there.
At the risk of appearing self-indulgent, I have two personal memories to recall. In 1957, after sixth form, I worked for three weeks on a farm near Caen. Everywhere, there were still memories of the war, particularly the cemeteries, maintained so well by our War Graves Commission. I recall that in my village, the annual fete was preceded by a parade to the local British cemetery, where more than 200 men were buried. What struck me as a 17 year-old was that many of the men who died were roughly the same age as myself, perhaps a year or two older. I was proud to be invited by a group of villagers to head the procession with the French veterans, with their berets and medals. In spite of the deaths and enormous destruction in that part of Normandy, what was clear to me was that there was nothing but immense gratitude and good will among the people for the contribution of our British forces to the liberation of France.
Fast forward 50 years. I was taking a school party from my native Swansea around Parliament. Present was the head of the West Wales branch of the Normandy Veterans’ Association, Doug Gausden. When he saw in the Royal Gallery the memorial to Dunkirk, he remarked, “What about us Normandy boys?” I promised to do my best to remedy the omission. A year or so later, with the help of the then Black Rod, whose father-in-law I think took part in the landings, we had a ceremony with a piper to mark the gift from the West Wales Normandy Veterans’ Association of a casket made by a local woodwork teacher with sand from each of the five beaches: Omaha and Utah for the US forces, Juno for Canada, and Gold and Sword, our British beaches. That casket is still there to remind us of the 22,000 and more British men and women who died during the Normandy campaign. I hope noble Lords will visit that casket and reflect, as I have just done.
I cite these stories to give some small personal tribute to the veterans and those who took part in those Normandy landings 75 years ago.
“At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them”.
We will remember them.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Portsmouth D-day museum. I begin by thanking the British Legion for all the work it does with the surviving veterans of all our wars, and the War Graves Commission for its magnificent work maintaining the amazing cemeteries commemorating those who lost their lives on D-day and in all our recent wars.
I have lived eight miles north of Portsmouth for the past 30 years, having worked in Portsmouth for 10 of them. In the South Downs National Park, as it is now, most of the troops for Sword, Gold and Juno beaches assembled awaiting embarkation. Hardly a day passes when I am out walking in those fields and woods in my area that I do not think of the men, principally Canadians, who camped out, some for many weeks, and what kept them going. What were their aspirations and hopes? What happened to them on D-day? From looking at the graves in Normandy, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, just said, one realises how young they all were—18 to 20 seems to be the normal age—and how remarkable it was that they were prepared to give their lives to liberate Europe, where they now remain.
For Portsmouth, the centre of the planning and command for D-day, the anniversaries are always marked with great dignity and respect. Every principal anniversary seems to be bigger than the last. Not only do we honour those who died, we celebrate two things. We celebrate an amazing enterprise, a remarkable partnership of many nationalities, principally British, American and Canadians but, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, also many nationalities in Europe whose countries were occupied, particularly the Poles. We also should celebrate the peace that determination and partnership have brought us for the past 75 years in Europe.
Looking ahead to the debate, with its great experts and speakers, I will briefly and modestly talk about three themes. First, I will talk briefly about a meeting that took place in the village I live in, Droxford, in the preparations for D-day. Secondly, I will say something about the amazing planning and logistics of the D-day operation. Thirdly, I will talk about the important legacy of D-day and its great international partnership, which should be how the young should understand and appreciate what was done in June 1944.
Droxford was, in 1944, a small rural village, which it largely is today, with a railway station and a small freight siding. On Friday 2 June 1944, a train carrying Churchill, Ernest Bevin and Field-Marshal Smuts arrived in the station siding. It is often speculated why Churchill came. Some think he was still trying to board HMS “Belfast” to take part in the invasion, others that he wanted to be involved in the final decisions on embarkation. Personally, I think it was his way of resolving the tension, stress and worry about whether D-day would be successful or a disaster. It was better to be out among the troops than worrying about them in London. He used the two days to visit the troops, see the embarkation, meet with Eisenhower—but not with Montgomery, who was fiercely opposed to his visit—and invite de Gaulle down to be told he would neither be leading nor going on the initial invading force.
It was not a happy meeting—a fierce argument ensued. Choosing a railway carriage for a meeting with a French general was not very politic. Telling de Gaulle this news in a crowded meeting, rather than alone, was not very tactful. Eventually, the argument exploded, and Churchill said that whenever in future there was an argument between France and the USA, the UK would side with the USA. It soured relationships for years afterwards and de Gaulle’s memory was one of the grounds for him refusing us entry into the EEC in the 1960s.
This was, though, very much an argument between Roosevelt and the USA and France. We were initially sidelined until it resolved in September 1944 when de Gaulle’s Government were recognised. It shows that even the best partnerships are not without divisions, arguments and disagreements. Perhaps we as a country have never resolved that conundrum of whether we should be closer to France and Europe or the USA, but perhaps it is always better to be involved with both sides of the Atlantic.
D-day witnessed many heroic actions and great bravery by all those who took part. Sometimes when the history of wars is written, it understandably concentrates on the battlefield stories and the developments there, ignoring the preparation, planning and build-up that gave victory to one side. D-day took many months and years to plan. The scale and logistics were incredible. There were no computers. Everything had to be planned manually and if those plans were changed, they had to be prepared manually again.
One man should have had more recognition for what he did: Admiral Bertram Ramsay, whose HQ at Southwick House was where the decision to go, eventually, was made. Probably because he was killed at the beginning of 1945, before he could publish his memoirs, he is more remembered for Dunkirk than the landings at Sicily, Anzio and those on D-day, which he brilliantly planned and organised. His statue is in Dover, but he needs more recognition in the Navy’s home in Portsmouth. We should recall Churchill’s comment: you cannot achieve victory through a glorious retreat. We should do more to remember Ramsay’s role in D-day and its success.
As we raise money for education at the D-day museum in Portsmouth, I try to think what D-day legacy young people should remember. It was a remarkable operation. People unselfishly gave their lives for freeing Europe; but I have to say, quietly and as unpolitically as possible, that this was a partnership where no country solely sought to follow their national interest. There was a wider international agenda and objective. America might well have sought to defeat Japan first if it had not followed Churchill’s advice and had the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt. It was certainly not an example of “America first”. The partnership set up for D-day succeeded and put in place the institutions that have kept the peace going in Europe for the past 75 years. As we seek to change these institutions, I hope we will make sure that we create sound and long-standing institutions before we destroy what we have. The young men who gave their lives and remain on the European mainland deserve that respect, combined with our ever-lasting gratitude.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister briefly mentioned Operation Bodyguard and the deception carried out surrounding the D-day landings. I want to say something of the small number of courageous and imaginative MI5 case officers whose work underpinned the success of D-day. My late uncle, Hugh Astor, was one of the British MI5 operators who ran a group of double agents feeding false information to the German military intelligence and who the Germans believed were spying for them. An elaborate game of deception was implemented in which the aim was to trick Hitler’s generals into thinking that Normandy was not the main target, and also to try to understand the enemy’ plans and intentions. One of my uncle’s double agents was codenamed Brutus, who, together with Garbo, focused on this deception.
For all the Germans’ preoccupation with the approaching invasion, even though the allies were furiously preparing for it, they did not actually know where or when it was coming. German forces in occupied France would greatly outnumber the invading allies but if they could be kept in the wrong place, the numbers appeared less daunting. To dupe the Germans into thinking that the attack was going to take place at the Pas de Calais—the shortest route across the Channel—the operators set out to convince them that any landings in Normandy were a large-scale diversion. As the real army mustered in the south-west to attack Normandy, the allies created a mythical American army under General Patton, which boasted 11 divisions in Kent and was visited very publicly by King George VI. To support the deception, two fake corps headquarters maintained the constant radio traffic that would be generated by a real army. Dummy aircraft and inflatable tanks, together with 250 fake landing ships, all contributed to the illusion.
Crucially, the threat to the Pas de Calais would be maintained for as long as possible after the Normandy landings to ensure that the Germans did not send troops south to repel the real invasion, and half a million German troops remained in the Calais area until early July. Under my uncle’s direction, Brutus also sought to lure the Germans into preparing for an attack on Norway. A fake army was created in Scotland for a likely raid there, successfully keeping Hitler on high alert on a second front. At no point did the Germans redeploy their 250,000 troops from there.
My uncle was also the handler for a double agent, Bronx, who focused on the south-west of France. The Germans had substantial forces deployed in the Bordeaux area, notably two Panzer divisions. Once the Normandy invasion was under way, their tanks would certainly be deployed north to try to repel the allies. Every hour that the Panzers could be detained in the south-west would save allied lives. Amazingly, two weeks after the invasion, Bronx was still hinting at a looming second invasion in the south-west. As a result one Panzer division remained in position, defending it from an attack that never came.
The deception was built from myriad tiny fragments of carefully sown misinformation for the enemy to piece together. A great lie would be built up of snippets, gleanings and hints, some of them true. The work of these spies and their operators held a fascination for Winston Churchill, who described it thus:
“Tangle within tangle, plot and counter-plot, ruse and treachery, cross and double-cross, true agent, false agent, gold and steel, the bomb, the dagger and the firing party, were interwoven in many a texture so intricate as to be incredible and yet true”.
The codebreakers at Bletchley Park deciphered Nazi high command messages and revealed the confusion and disarray of the German troops before the invasion. By 1942 almost all the traffic of German intelligence services was being read, with more than 200 messages being decrypted every day.
From this trove of information, MI5 constructed a detailed picture of German intelligence; its personnel, methods, strengths and frailties. It knew who its enemies were, and what they were thinking. Amazingly, the allies controlled the German espionage network in Britain—every one of Hitler’s spies. Consequently, we could reinforce the misinformation being fed to the Führer and his generals. The invasion of Normandy came as a stunning surprise to the senior German commanders, who were not only unprepared but positively relaxed. On 6 June 1944, Rommel was at home, 500 miles away, lighting the candles on his wife’s birthday cake. Since this attack was assumed to be a diversion, it was not thought necessary to wake Hitler early that morning. As the Battle of Normandy raged, the Germans held fast, not to the reality, but to the illusion, so carefully planted and meticulously sustained. The failure to counterattack hastened the end of Nazi Germany. Once the allies were properly established ashore, the Germans were bound to lose in the end.
What do we know about these MI5 operators? They had an instinct for how other people thought and reacted to situations—they possessed empathy and imagination, in addition to a superior intellect. They had to tread a fine line between passing on accurate information and not giving away too much, which would imperil British interests. Lives were at risk. Every case officer was acutely aware that a single slip could bring the entire project crashing down, with catastrophic consequences. The Germans were constantly assessing and reassessing their agents, trusting and doubting them at the same time. Just as the double agents lived double lives, so each MI5 officer had to try to inhabit the life of his agent. With the stakes so high, handling them was an emotionally demanding and highly stressful business.
These MI5 handlers were real heroes. Their ingenuity, spirit and heroism were truly remarkable, contributing in no small measure to the success of D-day. The most ambitious deception campaign ever attempted saved thousands of allied lives and helped shorten the war. Their work remained secret for many years after the war and, under the 100-year secrecy rule, many of the files will remain secret until 2044. My uncle received no public recognition for the work he did, and he never mentioned his involvement until the very end of his life.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government for giving time for this debate and the Minister for introducing the subject with his customary touch and eloquence. I am also a member of the Normandy Memorial Trust, so ably led by my noble friends Lord Ricketts and Lord Dannatt. I will turn to the work of the trust in a moment, but first I will say a word about the importance of commemoration.
As someone who worked at Buckingham Palace for over 20 years, I have witnessed commemorative events large and small in every corner of the United Kingdom and in many countries overseas. I cannot recall a single one which did not strike a powerful chord of grief or loss, of loyalty or pride, of community heritage or a deep sense of national identity. These events honour historic occasions, places and people, but they do more. They set the present in the context of the past, to the benefit of us all: young and old, those with direct memories and others just trying to understand a little better the world about us. They teach and they explain a little more of what defines us.
So it is with D-day. Others in the Chamber today are more qualified than I am to remind us of how relevant the events of 75 years ago are to the world of today. I have appreciated the contributions so far and I look forward to those to come. We all need reminding, as RUSI’s recent YouGov survey of public awareness of D-day so dramatically showed. The epic story of that great military operation illuminates and explains so much of today’s world: the importance of the special relationship on show at Buckingham Palace last night; the importance of NATO; our endlessly difficult and complex relationship with the French and with Europe; and Putin’s ambitions for post-Cold War Russia. None of these can be properly understood without knowledge of this story. We are right to remember and to learn.
We are right also to honour the people who were there. The 75th anniversary is probably the last time that many Normandy veterans will make the pilgrimage to the beaches, honouring lost friends and recalling moments that defined their lives. It has been the ambition of many of those veterans, led by George Batts, the former secretary of the Normandy Veterans’ Association, to see a national memorial built to the memory of their fallen comrades. The Americans have a national memorial above Omaha beach. The Canadians have one above Juno beach. Although there are many regimental memorials in Normandy, there is no single place which commemorates all the British forces, and all those nationalities fighting under British command, who died in the D-day campaign.
The Normandy Memorial Trust was created in 2016 to realise the dreams of those veterans to build a British national memorial. Generous initial funding has been provided from the Government’s Libor fund. Help and support have been given by the Royal British Legion and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Land has been bought on the gently sloping hillside directly overlooking Gold beach, with the remains of the Mulberry harbour at Arromanches clearly visible on the horizon. A design for the memorial has been submitted to and approved by the French planning authorities. It will record in stone and in perpetuity the 22,442 names of all those under British command who lost their lives in the Normandy campaign. There will also be a memorial to honour the thousands of French citizens who lost their lives during the bitter fighting through the towns, villages and countryside of Normandy.
The start of the construction and the statue which will be the centrepiece of the memorial, as the Minister mentioned, will be inaugurated in a short ceremony on Thursday morning by the Prime Minister and President Macron. We hope that the memorial itself will be completed by the summer of next year, and there is then an ambition to raise funds for an education centre and other facilities. Of course, as the Prince of Wales, the trust’s patron put it, the memorial is long overdue, but it is not too late. We owe it to the remaining veterans and their families to realise their dream and to honour their comrades. We owe it also to future generations to remind them of the extraordinary contribution made by the United Kingdom in 1944 to the restoration of liberty, democracy and the rule of law to Europe. We owe it to ourselves to understand better today’s news agenda by learning from those momentous events of 75 years ago.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. I will be quoting from a book, and there is a rather fuzzy photograph of him in that book. It is an honour to speak in this debate and to pay tribute to all the people, not only from our country but from our allies and friends, who made such a mighty triumph of Operation Overlord.
The mammoth task of preparing for D-day, including training troops for amphibious operations, started well over 18 months before the invasion itself. The principal allies—ourselves, the United States and the Canadians—used all the valuable intelligence resources available to us. It is true to say, as other noble Lords have, that the code-breaking capacity at Bletchley Park was vital in helping to secure victory in the war and certainly shortened it by a considerable period of time. Our ability to gauge the Axis powers’ deployments, strategy and tactics was invaluable. Furthermore, the assistance we got from the French Resistance and its ability to disrupt Axis forces was also extremely helpful.
There was so much planning and co-ordination for this huge amphibious operation. Months before the invasion we had reconnaissance troops deployed all over the north coast of France, from Calais to Brittany, engaged in beach reconnaissance in an endeavour to confuse the enemy as to the invasion destination. Nearer the time of the invasion, decoy models were parachuted into different areas. The organisation and co-ordination had to involve all the main allies, particularly, as I have said, the United States, ourselves and Canada. It also involved all branches of our Armed Forces: we had to retain air superiority to be able to bomb and strafe the enemy from the air and co-ordinate ships, naval gunfire support, landing craft commando, and glider pilot and parachute troops for the assault itself. In addition to transporting troops, tanks, armoured cars and other vehicles, fuel, ammunition, food, water and medical supplies had to be delivered. In sustaining the assault and getting reinforcements and the main body of the Army ashore, there had to be a system of landing, especially for heavy armour. The Mulberry harbours, an invention of genius, had to be towed to northern France and assembled after the invasion when the beachheads had been taken.
The House will know that the First United States Army landed at Omaha and Utah beaches, whereas the British and Canadian forces, comprising the Second Army, landed on Gold, Juno and Sword beaches. To gauge the massive scale and power of the initial result, it is instructive to look at the order of battle on D-day itself. The United States Army landed a division at Utah and two divisions, plus rangers, at Omaha. In addition to those forces, the 82nd Airborne Division and the 101st Airborne Division were dropped inland. The 3rd Canadian Division was landed at Juno beach, and the United Kingdom’s 50th Division was landed at Gold, with the 47 Commando Royal Marines. The UK’s 3rd Division landed at Sword with two commando brigades; the United Kingdom’s 6th Airborne Division was dropped inland. Over 150,000 allied troops were landed or dropped on D-day itself. This initial assault was on a massive scale that had never before been seen. The crucial reinforcement of the bridgehead in subsequent days was also of a magnitude unsurpassed in history.
It should not be forgotten that there were large Australian, New Zealand, French, Czech, Belgian, Dutch, Greek and Polish contingents, sometimes as many as a division in strength. The success of the operation and the work of the beach-masters and others involved in this operation was a triumphant achievement.
The United Kingdom Second Army was responsible for our initial assault and subsequent land operations. The commander of the Second Army was General Sir Miles Dempsey, a quiet but highly respected and hugely admired officer. To give the House an example of the intensity of the combat and the terrifying casualties sustained by the assault troops, I have chosen General Dempsey’s selection of 47 Commando’s capture of Port-en-Bessin as one of two D-day actions he considered especially outstanding. He wrote:
“The capture of Port-en-Bessin was vital for two reasons: firstly, it formed a junction point between the British right flank on Gold Beach and the American V Corps landing on Omaha; secondly, it was essential as the main terminal of our petrol, petrol being the life-blood of a modern, mechanised army”.
I am indebted to the late Professor John Forfar MC for his book From Omaha to the Scheldt, in which the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, appears. Professor Forfar was the medical officer of 47 Commando and went on to have an equally distinguished career as a consultant paediatrician in Edinburgh. In a table in the book under the heading “Counting the cost”—this would include casualties that the unit sustained in the Scheldt some months later—63% of the fighting troop officers were killed in action and 75% of them wounded, giving a total of 138%. As to enlisted men, the total was 116%. Noble Lords might wonder how to get a figure of more than 100%; it is because the replacements and reinforcements were often killed or severely wounded as well.
One benefit of a debate of this nature is the chance to put on record our profound gratitude and indebtedness to the countless people from not only our own country but those of our allies and friends who were involved in this operation. We owe them all a debt of honour we can never repay.
Another advantage of the debate is the chance to emphasise the importance to this country of retaining and building on our amphibious capacity. In what I would loosely call the western world, the only countries with such a capacity are the United States—its amphibious capability is huge—ourselves and the French. Since World War II, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, often with Army and Royal Air Force ranks attached, have been involved in numerous amphibious operations, including the Korean War, Suez, Tanganyika—as it was—Limbang in Borneo, the first Kuwait threat from Saddam Hussein, the threat to Hong Kong in 1967, the Falkands campaign, operations in Sierra Leone, the invasion of Iraq and, the year before last, humanitarian operations in the Caribbean, as well as earlier operations.
In his speech at the Royal United Services Institute on 11 February this year, the then Secretary of State for Defence talked about the importance to this country of,
“increasing our global presence and building on our alliances”,
both east and west of Suez. Among other things, he stated:
“The UK is a global power with truly global interests”.
He talked at length about the “Littoral Strike Ship concept”, and praised the success of the Royal Navy and what he rightly described as our “world-renowned Royal Marines”. The point is that we need the capacity to retain these skills. Can the Minister confirm that the Government still have these aims? What exactly will they do to ensure that we continue to be able to mount amphibious operations throughout the world, with the necessary escort vessels, aircraft carriers and other vital support?
Finally, we should give thanks that we have had no western European war since 1945. I fervently believe that our membership of the European Union, with our European allies and friends, has made a great contribution to this ensuing peace.
Lord Reay (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, before I begin I offer an apology to several noble Lords, who over the past few weeks were led to believe—largely by me—that my maiden speech would address broadband connectivity in rural areas. It is an issue close to my heart, but I am happy to save that speech for another day.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for introducing this important debate. How great an honour it is to participate and pay tribute to the allied troops who took part in the D-day landings. I thank noble Lords from across the House, who have been most welcoming and helpful during my initial few weeks, as have the staff and doorkeepers. As Mackay clan chief, I am delighted to join my distinguished kinsman, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Some noble Lords may recall my father Hugh, who—like my grandfather, Shimi Lovat—served this House. I am proud to follow in their footsteps.
It is almost 390 years since my ancestor Donald Mackay was raised to the peerage. His was a doughty spirit, typical of the highlanders he lived among, and he loved a battle. Charles I was wise enough to harness rather than resist Donald’s energies, and he sent him and his men to fight overseas in the Thirty Years’ War on the side of the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus. Thanks to their many victories, most notably at the pass of Oldenburg, Mackay and his men became known as the “Scottish invincibles”. I point out, however, that while Charles I was generous with titles, he was not so ready with his cash. The lack of payment for troops left Mackay in severe financial difficulties, from which he barely recovered. I trust a similar fate will not befall me as a result of my service to Parliament.
For several centuries the Mackay clan colonised Sutherland on the north coast of Scotland, an area of the country renowned for majestic scenery and excellent salmon rivers. It has recently become the prospective site of Britain’s first international space station. Large numbers of the clan were soldiers. Since it was easier in those days to travel to Scandinavia and the Netherlands by sea than to go inland, they fought abroad. Many married into Dutch families and one member of the family, Aeneas Mackay, became Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
The Frasers of Lovat shared a similar fondness for military adventure. Shimi Lovat was integral to the establishment of the Commandos in 1940, having been given the personal blessing of not only Churchill but the highly decorated General Carton de Wiart. The latter gave approval while reclining in his bath-tub, revealing World War I injuries including the lack of a hand and just one good eye—the other, alarmingly, uncovered. The Commandos played a key role during the Normandy landings. Lovat conducted his troops to Sword beach accompanied by his bagpiper, Bill Millin. When asked to pipe the men ashore, Millin hesitated, saying that the practice had been outlawed by the War Office. However, Lovat insisted that the Scottish war office had no such qualms. Years later Millin was to play at Shimi’s funeral. Aptly, Lovat’s Free French soldiers were the first to make land.
Five years ago, with about 100 Fraser relations, my family visited the Normandy beaches for the unveiling of a statue to my grandfather. Afterwards, at Pegasus Bridge, the wonderful Madame Arlette Gondrée, whose parents had played a prominent role in assisting the allied forces, hosted a magnificent lunch. It was at this scene on D-day that the Commandos achieved their primary objective of reinforcing Major John Howard’s Airborne Division. Café Gondrée remains a hallowed destination for Normandy veterans to this day. Since the liberation, as a token of appreciation the veterans have not been permitted to pay for food and drink. Unfortunately this generosity does not extend to relatives.
The amphibious assault on D-day and the ensuing two and a half months of battle to secure Normandy resulted in over 200,000 allied casualties. Some 2 million crossed the channel and 20,000 French perished, as well as over 200,000 Germans. Thankfully, out of this tragedy a more peaceful Europe emerged.
It is particularly important that younger generations are reminded about the courage and selflessness that was shown during this time to preserve our freedom and independence. As a nation we owe a debt of gratitude to the United States; likewise for the sacrifices made by their nation on our behalf. Having spent over 11 years in America at university, and working in the financial sector, I feel particularly strongly that the vital role the United States played in our support during World War II should not be overlooked.
I would like to conclude with the address that Lovat made to his troops in Southampton on the eve of the landings. He spoke first in English and then French, and ended as follows: “I wish you all the very best of luck in what lies ahead: this will be the greatest military venture of all time, and the Commando Brigade has an important role to play. A hundred years from now, your children’s children will say: ‘They must have been giants in those days’”.
Indeed, they were.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, what a privilege to follow that delightful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and an honour to welcome him to this House. It was a delightful, dignified and delicate speech, if I may say so, which is nothing less than we would expect from a noble Lord who is the clan chief of our own noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
I suspect it was always likely that the noble Lord would make an impact. He comes from a long line of Scottish lords, one of whom apparently was a legendary wizard who, having come out victorious from a clash with a local witch, was rewarded with a young gang of tireless fairies who liked nothing more than to work. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has that gang of fairies still at his disposal, but on the basis of that very fine maiden speech, we can all look forward to his tireless work for us in this House.
Earlier today, I had the great pleasure of showing some American friends round our Parliament—the former US Surgeon General, Admiral Richard Carmona and his family. I think they were impressed, particularly with the Royal Gallery, the most beautiful room in the kingdom in my opinion, dominated by those extraordinary murals of Waterloo and Trafalgar—ironically and exquisitely painted by an Irishman, Daniel Maclise.
The quiet corner of the Royal Gallery that spoke to the admiral and me more than any other is where we usually keep the books of honour recording our war dead, which for the moment are not in their place. Beside them, amid the glorious Gothic extravagance of Augustus Pugin, are two simple reminders of times past that touched both his and my heart: a chunk of stout oak that formed the jetty at Dunkirk, where we were hurled off the continent at the end of the beginning, and that small box which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, so eloquently reminded us of earlier, that contains handfuls of sand taken from each of the five beaches of D-day, Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword —the beginning of the end.
They are such simple but intensely powerful reminders of what our fathers and grandfathers did. The outcome was no foregone conclusion—far from it. Churchill knew, after Gallipoli, the Norwegian campaign and Dieppe. Churchill certainly knew. And everything depending on that most mischievous of allies—the weather. Disaster hovered in the wings, looking for its chance. We can still see it today, in the old newsreel footage: the fear carved in the faces of those young soldiers as they ran from their landing crafts and up those bloody beaches, not knowing if it was the last step they would ever take. Their average age was little more than 20, with many of them still teenagers barely out of school.
More than 425,000 troops were killed or wounded in the battle for Normandy: there were between 5,000 and 10,000 allied dead on 6 June alone. They were not just British, of course, but Americans, Canadians, brave Poles and others, as the noble Earl so forcefully reminded us earlier. Mostly, however, they were American; we owe them an eternal debt. Many French civilians also died in the assault to liberate their country, and we should not forget the German dead, who were mostly young men and boys. I have a suspicion and a sense that they fought not with glory glinting in their eyes but with at least as much fear gripping their hearts as our own young men. “The glorious dead” is what we call them, but they would much rather have lived and grown old, like we who are left to grow old.
That brings me to a point I fear I must make—it needs to be made gently but firmly. The US President is here to help us commemorate D-day and the extraordinary sacrifices that were made to secure our freedoms. He is here not as Donald Trump but as the elected President of the United States of America, the greatest democracy on the planet. It offered up more of its young men on those beaches of D-day than any other country. They died for the freedoms that today we take perhaps too much for granted and which all too often we abuse. The protesters on our streets today are the same age as many of those who died on the beaches, and they of course have a right to protest—that is what their forefathers fought for. But oh how much happier I would be if that protest were conducted with dignity and thoughtfulness matching the moment we commemorate.
I am the first generation of my family for perhaps a thousand generations who has not had to face the prospect of fighting and dying on some battlefield of Europe. I have been given that most precious prize of all prizes: being able to watch my own sons grow to manhood in peace and freedom. How I would have welcomed the chance to listen to President Trump address us here in this Parliament and reflect on the ties of liberty and mutual interest that still bind us. The refusal was, I think, a mistake, and diminishes us all.
Now, more than ever, we need reminding of those links and of what price all of us, but particularly the young, have to pay for political failure. During this current political turmoil, it is often said that Britain is looking back, trying to regain lost glories. But if that was glory, let me have none of it. Let us instead take the lessons and look forward to a better world based on the liberties that so many brave young men fought and died for.
On Thursday, as old men gather on those beaches, let us honour the sacrifices that they and their comrades made for us and for future generations. In the morning—every morning—let us remember them.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and look forward to hearing from him many times in the future, especially on rural broadband connectivity.
We approach this 75th anniversary of D-day in sombre mood, not only for the anniversary itself, with its huge significance for the war and the scale of sacrifice involved, but because, as our own Lords Select Committee report, UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World, put it:
“We are living through a time of worldwide disruption and change”.
The report, debated on 21 May, reminds us that today’s trends include populism, identity politics, nationalism, isolationism, protectionism and mass movements of people. It goes on to warn that the global balance of power is shifting and fragmenting in a way not experienced since the Second World War, undermining the rules-based international order that was so properly set up at the end of that war. Therefore, while we commemorate and reflect this week, we must also attempt to learn some of the painful lessons of the war, as the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, said. It is my deep and personal belief—some might say heresy—that, for instance, going ahead in a cavalier fashion with Brexit is not really learning those lessons, but may be flying in the face of them.
The veterans of the D-day landings and the bloody battle for Normandy that followed are in their very old age now and fewer are able to return to the beaches of Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha and Utah. To see the 250 veterans preparing to sail from Portsmouth with their families this week was an absolute joy and I am very pleased that the Minister will be accompanying them. Our gratitude for their participation in the most ambitious military operation that the world has ever seen is boundless, as it ensured our present freedom and democratic way of life, as noble Lords said. That democratic way of life is so easily and so often taken for granted.
On the matter of veterans, I was contacted recently by the family of a surviving World War II veteran, Harold Mason, from another theatre of that war. Harold joined the Royal Navy aged 17 and is a survivor of the Arctic convoys. His extraordinary personal bravery in rescuing Norwegian men, women and children in one incident from the Arctic water is yet to be officially recognised and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as Minister of State for Defence, for agreeing to discuss Mr Mason’s case with me even though I am aware that a resolution would be extremely difficult and that the family’s MP, Mr Philip Hollobone, has already worked on their behalf in this matter.
While we remember and honour our veterans today, it is also important to remember our war widows. I was delighted and humbled to be asked this year to become a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association under the wonderful presidency of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and I follow in the footsteps of the late, much-missed, Baroness Dean, who would definitely have been speaking today. The War Widows’ Association is a most extraordinarily brave and feisty group of mainly women and some men, who should be considered veterans by anyone’s measure. I was very moved to read the recollection of one of the war widows, Bernice Lois Bartlett, of the day the letter came to tell her that her husband Harry had been killed in 1944. She said:
“I just didn’t expect it. The letter came, the ordinary blue envelope and I put it on the dresser. I didn’t open it because it was the children’s teatime … and I thought, get them done, put them to bed, then I’ll read my letter. Of course I didn’t realise what the letter contained. You just don’t think it’s going to be you”.
No doubt that scene was played out time and again across the country and, unfortunately, it still is.
The WWA was originally set up to fight for the rights of those widows and especially to put right the fact that their war pension was being taxed by the Inland Revenue. Once that campaign was won, there was a further push to ensure that war widows did not lose their pension if they remarried or cohabited, and that was resolved in 2015. However, those 300 or so war widows who were affected before 1 April 2015 are still cut off from their pension. Will the Minister meet me in coming weeks to discuss this unresolved and very important issue for the War Widows’ Association? I am testing his patience. Like buses, he does not see me for months, and now I am asking to see him twice in one week.
Finally, I am thinking today of Bob Maloubier, a French SOE agent who I was proud to have known and call a friend. Bob died in 2015. He was awarded the DSO in 1945. He came to lunch here in the Lords as my guest not long before his death and was a famous Anglophile. Bob was twice parachuted into France and carried out a series of daring sabotage missions with fellow SOE agents, including the courageous Violette Szabo, whose daughter Tania is a good friend, whom he attempted to rescue from the Gestapo. In the early days of the battle for Normandy, Bob Maloubier was parachuted back into France after being injured and went on to play his part in weakening the German response to D-day. Bob and all the brave SOE agents should be in our thoughts today because their fearless work as saboteurs behind enemy lines throughout the war did so much to bring about the final victory.
As the allied veterans return to the beaches of Normandy one last time this week, they will know that the gratitude of a grateful nation and indeed of the free world is with them. What is less known is whether we, who have not had to face war on such a scale, are paying proper attention to the shifting world we live in.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, how fortunate we are that my noble friend Lord Reay chose to make his maiden speech in this debate so that he could remind us of the wonderful exploits of his grandfather Lord Lovat, who was so distinguished a figure in the Second World War.
In opening this important debate my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House reminded us powerfully of the truly breathtaking scale and extent of Operation Overlord, whose 75th anniversary we are commemorating today. By happy coincidence, it comes a few days after the 225th anniversary of the Battle of the Glorious First of June, when my noble friend’s renowned forebear, the 1st Earl Howe, smashed the fleet of republican France in the Atlantic.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, referred to a fine sailor of the Second World War, Admiral Ramsay. I strongly agree that his huge contribution to victory should be more widely known and recognised.
I shall devote most of my remarks to the great man who was indispensable to victory: Winston Churchill. He agonised over the opening of a new front in northern France. He was haunted by the memory of the long, bloody, inconclusive battles of the First World War and feared their repetition. He told the King, and his indispensable Soviet ally Stalin, that he was prepared for casualties of around 10,000 on the first day alone, but as,
“the supreme climax of the war”,
as he described it, drew near, the great man was in buoyant mood. His principal military adviser, General Alan Brooke, a man much given to gloom, recorded on 5 June that,
“I found him over optimistic as regards prospects of the cross Channel operation and tried to damp him down”.
The doubt-ridden general did not succeed.
Churchill, who was also Minister of Defence, wanted to be associated as closely as possible with his troops as the greatest armada in human history sailed to its destination. So, too, did the monarch, King George VI. On 30 May, they agreed that they would both be present on D-day, aboard HMS “Belfast”. The King was quickly dissuaded. His Private Secretary, Alan Lascelles, asked him whether he was seriously prepared to advise Princess Elizabeth on the choice of her first Prime Minister in the event of her father and Churchill being sent to the bottom of the English Channel. The King then told Churchill that his life was far too precious to be put at serious risk. For several days his entreaties had no effect. Lascelles noted,
“the trouble is that none of those who have access to Winston can influence him once he is set on a course, not even Mrs Churchill nor, apparently, his anointed King”.
The Prime Minister eventually gave way with the utmost reluctance. He made his feelings plain later in his war memoirs:
“As a result of what I saw and learned in the First World War, I was convinced that generals and other high commanders should try from time to time to see the condition and aspect of the battle-scene themselves”.
Was it not only right and just, he added, that,
“when sending so many others to their deaths he may share in a small way their risks?”.
It was here in this Chamber, then being used by the Commons, that Churchill delivered the first official statement on the events of D-day. Harold Nicolson, a National Labour MP and a marvellous diarist, recorded the scene here on 6 June 1944:
“I go down to the House, arriving there at about ten to twelve ... Questions had ended unexpectedly early and people were just sitting there chatting, waiting for Winston. He entered the Chamber at three minutes to twelve. He looked as white as a sheet. The House noticed this at once, and we feared he was going to announce some terrible disaster”.
Two pieces of typescript were placed on the Dispatch Box. Churchill spoke first of the liberation of Rome two days earlier by General Alexander’s conquering army.
“Alexander gets a really tremendous cheer”,
Nicolson noted. Churchill took up his second sheet:
“I have also to announce to the House that during the night and the early hours of this morning the first of the series of landings in force upon the European Continent has taken place”.
He spoke for some seven minutes in confident terms:
“Everything is proceeding to plan. And what a plan! This vast operation is undoubtedly the most complicated and difficult that has ever taken place ... Complete unity prevails throughout the Allied Armies. There is a brotherhood in arms between us and our friends of the United States”.
To these stirring remarks, the House listened “in hushed awe”, in Nicolson’s words.
Does not awe remain the right emotion 75 years later—awe at the precision and attention to detail with which this vast operation was put so successfully together; and awe, mingled with gratitude, at the courage of those drawn from many different countries in Europe and around the world who served under D-day’s banner of freedom?
I was one of a small group who submitted a rough draft for Margaret Thatcher to consider as she prepared a speech for the 40th anniversary of D-day in 1984. She stressed the importance of retaining for ever the great war-time alliance that was later to be enshrined in NATO.
This is a moment above all for honouring our fellow countrymen for their valour in June 1944. My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, who pressed for this debate, is sadly unable to take part in it today. He is in Normandy, accompanying one of the veterans we are still lucky to have among us. My noble friend has asked me to say this on his behalf: Corporal, later Sergeant, Les Birch of the Royal Engineers landed at Asnelles on Gold beach on D-Day+1 to begin the work of building the Mulberry harbours, commissioned personally by Churchill, which were so vital for the success of our early operations in France. In recent years he has returned faithfully on 6 June to pay a silent tribute to those of his friends who fell and to give thanks for the success of Overlord. He will be doing the same again on Thursday. On 6 June 1944 Les Birch was one of many thousands to whom General Montgomery sent this message:
“To us is given the honour of striking a blow for freedom which will live in history; and in the better days that lie ahead men will speak with pride of our doings”.
That pride will surely be safeguarded faithfully by those who follow us throughout the generations to come.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, 75 years ago today the allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France was delayed one final time. Appropriately, it was in the face of the British weather that General Eisenhower pushed back the beginning of Operation Overlord, this time by just 24 hours, and on 6 June 1944 D-day began. Pilots and aircrew from 12 different nations led a 1,200-plane airborne assault, preceding the largest seaborne invasion in history, when nearly 7,000 vessels carried 160,000 troops across the Channel.
The historian Antony Beevor records that General Eisenhower, without telling even his closest advisors, had prepared a brief statement to be made in the event of failure. It read:
“Our landings … have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone”.
If this extraordinary undertaking on D-day had failed, the post-war map and the future of Europe would undoubtedly have been very bleak indeed; but it did not fail. The allies gained the foothold they needed and the five beachheads were connected six days later. In the course of that week, 54,000 vehicles and 105,000 tonnes of supplies were landed on the beaches of Normandy and by the end of August more than 2 million allied troops were in France.
Their sacrifice was great, with 226,000 allied casualties and nearly 40,000 killed during the three-month Battle of Normandy, but a decisive victory was achieved, one that led to the liberation of Paris and laid the foundations for the allied victory on the Western Front and—together with the Soviet Union—the defeat of Hitler. It was the end of a war that claimed 70 million lives worldwide—the greatest man-made destruction in history.
In a war that revealed the very worst of human nature, the events of D-day showed some of the very best: the courage, sacrifice and dedication make us proud to this day. We should for ever be grateful for what those men achieved—grateful for the peace in Europe they created and grateful that because of them we are free to lead the lives we lead today.
My own grandfather played his part on the beaches of Normandy. He was a tank mechanic, helping to get the tanks out of the water and up through the sand. I do not know how common this is, but he would never talk about his own experiences. He did not want to remember. All he wanted to do was forget. There are now very few veterans of D-day left alive who can tell their stories and, with the passage of time, there will one day be none.
I do not believe my generation can even conceive of the apprehension those men, waiting to cast off in their landing craft, some on board for up to a week before departing, must have felt or even imagine their terror at the scenes that greeted them as they landed under heavy gunfire at their destination.
That those experiences are now so alien to our own way of life makes them harder for us to relate to, harder to appreciate the significance of and all too easy to grow complacent about. Commemorating the events of 75 years ago should be an opportunity to show gratitude—an opportunity for remembrance but an opportunity for education too. The question for our generation is what we want these events to be remembered for: what role should they play in our national story?
The scale of sacrifice and destruction in the Second World War led many throughout post-war Europe to say “never again” and they began to unite Europe economically and politically in order to secure a lasting peace. Arguably, without their energy and motivation, we would not be living in the sphere of peace and security that today we take for granted. Now, as Britain seeks to remove itself from those institutions, it has become commonplace to hear the battles of the war used to invoke nationalist sentiment. Yet it is surely completely wrongheaded to claim the events of 75 years ago for an isolationist cause.
Britain recognised then that we were stronger when we worked as an alliance of countries and that it was in our national interest to do so. It was the demonstration of a patriotic internationalism—a recognition that we can best succeed not by standing alone, isolated, but by co-operating and working together. This failure by some to properly comprehend our past—the nature and scale of the alliance we were part of—and to properly understand our present, with the nature of globalisation and the interdependencies it brings, is much more than just a harmless delusion. It has been harnessed to create the most profound policy failure, cutting ourselves off from our allies and diminishing internationally and economically the country those people profess to feel pride in.
D-day did not just lead to a victory for our allies, it led to a victory for our values. They defeated not just a country but an ideology, not least a virulent nationalism, the demonisation of other races and an intolerance of dissent. So it really must be said that you cannot put up a poster that says “Breaking Point” and then seek to appropriate the brave men who fought fascism.
It would of course be wrong to make the Second World War an instant reference point for all contemporary controversies, but there is a very real risk today that the ideology Britain fought against 75 years ago is not dead, just dormant. Whether it is drawing up a list of Roma people in Italy, anti-gay purges in the Chechen Republic, or a Muslim travel ban in the US, the preservation of the values our ancestors fought for can never be taken for granted. We must never grow complacent that our way of life is somehow guaranteed.
When these threats to freedom re-emerge and where this ideology becomes resurgent, let us be clear: it will not be defeated by aping or appeasing it. We will defeat it only by confronting it. Let us hope that next time—if there is a next time—we can defeat it not with bombs and bullets but with our words and our deeds.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, a commemorative debate, such as we are having today, needs both to look back to the event being commemorated and to situate the lessons from that event in the context of today, never more so than in the present instance when the controversy surrounding the state visit of President Trump risks overshadowing the real and continuing significance of D-day. First and foremost, we should salute the courage and the sacrifice of those Americans, Canadians and others who joined our own Armed Forces in a truly unprecedented military operation that led a year later to the liberation of Europe. Let us face it: they saved our bacon and helped deliver a victory that we could not have delivered on our own.
Are we sufficiently grateful? I sometimes doubt it. For example, why have we not, as the French have so generously done towards our D-day veterans, honoured all those surviving? Should we not now be honouring all surviving US veterans of D-day? I think we should. In the context of today, we need to realise that the Anglo-American alliance remains as important to our continued security as it was then. This is easy to forget when the Trump Administration take a whole range of decisions contrary to our view of our national interest—for example, on policy towards Iran, on the United Nations, on climate change and on trade policy—and does so without paying much attention to our own Government’s views. But we must not let our criticisms of and our opposition to this Administration metamorphose into that ugly brand of anti-Americanism which so disfigured our politics 40 years ago. We must do our best to ensure that the NATO summit to be held in this city in December strengthens the alliance and demonstrates its continuing validity.
Then there are the lessons of D-day for our own place in Europe, of which we are an integral part, not just geographically but culturally, economically and historically. Our failure to recognise the full implications of that in the 1920s and 1930s contributed to our having to fight our way ashore in Normandy 75 years ago.
There are of course no direct analogies with the present day but we need to realise that no isolation-from-Europe option for our present predicament is available to us that will not damage our future prosperity and security. We need to remember that D-day was fought to uphold a range of values—democracy, freedom of thought and speech, and many others—that were eloquently set out in the Atlantic Charter, which was drawn up by Roosevelt and Churchill two years or so before D-day, and which then became those of the United Nations when that organisation was founded in 1945. Among a lot of loose talk in recent months about the rebirth of nationalism, we need to recognise that our compatriots died to uphold those values and we must not desert them now.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the landings of allied forces on the Normandy coast on 6 June 1944—Operation Overlord—were a combined naval, air and land attack on Nazi-occupied France. We must remember that Germany had occupied France since the spring of 1940, and in early 1943 the planning for the invasion started. There was then the 1943 Tehran Conference on opening the second front in western Europe, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in opening the debate, Stalin agreed with the launch of his own front.
By 1944, 2 million troops from over 12 countries were in Britain preparing for the invasion. As has been mentioned right up front and throughout the debate, the allied forces consisted not just of Americans and the British but of Canadian, Belgian, Australian, Czech, Dutch, French, Greek, New Zealand, Norwegian, Rhodesian and Polish naval, air and ground support. Whenever we talk about D-day, we picture the beaches and the horror that took place, but we must also remember the 18,000 allied airborne forces who were parachuted in for the assaults on the beaches of Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword.
In that 24-hour period, the allied air forces flew 14,000 missions in support of the landings. They had already achieved air supremacy, and the decimation of the German fighter force by US aircraft in the spring of 1944 was a key factor in the Luftwaffe’s “poor showing”, as it was called, over Normandy. Seven thousand naval vessels were involved. Naval forces were responsible for landing 132,000 ground troops on the beaches and providing artillery support in the bombardments. The scale and magnitude of D-day was phenomenal. The allies landed eight divisions and three armoured brigades on German-occupied France.
Of course, the casualties were huge. By the end of August 1944, Germany was in full retreat out of France. There is no question but that D-day was an unqualified success and paved the way for the liberation of much of north-west Europe. On that one day alone, the total number of British and Commonwealth casualties —killed, wounded or missing—was approximately 4,300.
I do not think that anyone has mentioned in this debate what “D” stands for. People take it for granted that it stands for “day”, because the date was not exact at the time, and “D-day” has been in parlance ever since, including in the services. It was the biggest seaborne invasion and, arguably, one of the greatest military campaigns ever. By the end of 11 June—D+5—over 325,000 troops, almost 55,000 vehicles and 104,000 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches.
Nor must we forget the German numbers, although they are not well recorded. It is estimated that between 4,000 and 9,000 German troops were killed. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that there were almost 20,000 French civilian casualties, but that does not include the 15,000 who had been killed during the bombardments prior to D-day. Without D-day, Adolf Hitler would have deployed many more divisions to resist the Red Army. He would have had more time to develop his weapon of terror, the V-2, and the war might have continued indefinitely.
We have heard many accounts of individual stories. It has been an excellent debate and we have also heard a superb maiden speech. I was reading one account by SLA Marshall about the epic human tragedy that unfolded when the allied troops landed. Talking about Boat No. 4, he said:
“Half of its people are lost to the fire or tide before anyone gets ashore … Already the sea runs red. Even among some of the lightly wounded who jumped into shallow water the hits prove fatal … Other wounded men drag themselves ashore …and are knocked off by machine-gun fire”.
There was huge bravery, but the loss of life and the casualties were tragic.
We must not forget—the noble Earl mentioned it up front—that D-day was possible only because of allied efforts elsewhere. It depended on allied control of the Atlantic. What those working at Bletchley Park did to help control the Atlantic, let alone what they did for D-day, has been mentioned time and again. The campaign in Italy directed German troops away from the Western and Eastern Fronts, and of course the Soviet Belorussian offensive, Operation Bagration, was launched just after Overlord.
I have been chair of the Memorial Gates Council—the gates that commemorate the service and sacrifice of the 5 million troops from south Asia, Africa and the Caribbean who served in the First World War and Second World War. In the Second World War, 2.5 million Indian volunteers served in north Africa, the Middle East and Italy, and they also fought the Japanese in Malaya, north-east India and Burma. They were awarded 31 Victoria Crosses. Thousands of lives were lost and thousands of casualties were incurred.
The Italian campaign was particularly important. My father’s cousin, Lieutenant-General Satarawala, who was in my father’s regiment, the Fifth Gurkhas, was awarded the Military Cross in that campaign. Over 5,000 Indians lost their lives. The Gustav Line was finally breached on 14 May. While the Fifth Army made a flanking attack to the south, the Eighth Army of British, Polish, Canadian and Indian troops made a frontal assault on the line at Cassino. The number of Indian casualties in the Italian campaign was huge—over 24,000. My father’s own regiment, the 1st/5th Gurkhas, was in Italy from December 1943 to May 1945. One battalion suffered over 1,000 casualties during that period, including one who received the Victoria Cross.
I asked Major-General Cardozo, who wrote the book about my father’s life, whether any Indians took part in D-day. He said that they were not there because they had been fighting in Italy. It needs to be understood that because the Indian army and the Gurkhas were fighting in Africa, Sicily and Italy, the Germans were not able to move their forces to hold the allies who attacked across the channel on D-day. I do not think that we should ever forget that—a point made at the beginning of the debate.
However, the success of D-day was not enough. American, British and Canadian troops faced another two and a half months of vicious fighting in Normandy. Antony Beevor, who was quoted earlier, said:
“Normandy was martyred in its suffering, but this terrible concentration of fighting at least saved Paris and the rest of the country from destruction”.
Most importantly, as has been said, it was a bright and shining moment for liberal democracy, defeating what Churchill called a “new Dark Age” of Nazism. The historical significance of D-day can never be underestimated in terms of democracy and international collaboration overcoming totalitarianism. A point that has not been emphasised enough is that, by early 1944, Germany and the Soviet Union were beginning to take over Europe. We can only imagine what have happened had they done so; D-day helped save us from that.
This was an allied victory. As we celebrate its 70th anniversary, we thank NATO for the peace that it has brought. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, talked about commemoration; our youth, and future generations, must never forget. We must always be grateful to all those who fought on D-day. Today we must thank our Armed Forces, and we will always remember all those who made the ultimate sacrifice. We thank them because they gave their today for our tomorrow.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and saying how pleased I am that he has joined us on these Benches. I am sure that he will make many valuable contributions on connectivity, as well as on many other things, and I look forward to hearing them.
Most of us in this Chamber have two things in common: we were nowhere near the Second World War, but we have benefited enormously from the international settlement that followed it. I was born just before D-day in what was very much another country. One factor in the Britain—or England—of that time was that some 20% of males between the ages of 20 and 40 were from outside the UK. They were soldiers from Canada, the United States and many countries of Europe who were in Britain as part of the build-up to help with that invasion and what followed it. I have a few figures: there were apparently almost 3 million US servicemen in this country by 1945. They had come, some had moved on—they were not necessarily here at the same time—but they had been here.
I echo the sentiments made by other noble Lords that we must not confuse the personality of the President of the United States with the people and institutions of that country, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. By coming out of isolationism under Roosevelt, the United States did more to build the western European—now European—values that we believe in than probably anyone else. By the time D-day happened, albeit a very important happening, the Germans were already on the road to defeat. It was a question of time, as in the case of Japan in the summer of 1945: it was going to be defeated, but how long would it take? The Germans were going to be defeated, but how long would it take? We needed all those troops. We should not forget the enormous contribution of General—rather than President—Eisenhower, who pulled together the disparate politics and attitudes of many different people, and many leaders in the different contingents that made up the allied forces of the Second World War. Eisenhower was a truly inspiring politician who wore uniform; he certainly pulled everybody together.
Denis Healey—a noble Lord in this House many years ago and a leading member of the Labour Party—once said of the European Union at a small meeting that I attended: “Europe will be in trouble when there is no longer a generation that remembers the war; that remembers Anzio and why the post-war institutions were built”. He was absolutely right. The Second World War was in many ways just a continuation of the First World War, at the end of which the mistake made was the retreat of internationalism. When I lectured in history, I used to say: “You can rewrite your history, but you cannot rewrite your geography”.
I would like people to take a closer look at the history of inter-war Europe. It was not a history of flourishing democracies and a wicked Soviet Union; in the eastern part of our continent, it was a history of pretty repressive regimes. There was not much democracy to be found in the countries of central and eastern Europe, or in the countries of the rest of Europe. Southern Europe had a variety of authoritarian regimes. If we start with Ataturk in Turkey, Venizelos, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and swing round to the country my family came from, the Republic of Ireland, they were all quite authoritarian regimes. To my mind, what we got out of the Second World War was the liberal democracy that has persevered since then.
The person we have to thank for that is largely Roosevelt, who had a vision of what could happen. Both Roosevelt and his successor, Harry Truman, had had the advantage—an unusual one among those from the United States—of spending time in Europe. Harry Truman spent this time in uniform; Roosevelt—who was from a much more privileged background—crucially spent time in Germany as a young person. We tend to forget what we owe to these people. We forget what we owe to a heroine of mine, Eleanor Roosevelt, who saved the International Labour Organization, getting it moved to Canada during the Second World War, who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and who had an enormous impact on social issues in America as well as on the development of, for example, the principles of the Atlantic Charter.
After the war—it could not have happened without D-day—we had the Council of Europe, the European Union and the European Coal and Steel Community. All were built on the hope and belief of a generation of which I am pleased to be a member that we could build a better Europe together. The biggest lesson of D-day is the multinationalism in its endeavour to achieve an ideological objective, which was the Atlantic Charter and its principles of democracy. To me, that is what D-day was about and why we are, rightly, celebrating it now. But we would not have the institutions that we have in western Europe had it not been for the assistance of the United States. Without Marshall Aid, there would have been no rebuilding; without NATO there would have been no guarantee of defence. The European Community would probably not have existed had it not been for the way in which the Americans quite openly intervened in European elections to get the results they wanted, with Governments who would build the type of societies that they wished to see. We should remember that: the societies we live in are owed in part to the determination, thoroughness and vision of, in particular, General Marshall, President Truman and Dean Acheson, the American Secretary of State. By all means, let us be critical of the current inhabitant of the White House, but let us remember the debt we owe to the people of the United States who, in so many ways, gave so much to make Europe a civilised continent.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and his most eloquent speech; I will echo many of his arguments and sentiments.
D-day marked the beginning of the end of the Second World War; we should never take that subsequent victory for granted. Modern scholarship tells us that, fighter for fighter, the Germans were the most ferociously effective force in the field in that war but Hitler, thank goodness, made a number of critical errors that would hasten his demise. He took on the Soviet Union, a huge, populous country with a hostile climate. His biggest error was to declare war unilaterally on the United States two days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and thus propel America into the war.
Before Hitler’s declaration of war, President Roosevelt had wanted to intervene in Europe, but the mood in Congress was isolationist and hostile—let us note the warning. The US began the war against Germany with much diminished military capacity, but it quickly swung into action and, with its industrial might, soon constructed ships faster than the Germans could build U-boats. America went on to transport vital materials and supplies to the UK.
We had begun the war strategically exposed: two-thirds of our food, one-third of our iron, 90% of our petroleum and 100% of our rubber all came from across the sea. The Battle of the Atlantic, however, would now be won: 3 million US troops and a mass of materiel would arrive in the UK before and immediately after D-day. That was only possible because we were an offshore island from which an attack on mainland Europe could be successfully launched.
Hitler’s final mistake had been not to attempt to invade and conquer the UK when we were at our weakest, post Dunkirk. Without our independent island status, it is inconceivable that the US could have launched an invasion on mainland Europe direct from America. In the east, the Soviets fought Hitler to a standstill, but at a price we should never forget. Of the 50 million who died in World War II, 25 million were Russians. As my noble friend Lord Bilimoria reminded us, the invasion of Italy had begun a year earlier in 1943. By the time of D-day, Hitler was extended on every possible front, and persistent bombing from the UK by the RAF and the United States Air Force weakened his defences in Europe even further.
Therefore, let us give thanks today, as others have said, to the British men and women of my father’s and my mother’s generation, who fought bravely to protect us on the land, sea and air. Let us thank the Russian people for their great sacrifice. Above all—and here I echo my noble friend Lord Hannay—let us thank the US for coming to our aid a second time and with concomitant sacrifice in this most cruel and destructive of wars. Let us recognise that, while we may not all concur with President Trump’s policies and attitudes, he is the Head of State of our greatest and most important ally and should be honoured accordingly. Let us secondly recognise that if the US had not entered the war, Hitler might have ultimately vanquished the Soviets and ruled all of Europe, including—eventually and inevitably—the UK itself. Alternatively, if the Soviets had prevailed, western as well as eastern Europe might have ended up under the Soviet yoke. Either way, the UK would have tumbled into a totalitarian nightmare.
Let us finally recognise—and many have said this, as Her Majesty did last night—the genius of those after the war who created an institutional framework, including the UN, NATO and eventually the EU, which has underpinned the stability of our continent for 75 years after centuries of war and strife. D-day, 6 June, is a day for us to be intensely grateful, to proclaim that we take nothing for granted and to speak up in support of those very institutions which have underpinned our peace and prosperity for so long.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Reay on his maiden speech, I have to add my apologies for attempting to leave the Chamber as he rose to his feet to deliver a most impressive maiden speech.
Several references have been made in this debate to the meticulous planning by the joint British, Canadian and American teams in the two years or so before D-day. There is one aspect of these preparations that, perhaps, has not had the attention it deserves: the intensive training given to all formations that were likely to be involved in the Normandy landings. I am most grateful to the Minister for highlighting this point. I pay tribute to Mr Peter Caddick-Adams, a summary of whose findings appear in this month’s BBC History magazine. Broadly, the main areas where this training took place were, for the British forces, that surrounding Loch Fyne in the Clyde estuary; and for the American forces, south-west England, particularly Devon and Cornwall.
In order to make the training as realistic as possible, normal safety procedures had to be bypassed. Live ammunition had to be widely used. The inevitable result was that casualties were high. Among the infantry there were a number of deaths through drowning, not helped by the heavy equipment that many would have been carrying. There is a chilling account of a mistake made by a landing craft in one of those exercises: they mistook landfall, and 10 heavily armed infantrymen vanished into the sea, never to be seen again. Inevitably, casualties were also heavy among the airborne troops.
Perhaps the best known training disaster was Exercise Tiger at Slapton Sands in north Devon in April 1944, involving 30,000 US servicemen. A fleet of German E-boats came across the assault convoy and, unaware of the true purposes of the exercise, loosed several torpedoes before they made their way back to France. The torpedoes and the ensuing chaos caused the deaths of just short of 1,000 US troops. Occurring as it did close to the date of the planned invasion, the disaster was hushed up at the highest level and whole villages in north Devon were placed in quarantine, to which my noble friend has referred.
In May 1944 there was a massive rehearsal, Operation Fabius, designed to be as near as possible to real thing. Nobody below the rank of lieutenant colonel knew that it was not. Mr Caddick-Adams wrote:
“Everything possible was rehearsed and umpired: minesweepers cleared the sea; aircraft dropped ordinance; the coast was bombarded with live ammunition; command ships issued orders and monitored frequencies. Alongside swimming tanks, landing craft tanks shipped armour onto the beaches”.
Obstacles and real minefields were laid. Here again, the operation was made as realistic as possible. Casualties were regrettably high.
Mr Caddick-Adams has come to the chilling conclusion that probably more lives were lost in the preparations and training for D-day than in the first 24 hours of the battle itself. He wrote:
“The Allied servicemen who invaded northern France had experienced an incredible degree of rugged and realistic training that put them at the peak of physical fitness, acclimatised them to battle and equipped them mentally and physically to win”.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, my father landed on Sword beach at about 8 am on 6 June. He was not in the first wave, but he arrived very soon afterwards, after a long night feeling seasick and very scared. He was finally back on French soil, soil he had left earlier in the Dunkirk retreat. He was a major in charge of a battalion with the Suffolks and their mission was to take a bunker, nicknamed Hillman after the popular car. My father’s first job was to secure the small village that lay between the coast and the bunker. This he did, and it went without a hitch, the sole enemy being a sniper in a church tower, whom Dad and his men dealt with easily. The bunker, however, was another story. Hillman, as I was to discover for myself, was virtually impregnable. It was entirely underground, defended by gun turrets which peaked above the grass. My father’s role was to provide covering fire for the company undertaking the assault. Shots were exchanged and time passed—time that had not been scheduled into the battle order of the day. It was, for the Suffolks, a grim time, one my father would worry about for the rest of his life, because their failure to take the bunker quickly had somewhat delayed the advance on Caen.
Seventy years later, my father long dead, I stood at the entrance to that bunker. It seemed incredibly insignificant to have caused so much trouble. I was there for the anniversary celebrations and a group of us had hired a guide. We had asked him to retrace my father’s footsteps from the beaches to where he was wounded. From Hillman we walked inland, arriving at the bottom of a long hill which led up to a chateau wall. My father had been tasked with taking the chateau, but he had no armour or artillery support. There were panzers in the chateau’s grounds, concealed behind the walls, their guns pointing down the hill.
Our guide, a retired major-general, told me that my father was leading his men up this hill when he was wounded, “Somewhere round here”. He waved his hand towards a stretch of grass. “Actually,” came a voice, “it was right here. I was next to him”. We had not noticed an elderly chap coming up behind us. He told me that my father had been taken down to the field hospital—here he pointed down the hill at a barn—while he had somehow gone on up to the chateau wall. On arrival, he turned around and looked back, aghast to discover that he was the only member of C Company to have made it up to the wall. The tanks stationed behind it were spraying bullets across the hillsides. “What on earth did you do?” I asked. He grinned. “I beat it back down again and I lived to tell the tale. But this was carnage.” My father, meanwhile, was patched up and shortly afterwards returned to his regiment.
As it was the 70th anniversary year, there were re-enactments all along the Normandy coast. We went back to Hillman, where there were veterans in uniforms mingling with German officers and men in uniforms. I was introduced to the grandson of the bunker’s commander, who was an Austrian. The grandson is a lawyer in Germany and a reservist in the Germany army. In fact, he had done a spell at Sandhurst, part of an army exchange. We talked. It was very sunny. We were getting on very well, remembering my father and his grandfather. I really liked him, and I suspect I would have liked his grandfather, and that my father would have done too. I told him that Dad had always been puzzled about something: why did his grandfather, when he finally surrendered from the bunker, come out carrying both his leather suitcases in his hands, his batman walking behind? The grandson was puzzled. He said, “I don’t have a clue, but there is someone here who can answer this question”. He pointed me towards an elderly German soldier, dressed up in his uniform. He said, “This is the batman”. It was an extraordinary moment. The answer was translated. He was smiling. He said, “Well, the commander carried his cases because he did not want to come out with his hands up”. I stood there, feeling goose bumps on my arms, just wishing that Dad had known this. It would have made him laugh; it would have given him enormous pleasure. I shook the batman’s hand and thought how immensely lucky I have been.
After that almost endless conflict was over, Europe resolved that it would do everything possible not to end up fighting each other again; that trading and co-operating could avert future wars; and that sending a young reservist in the Germany army to Sandhurst for a spell could cement ties that were very strong and durable. NATO and the UN resulted, as, of course, did the wonderful European Union. It has been fundamental to the peace, prosperity and security that I and all of us have been so privileged to enjoy.
I still have the lump of shrapnel dug out of my father’s calf that day. It is a quite horrid bit of metal. It is jagged and very spiky. It is a reminder of what neighbour can do to neighbour, of what potential friend can do to potential friend. I am extremely proud of my father, as is my daughter, and I know that he, like me and Daisy, would find the prospect of leaving this extraordinary Union both very sad and very alarming. I bet that the commander’s grandson and the retired batman, if he is still with us, feel the same.
Lord Brennan (Lab)
My Lords, this and other acts of commemoration this week about the D-day landing and its aftermath are important and necessary. Memory, it has been said, is the architecture of our identity and sense of belonging, both individually and collectively. Embedded in our memory, individually and collectively, are often the powerful effects of great historical events. Some are likely never to be forgotten and continue to provide the basis for the maintenance and, I hope, development of our national character.
D-day was such an event. As has been said, it was the largest seaborne invasion in history, with landings spread over 50 kilometres of the Normandy coast. As the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, emphasised, there were over 150,000 allied troops on D-day 75 years ago. As my noble friend Lord Anderson pointed out, there were thousands of sea vessels and aircraft. These are not just numbers; they are a physical expression of national unity and determination. They impress now as, no doubt, they impressed then. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, pointed out intelligence. Some have mentioned the French Resistance. All must have felt a sense of destiny. It was marked in particular by allied co-operation, probably greater than ever before in numbers and in such a mighty conflict as began this Normandy campaign.
To illustrate at a small level numerically, but nevertheless an equal standard of bravery, there were two outposts on the Normandy coast. One at Merville, during the night before the boats left the UK, was the subject of an intended attack by 600 UK paratroopers. They landed in various parts during the night. Only 120 of the 600 reached their target. That is attrition. On the US side at Pointe du Hoc, this and Merville being places where the Germans had spread artillery and gunfire along the beaches, 200 US Rangers took on that outpost. One hundred and thirty of them were dead or wounded. That is attrition. At small and large level, they exhibited the qualities which we should be not only proud of, but grateful for.
As numbers grew after D-day, as I understand it there were pretty soon 39 divisions in Normandy—22 US, 12 UK, three Canadian, one French and one Polish. That illustrates the allied nature of the invasion. They fought as one army, commanded by General Eisenhower, an American, the commander-in-chief, and led in the field by the general in charge of the army on land, General Montgomery. With such casualties and such a determined attack, only someone with no understanding of nation, history or duty could fail to appreciate its importance, as a result of alliance. There are no better allies—not only the ones who will sign a defence treaty, but the ones who will join you on the battlefield.
As Her Majesty said last night in her speech,
“we owe an immeasurable debt to the”,
United States and to our other allies. It would be helpful to be reminded, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, that in the Asia theatre, similar allied action was taking place—the British were in southern Asia and the Americans were attacking across the Pacific—with the same results, albeit with an entirely different enemy.
Those who died, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, pointed out, were young—at the beginning of their lives, which ended. Oratorical words such as duty, honour and country come to mind, but these ordinary young men from ordinary backgrounds exhibited service, loyalty and sacrifice. I remember the day when the local British legion man in my village in the Cotswolds read out the name of every young man killed in both wars from that village—a quarter of its young men over two wars. It is very moving. None of us in this great metropolis or in our great cities should ever forget that throughout this country—in our villages, families and communities—families, friends and descendants do not forget.
Historical ignorance is an ever-present danger. It produces cultural superficiality and an unjustified belief that, in the modern world, military alliances are outdated and unnecessary—dangerous thinking. With all this in mind, on this day of remembrance, let us give respect and gratitude, especially to those who died, in this initial step towards the ultimate victory of freedom and democracy and the end of totalitarian rule in Europe.
Post-18 Review of Education and Funding
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s review of post-18 education and its funding—the first review since the Robbins report in 1963 to look at the totality of post-18 education. The Government will carefully consider the independent panel’s recommendations before finalising our approach at the spending review.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the independent panel, led by Philip Augar, for its exceptional work. Alongside Dr Augar on the panel were Professor Sir Ivor Crewe, Jacqueline de Rojas CBE, Professor Edward Peck, Beverley Robinson OBE and Professor the Baroness Alison Wolf. The panel consulted with a wide spectrum of experts, leaders and senior figures and received almost 400 responses to its call for evidence. I would like to also thank all those stakeholders, including colleagues from across this House, who contributed to the review. We will continue to engage with stakeholders now that the independent panel phase is complete and as we work towards the completion of the review.
A lot of the attention will be on what this report says about higher education, but the majority of students in post-18 education are not at university. The report identifies the importance of both further and higher education in creating a system which unlocks everyone’s talents. As the Prime Minister said last week, further education and technical colleges are not just places of learning; they are vital engines of both social mobility and of economic prosperity. Colleges play an essential part in delivering the modern industrial strategy and equipping young people with knowledge and skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow. And of course, we are very conscious of the need for reskilling and upskilling at a time when we are all more likely to have multiple careers during our working lives.
We are already carrying out a major upgrade to technical and vocational education, including the introduction of new T-levels for young people and developing proposals to introduce employer-focused, higher technical qualifications at so-called levels 4 and 5. These will provide high-quality technical qualifications to rival traditional academic options, and we have overhauled apprenticeships to provide people with the skills and career paths they need for great jobs and great careers. But appropriate attention to our college sector—the backbone of technical education in this country—is required to ensure technical education is an equally valid path for a young person as a degree route. I believe that the principles set out in this report will help lay the foundation for a sector that is stronger and more robust and will help cement its reputation as being among the best in the world.
Our higher education system transforms lives and is a great contributor, both to our industrial success and to the cultural life of the nation. It can open up a whole world of opportunities and broaden horizons. Whatever decisions we make about how best to take forward recommendations in this report, it is vital that we support these institutions to continue to offer world-leading higher education to students in future.
The opportunity to study at university should be open to anyone with the talent and potential to benefit from that experience. Gaining a university degree has benefits both for individuals and for society—or, in the jargon, it has both a private return and a social return. On average, doing a degree has strong earning returns, equating to over £100,000 extra lifetime earnings per graduate after tax. So we believe it is right that contributions to the cost of higher education need to be shared between the student and the taxpayer.
The scale of the government subsidy today is in fact much larger than most people imagine—close to half the total—and it is a progressive system, where those on the highest income contribute the most and those on incomes lower than £25,725 make no contribution. As Government we believe it is essential that we provide the right support to enable people from all backgrounds to access and, most importantly, succeed at university and on other higher-level courses.
In 2018, we had record rates of 18 year-olds accepted to full-time university, up 0.4 percentage points to 33.7%. Students from the lowest-income households have access to the largest ever amounts of cash support for their living costs. Already this year, we have increased living costs support for the 2019-20 academic year to a record amount.
However, although 18 year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds are now 52% more likely to go to university than 10 years ago, there is more progress that we need to make. Disadvantaged students are still less likely than their more advantaged peers to attend the most selective universities, have the support they need to successfully complete their degree, and are less likely to achieve a 2.1 or a First. The panel’s proposals on support for disadvantaged groups are an important contribution to the debate in this area.
I very much welcome the focus that the panel has placed on making sure that all higher education is of high quality and also delivers well for students and the taxpayer. There are very high-quality courses across the full range of subjects—from creative arts to medicine—but there are also courses where students are less well served. I have also spoken in recent months of bad practices not in the student interest, such as artificial grade inflation and so-called conditional unconditional offers.
The panel’s recommendations on student finance are detailed and interrelated and cannot be considered each in isolation. We will need to look carefully at each recommendation in turn and in the round to reach a view on what will best support students and the institutions they study at, and ensure value for taxpayers. In considering these recommendations, we will also have regard to students currently in the system, or about to enter it, to ensure any changes are fair to current and new cohorts of students.
I am sure the House will recognise that this comprehensive report, with detailed analysis and no fewer than 53 recommendations, gives the Government a lot to consider. We will continue to engage with stakeholders on the findings and recommendations in the panel report, and conclude the review at the spending review. But I am clear that whatever route a student chooses, and whatever their background, post-18 education should set them on a successful path for their future. With this vision, I strongly believe that the HE and FE sectors can and should continue to thrive together. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. I too am grateful to the independent panel led by Philip Augar and to the expert stakeholders, industry leaders and representatives who contributed to that review. The review’s recommendations include some positive measures and we welcome the focus on encouraging more flexible learning, including support for more bite-sized learning, with improved opportunity to ensure that the most diverse range of learners can benefit from further and higher education.
The report recommends the reintroduction of maintenance grants of at least £3,000 a year for disadvantaged students. It also calls for an increase in the amount of teaching grant funding that follows disadvantaged students and a greater focus on individual level measures of disadvantage, such as free school meals and household income, in allocating funding through the student premium. I hope that the Government will accept these proposals with the commensurate levels of funding required. Although the Minister noted that there were 53 recommendations to follow, signing up to these proposals early on would be a very positive step.
The headline-grabbing part of the report is of course on tuition fees. It was designed for that purpose by a Prime Minister panicked by the outcome for the last generation. The recommendations covering student fees, rebranded as student contributions, suggest that there should be a cut from £9,250 to £7,500. Not surprisingly, I favour Labour’s policy of scrapping tuition fees completely. For those who leave university owing £50,000 or more, with an interest rate at 6%, the cumulative effect of the proposals in the Augar report could be eye-watering. The recommendations do little to address the problem of the expanding burden of student debt. On the contrary, the report recommends lowering the repayment threshold from the current £25,725 to £23,000 and extending the repayment period before the debt is written off from 30 to 40 years. This is a terrible and regressive proposal that will increase the total payments made by lower-income earners, such as teachers and nurses, while providing relief for those on higher incomes—who of course have the capacity to pay off early.
Analysis by Universities UK estimates that these changes would result in middle earners paying back more—£11,823 more over their lifetime—while higher earners would have to pay back less, saving almost £19,000 in repayments. The LSE has already highlighted that this would disproportionately impact upon female graduates, so while the Statement lauds the progressive system that the Government believe is currently in place, the report introduces a highly regressive system. Given the Minister’s regard for education as a great engine of social mobility, I hope that he and his colleagues will immediately reject this recommendation and other regressive changes to the student finance system, and commit to working with whoever the new leader of his party is to ensure that there is a fair funding model for further and higher education. Perhaps he could even take this issue up with those colleagues who are running for leader, however many there may be.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government are prepared to consider the report’s recommendation that graduates’ lifetime repayments should be capped at 1.2 times the original capital in real terms. While it does not offer a solution to the problem of overwhelming student debt in itself, a cap is an interesting idea that deserves further consideration.
On cost and funding, this is apparently going to be a major issue, because the report recommends that the Government increase central funding. However, the fear is that these reconditions, if adopted, will be at the cost of universities. There is an implicit assumption within the Treasury that universities can and will make efficiency gains to make up for funding shortfalls, which currently stand at around £1.8 billion a year. Take that money away from universities and they will suffer. Some universities may increase their efforts to recruit more lucrative, high fee-paying international students; the reality is that without a substantial and appropriate increase in central government funding the shortfall will burgeon, to the detriment of students and those in wider society who benefit from this country having a skilled workforce. Further shortfalls will inevitably mean reduced spending involving redundancies, recruitment freezes, smaller annual pay increases and cutting student support services—that is just for starters. This would limit opportunity, damage universities, decrease the number of highly skilled employees that business needs and reduce our international competitiveness at a time when modern Britain needs it most, not least in the post-Brexit world.
The problems that need addressing with further and higher education funding are plain to see. We hope that the next Prime Minister will commit to ensuring that the system of funding will benefit students, employers, universities and our communities across all four nations of the UK, and that political uncertainly does not mean that this review will—as so many other reviews have been under Mrs May—be kicked into the long grass.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, this report has been long awaited and I do not doubt that the Minister is quite relieved that he is at last able to tell us about it. We owe a debt of gratitude to Philip Augar and his team for the amount of work that they have put into it. It makes some really welcome recommendations on further education and skills, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, set out. Successive Governments have neglected the importance of colleges and lifelong learning, so this change of emphasis is to be commended.
Over the last 10 years colleges have had to deal with an average funding cut of 30%, while costs have increased dramatically. Further education is the only part of the education budget to have had year-on-year cuts since 2010. Funding for adult education has had a cut of 62%; in the last 10 years, we have seen total enrolments for adults drop from 5.1 million to 1.9 million; funding for students aged 16 to 18 has been cut by 8% in real terms since 2010; and colleges have been tasked with the new T-levels, which may or may not turn out to be an improvement on the well-respected vocational qualifications which are around at the moment.
We note that Augar’s proposed lifelong learning loan allowance is restricted to a limited range of courses. Mature students may not want to take out a loan late in their careers and this funding model may not work for those who have financial constraints, such as a mortgage or children. Taking out a loan is unlikely to be the most effective way of triggering a revolution in lifelong learning. Will the Minister consider expanding it to cover a wider range of education and training, and to provide grants rather than loans so that no one is unable to afford the education they need to advance their careers? Giving everyone, no matter their age, the right to a free level 3 qualification—equivalent to A-levels—will ensure that no one is denied the basic skills they need to advance their career.
We welcome the recommendation that:
“The unit funding … for economically valuable adult education courses should be increased”.
I still think it sad that the general interest programmes which colleges used to provide have gone. They were a valuable source of social mobility and improved health and well-being. They encouraged adults into learning for the fun of it. I taught French and Spanish classes way back when to people who were inveterate learners, and all the better for it, but those days of happy free learning have—alas—gone.
The capital investment of at least £1 billion is well overdue, as is the recommendation that:
“Investment in the FE workforce should be a priority, allowing improvements in recruitment and retention, drawing in more expertise from industry, and strengthening professional development”.
The FE workforce has been underpaid for far too long.
As was mentioned, anyone who does not have an undergraduate degree will be entitled to a lifelong learning loan allowance. This will allow them to receive tuition fee and maintenance loans for any level 4, 5 or 6 course. It is welcome that the ELQ rules that prevent students receiving public funding for a course at the same or lower level than one they already possess should be abolished for levels 4 to 6. This rule has prevented many people retraining for fresh opportunities.
On apprenticeships, we should also like to see more emphasis on the Richard review recommendations:
“An apprentice must be new to the job or job role”,
and that the,
“upskilling of the adult workforce … should not be bundled with apprenticeships”.
The apprenticeship levy seems to be having the reverse effect of encouraging adult upskilling at the expense of new entrants to the workforce.
It is good that universities offering degree-level courses at level 6 should award an interim qualification to students who complete their first one or two years, allowing those who drop out to still have a certificate to show for their efforts. This might in time encourage credit accumulation and transfer to enable them to take their part-qualification on in the future. This has been on the cards for years and has never found a market. Will the Government encourage a new push for credit accumulation and transfer between colleges and universities?
With many good things in these parts of the review, we do have questions over the university proposals, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, set out. We regret that the review has been undermined by a shoddy, regressive change to student loans, which we rather suspect has been influenced by No. 10. How much less will students now repay? This is, of course, a trick question. Graduates will now pay their loans back earlier and for 10 years longer. Most new graduates will pay about £15 a month more than under the current system. Bringing maintenance grants back will ensure that students from the poorest homes do not have the most to repay. Augar’s proposal for student loans for higher further education learners is a good start but it is not radical enough. As our economy changes rapidly, everyone will need to retrain and upskill throughout their lives.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that the Government must compensate universities in full if the tuition fees cut goes ahead? We hear that teaching grants should be increased to reflect the loss of funding to universities that a cut in tuition fees will bring. However, the grants should be allocated to reflect the cost of teaching the subject and the subject’s social and economic value. Where will subjects such as ancient history sit and will pure research become a thing of the past? If the funding is not made up, universities will doubtless cut their widening participation budgets and drop subjects that are too expensive to teach; I do not include ancient history in that group. Secondly, will the Government curb the sky-high interest rates put on loans after people graduate? The Government make a great deal from middle-income graduates because the interest rates bear no relation to the cost of government borrowing. Thirdly, given the crisis in NHS recruitment, will the Government bring back nurses’ bursaries?
We probably need to go further. As Martin Lewis has argued, for most graduates, the current system works a bit like a graduate tax, so why not turn it into one? All the frightening language about “fees”, “loans” and “debt” disappears overnight. Students from wealthier families, who bypass the system by paying tuition fees up front, instead pay their fair share. The system becomes more progressive and most graduates would pay a little less. There are, of course, problems with a graduate tax too. We would want to review the proposals to see what impact it would have on widening participation and on universities’ budgets. However, it seems that the Conservatives have encouraged Philip Augar to put a catchy headline on reduced fees above the truth. Does the Secretary of State realise that Augar’s positive recommendations for further education have been undermined by these regressive proposals for student loans? Has the Treasury approved an increase in teaching grants to cover the tuition fees cut? If not, the Prime Minister will have achieved the impossible: charging seven in 10 students more to go to university, but paying universities less to teach them.
Our party would be keen to create personal education and skills accounts, giving every adult over 25 the opportunity to learn for free wherever they want, whenever they want, with careers guidance in place to support them along the way. Good careers guidance is key to much of the benefit in these proposals. The more people enjoy learning and the more they learn, the more ready they are to learn more, which in the long term benefits our economy, making it easier for employers to find the higher-skilled and more creative people they will increasingly need as technology develops. We hope that the Government will support the FE proposals to the hilt, but look again at the changes to tuition fees which may well disadvantage those the Government most want to help.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for their comments. I am pleased that he said that there were some positive measures in the review. In answer to her, I say that I am relieved that the review is now upon us at last.
The noble Lord referred to the proposed reintroduction of maintenance grants and teaching grants. The noble Baroness also spoke about this. As they would both expect, I cannot comment on these aspects now but we will certainly look at the 53 recommendations which came out of the Augar review. On teaching grants, as Augar says, many courses produce extremely good value for money and have a high student satisfaction rate but some do not. Under his proposals, the teaching grant perhaps needs to be better targeted. I cannot comment on that, but we are going to look very carefully at what the review has said and report back at the spending review.
The noble Lord raised the subject of tuition fees. The proposed cut in tuition fees needs to be considered in the round, as I said in the Statement. It needs to be considered in conjunction with the proposals on in-study interest rates, the reduction in the threshold and the extension of the repayment period, which he referred to. These things are all related and it is essential that they are looked at with great care. He stated that the Labour Party’s policy is that it would scrap tuition fees immediately. I have known that for a while but it is interesting to have it straight from him. As he will know, the panel in the Augar review set out the principle that:
“Getting the taxpayer to pay for everything is unaffordable. Getting learners to pay all their own costs is unfair to those of limited means. Getting employers to pay for the whole system would put too much emphasis on economic value alone. A shared responsibility, in our view, is the only fair and feasible solution”.
The Government and the panel agree that maintaining an income-contingent repayment system is the fairest way of sharing the cost of higher education between the taxpayer and those who benefit directly. Even early in their careers, at age 29, earnings of students who attended higher education are increased by around 26% for women, and 6% for men, compared to similar students who did not attend. On average, doing a degree has strong earning returns—over £100,000 over a lifetime—as mentioned in the Statement. The repayment system is fair and progressive. Students do not need to make any repayments on their loans until they are earning £25,725 per year. However, we must remember that the 2012 fee reforms enabled the Government to lift the cap on student numbers, since when we have seen record rates of 18 year-olds entering full-time higher education. Having said that, the Government will consider the panel’s recommendations carefully and conclude their review at the spending review.
I also took note of the comment made by the noble Lord on the lifetime cap. That will also be part of the mix. With great respect, I beg to differ with what the noble Baroness said about funding. We continue to engage with stakeholders to deliver a post-18 education system that is both joined up and supported by a funding system that works for students and taxpayers. I point out that since 2012 the total income for universities in England has increased by around £6 billion, and resource per student is at an historic high. The IFS estimates that the 2012 reforms increased real funding per student by almost 25%.
The noble Baroness also spoke about T-levels. The good thing about T-levels, as I have said in the Chamber before, is that they are employer-led. They are put together in conjunction with employers and it is very important that we remember that.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
May I just point out that all vocational qualifications have always been employer-led? That is not something new for T-levels—all vocational qualifications are led by employers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I take note of what the noble Baroness said. I suspect that it is all a matter of degree, because in addition to apprenticeships now being employer-led, more than ever has now been done to include employers in helping to set the standards for apprenticeships, for example, and to help put T-levels together.
I also note the interest the noble Baroness has often shown in further education and her comments about workforce pay. We are currently focused on listening to a wide range of feedback from many sources and are considering how effective our funding and regulatory structures are in supporting high-quality provision. We will continue to engage with stakeholders to ensure that the review delivers a post-18 education system that is joined up and supported and works for students and taxpayers.
I think I have covered all the questions and I may say a little more about T-levels later.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this report and I congratulate Dr Philip Augar and his team on many of their recommendations. There was one thing that hurt me a little in the foreword, where Dr Augur claims:
“No prior government of any persuasion has considered further education to be a priority”.
I refute that. When my noble friend Lord Blunkett was Secretary of State and I was the Minister of State responsible for post-16 education we gave a great deal of priority to further education. Indeed, we increased spending on FE by 12% per annum, so I hope that that can be noted.
I am particularly glad that further education has been given so much attention by this report, because it has been greatly neglected by this Government and their predecessor. I was amazed by the Prime Minister’s statement that she considers this to be a very important sector for social mobility, technical education and so on. Given that she said that fairly recently I cannot imagine what she thought she was doing in allowing the huge cuts that were implemented by the Government and by their predecessor. I want to pick up on the point about “the headline issue”, as my noble friend Lord Bassam called it, of the £7,500 fee. I was always opposed to the £9,000 fee and I support this reduction; however, I very much hope that the debate about this report will not focus on higher education and what we charge students. That seems to me to be a secondary issue compared to how we restore FE to the state it needs to be in if we are to improve the productivity of our economy through higher skills of young people and adult learners in further education.
Can the noble Viscount give us some indication of a timetable for the implementation of these proposals? I fear there is a grave danger that they will sit on a back burner for many months, given the state of the Government at the moment and the lack of a new leader yet. I hope that some of these proposals can be considered for implementation as a matter of urgency, especially the funding of FE but also the outrageous level of interest of 6% charged to higher education students on their student loans.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I accept what the noble Baroness said and I note her point that we are not the only Government to have focused on education. Her point is noted and I will go back and read the part of the Augar review that she pointed to. On her point about the proposed reduction in fees to £7,500, as I said before, we are going to look carefully at the proposal. Of course, what we are trying to do is create a balance between how we fund higher and further education and how we give value for money for students and more focus on courses. The quality of courses is terribly important, not just for the students but for Britain as a whole and for helping with productivity.
On the timetable, as I said earlier, the pledge is that the Government will conclude this review at the time of the spending review, which is sometime in October.
Baroness Blackstone
Would it be possible just to say when the spending review is likely to take place?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, like others I welcome the review, but I have two concerns. One is that I do not believe that the quality of careers guidance is anything like as high as it should be, a point touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. Nor do I believe that citizenship education is of a quality that the country deserves and should demand. Will my noble friend agree to talk to the Secretary of State and others in his department and tell them that unless we get these two things right, many of the other admirable proposals in this report will in fact come to naught?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend is absolutely right. He will know that we are working very hard on improving careers guidance, not least in schools, and we have the National Careers Service. The quality and spread of advice is also important, particularly in disadvantaged areas. He will know that, through the Baker clause, there is now a legal obligation on secondary schools to include careers guidance to pupils. As for character development and all that, that is really left up to head teachers to decide upon. More usually than not—I do not have any statistics on me—that comes under the heading of PSHE.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chancellor of one university and chairman-elect of another, and commend the report for one thing—I am quite critical of many of the issues raised in it—which is the bringing together of further and higher education into one system and thinking about them together. I think that is absolutely important, but the risk is that this is a zero-sum game: if there is no further funding to bring forward that increase in priority for further education, will that reduce the funding for higher education, with catastrophic impacts not only on teaching but especially on research, as a result of the quite substantial cross-subsidy that exists between different funding and spending streams within each university? How does the Minister see that fitting with the Government’s commitment to increase research funding to 2.4% of GDP, if universities are to be constrained in their very important role of taking that research increase forward?
One other issue has not yet been touched upon. Dr Philip Augar’s report talks about apprenticeships for the future, and the Statement stressed the Government’s consciousness of the need for reskilling and upskilling. That is particularly true of people who are mid-career. As skills and jobs change dramatically at the moment, mid-career people need upskilling just as much as others, yet the report recommends that apprenticeships at postgraduate level should not be allowed for someone who has already had a publicly funded degree qualification. I hope that the Government will reject that proposal.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, I take note of the feedback from the noble Baroness and I am sure it will be passed back to the department. I totally agree with her that bringing further and higher education together is a very good thing. As I said in the Statement, it is the first time since 1963, in the Robbins report, that they have been looked at together, and that is very important indeed.
The noble Baroness also made a very good point about the importance of research, the university sector and joined-up thinking. I reassure her that this is very much at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. It goes back to what I was saying earlier about the importance of the UK remaining competitive in a global world and of upskilling and reskilling, as she said, to have the right skills to meet needs looking well ahead—not just five or 10 years, but 20 or 30 years. Through the industrial strategy we committed £406 million of investment into education and skills. In addition, through last year’s Autumn Budget the Government invested over £1 billion to support students through their education. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured that this is very important for our economy.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, despite declaring an interest as a visiting professor at one university and as a former visiting fellow at another, I am delighted that the debate in this House has focused so much on further education. I agree that in some ways these are the most radical parts of the report. For me, the most shocking statement in the report is in the principles, which shows that even while access to university has increased dramatically,
“the total number of people involved in post-18 education has in fact declined”.
That is because of a decline in further education. I am in no doubt that this dreadful state of affairs is one of the key reasons behind our poor productivity as a nation. I encourage my noble friend to take back to the department, the Secretary of State and whoever will be our next leader that they should have the courage of their convictions and follow Philip Augar’s very sensible advice to shift public subsidy away from low-value degrees into high-quality technical education that will deliver much better economic growth, productivity and social mobility.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Again, I am happy to take the message back, but I am not in a position to make any commitments—which, admittedly, my noble friend did not ask me to do. I say again that it is so important both horizontally and vertically to have a system whereby individuals’ careers are managed from a pretty early stage and that the right guidance is given to them on whether to go up through the academic route—through university, for example—or through the vocational, technical route, using T-levels or apprenticeships. My point is that it is all joined-up thinking. It must be, because vertically, through the career path, and horizontally, in what you can actually offer, it is very important that we get it right. That is all part of our thinking. The Augar review is extremely informative to our thinking.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of council at Lancaster University. I endorse the welcome from these Benches of the Augar review’s emphasis on the improvement of further education and the integration of our further and higher education efforts. This has always been the Cinderella of our education system, and we have to correct it. However, does the Minister accept that there are dangers in the line of thinking that one can improve the further education sector by making economies and redistributing money from the university sector? I do not believe that this is a feasible course of action. Indeed, the reintroduction of maintenance grants and the cut in the fee to £7,500 proposed in Augar will require increased spending on universities if their standards are not to fall. If there is a cut in the income of universities, my noble friend is correct that the research is not fully funded by the Government, and that, therefore, there will be pressure on research budgets. Also, if the headline fee is cut without any comparable increase in the teaching grant, universities will find that they are under pressure to cut what they spend at present on wider participation and bursaries. That would be a tragedy for equal opportunities in this country.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has said. I think the assumption he is making out of Augar is that there could be a skewing of funding—robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is noted, and it is perhaps understandable that it has come out of the Augar review. As I say, I cannot comment on that at all. We will need to think about it. As I said to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, we need to look at all these important institutions and at what we are trying to do as part of the industrial strategy as a whole, because they are all important. It is very important that we have a world-class technical sector and a world-class university sector. It all has to go together.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that if we are to achieve the worthwhile aim of ensuring a parity of esteem between what might be done post-18 by our young people, perhaps more work has to be done pre-18 before people get stuck in a mindset of believing that if they are not for university then they are not going for something that is an equal or better alternative?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, and that plays nicely into the question raised by my noble friend Lord Cormack about careers advice. My noble friend is absolutely right that it is very important that, through schools and bringing employers into schools, the right advice and opportunities are given to all young people to suit their particular needs, talents and skills. That must be done, in my opinion, at an early age. I note that in Australia, career management or development is started as young as eight. Presumably, that is done at a pretty childish level, but it is important to get the young to think about what they might want to do and to take that as a seamless line right through their careers and onwards.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, everybody seems to be very much in support of the Augar review. I have real reservations about the funding proposals for higher education. When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Garden raised the issue of how the funding model, interest charges, the extension and all the rest will favour the rich and not the poor, the Minister kept saying that we will see it in the round. What does “in the round” actually mean? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, but we have to be very careful, because there are degree courses that are undersubscribed. We are seeing those courses cut, but they are courses that we need to develop, such as modern foreign languages. Fewer students are doing modern foreign languages because there are fewer studying them in secondary schools. It is the same with music. Music is hugely important to the creative industries, which is one of the major growth industries in this country, and yet we are seeing music in secondary schools, because of the EBacc, being scaled back and back. That has a knock-on implication for our universities, where music degree courses are declining as well. If we took the idea of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, all these courses would be cut, much to the detriment of our country.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I must admit, I was hoping that the noble Lord would be slightly less pessimistic about the Augar review. What I meant by “in the round” in response to questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was that the proposals in the review for the tuition fee cut, the in-study reduction in the interest rate, the reduction in threshold and extending the repayment period from 30 years to 40 years are all interrelated. By “in the round”, I meant that they are all interrelated and that therefore it is quite right that we take the time to look at them all and come back to give our review, which we intend to do at the spending review.
D-day: 75th Anniversary
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, it is fitting to remember the 75th anniversary of D-day, not just because it was an amazing feat of arms by the allied forces involved but because it gives the nation a chance to honour those still alive who fought at the time, and to remember with everlasting gratitude the thousands who lost their lives making the supreme sacrifice or who have since died, some facing and coping with life-changing injuries.
It is sobering to realise that the deaths and casualties on each side were in the many thousands, each one a deeply personal tragedy for a family, a fiancée or a girlfriend. War is a brutal endeavour, no less so now than in years gone by. Today, individual families and partners still suffer and bear the same sense of grief and loss, just as much as those in World War II, but we have been saved the horrors of massive casualties because the nature of recent conflicts has been far more contained. Modern trauma treatments and rapid casualty evacuation have also saved hundreds of lives; in earlier generations, those people would not have survived. Modern medicine helps even the severely wounded to make remarkable physical recoveries. Sadly, success with mental illness is still elusive.
While it is fitting to celebrate the anniversary, it should be a celebration of an extraordinary allied effort in which all involved played their full part. It irritates me to see claims that either the Americans or the British made the greater contribution to D-day. It was not a football contest with one team scoring more than the others. All the many nations involved, including the Commonwealth, the colonies of the day, the Free French and other Europeans, were playing a team game together. To claim that more troops were put ashore, more attack missions were flown or more barrages were fired from ships as a means of arguing who did the most on D-day is ridiculous. Normandy was not the only theatre of war in 1944; all allies were engaged in fighting elsewhere as well as in France. It was a collective effort to which all contributed massively, not least in blood and treasure.
Like other noble Lords, I have been involved in events helping to mark the 75th anniversary of D-day. Last Saturday, I formally opened a special heritage event at Langham, near Blakeney, in Norfolk. A small, dome-shaped building was the centrepiece of the event. It was used to train anti-aircraft gunners in how best to shoot down enemy aircraft. Indeed, more than 40 of these secret trainers were built during World War II. After the war, they were all decommissioned and almost all were bulldozed into hardcore for new motorways or building sites. Although a listed building, the one at Langham was just left to decay. It escaped the bulldozers, slowly deteriorating as all neglected buildings will do.
Then, in 2010, a group of enthusiasts, recognising the historic value of this near-unique building, raised funds to refurbish it to its original role as an anti-aircraft trainer. However, they did much more. The building is now a speciality museum and visitor centre, recording and demonstrating not only its trainer role but a host of information and displays about the Royal Air Force, the airfield at Langham, and the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal New Zealand Air Force squadrons of coastal command, which were based there in 1944, operating mainly against enemy shipping off the coasts of Norway and Holland. There is information there about individual Australian and New Zealand air crew. Many had travelled from home via Canada to train before joining their national squadrons at Langham. There is information about the loss of life and the deaths of more than 150 air crew from this one airfield. Many have no known grave but are remembered on the memorial at Runnymede. Others lie in graves in Norway, Holland, Germany or this country. One is buried in Sweden.
All this information, and the information about the subsequent Cold War use of the airfield until it was closed in 1958, gives a most interesting and telling account of Langham’s war. What particularly impresses me is the effort to tell the story of those years with contemporary touch screens and other devices in ways to interest and attract all ages. Special efforts have been made to excite and engage the interest of the younger generations. As the Friends of Langham Dome team say, they want to make it clear to all what fathers and grandfathers—indeed, mothers and grandmothers too—did then to ensure that we live in peace and freedom today. This mini-museum and visitor centre has just been awarded the exclusive and prestigious Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service, and the unique facility has been much praised on social media, TripAdvisor and the like. If your Lordships are ever on a visit to Norfolk, spare an hour or two to visit the Langham Dome; you will be impressed.
Many other venues and imaginative schemes about this period in our nation’s history are to be found all around the country. Their great achievement and attraction is to help to bring life to history, to explain and pass on to today’s generations what their predecessors did and thought and felt. As a mark of respect for all those who fought on D-day, these efforts deserve universal praise and support.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday, I was at the celebration of the life and contribution to humanity of Kofi Annan. Tomorrow, as a freeman of Portsmouth, I will be at the D-day celebration. In my view, there is a strong connection. Within two years of D-day, the great UN international conference at which the first Secretary-General was appointed was taking place across the road in Central Hall.
I was a boy during the war, growing up in south London on the edge of the North Downs. I vividly recall the outbreak of war, the unfolding saga of Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, which could be seen from our back garden, and the Blitz; we could clearly see St Paul’s, majestically standing there amidst the smoke and flames of burning London, from our attic. I was at our local village school, barely two miles from Croydon Airport, which, as a fighter base, was constantly under attack. I can still hear the wailing sirens and the anxiously awaited all-clear in my mind. When the sirens sounded, our teachers would quickly lead us into the deep shelters. They were wonderful; they led us in singing and reciting times tables and generally distracted us from the noise of the bombardment above. Through all this, the Union Jack flew undaunted in our playground. The all-clear would come and, as I recall, we would run home for some lunch with our teachers’ stern words in our ears, saying that if another siren sounded on the way home, however short the distance, we had to go into the nearest shelter.
Around all this was the constant threat of invasion. There, in the south of England, it was a matter not of if there would be an invasion but of when the invasion would come. On our local golf course and green spaces around us, there were concrete blocks to hinder gliders. We were on the edge of the Downs and my mother—out of character, in many ways—kept an axe at the foot of the steps down to the back door. She said, “I’ll have a go if any German appears”. We all laughed after the war and found it funny that she never thought a German would have the audacity to come to the front door.
Late every night, the BBC used to play the national anthems of every occupied country in Europe. It really meant something to us all. My father had fought with the Italians in the First World War, and I remember the real joy in our family when the Italians broke with the Germans and changed sides.
Then came 1943. I remember the defiant spirit: “V for Victory” signs up everywhere. There was talk everywhere about when and where the second front would open. As we cycled around the North Downs in early 1944, we became aware of the tremendous presence—even on the North Downs—of the allied and British troops. In every copse and wood, under every gathering of trees, vehicles and equipment would be parked. The soldiers were very friendly to us and became heroes in our estimation. I remember that when the battle really started we were all terribly concerned about how many would be killed, lost or taken prisoner.
Our local mental hospital had been transformed into a military hospital and was being prepared to receive severely wounded casualties straight from the front—driven up from their point of entry in Sussex or Hampshire in converted Green Line coaches, I recall, for the attention they needed. The community used to gather outside the hospital and cheer as the coaches arrived. I can still see the nurses at the windows of the coaches waving to us.
The anticipation was intense. The relief on D-day, obviously tinged with real anxiety, was terrific. I believe those brave and courageous young men—assembling over that period and then gathered, encamped, on the beaches of Sussex and Hampshire—should be central to all our considerations in this debate and the affairs of tomorrow. Imagine their feelings, their emotions: excitement, yes, but also obviously fear, knowing that within hours thousands of them would be dead, lost or maimed. That is real courage, rooted in reality. Indeed, some of their officers—in the paratroopers, for example—had told them they had only a 50% chance of survival. We should think of them and what we owe them above all tomorrow, whatever the distractions.
There are so many other lessons, but I will mention just two. One, of course, is the need for strong, firm, courageous leadership. The other is that we always achieve more when we have a clear objective and are co-operating together selflessly in the interests of the community as a whole. That lesson came home to me clearly as a youngster and, I must admit, has done a great deal to shape my political career.
The other point that came home to me was the indispensability of international co-operation. We have heard in various speeches—there have been some very good speeches in this debate—about all the countries represented, not least the Free French but also the Poles and the rest. International co-operation was so essential. Then, after the war, we decided that we never wanted it to happen again and that we must have the institutions to make it impossible. I have never understood why we in Britain have not overwhelmingly seen the argument that, while the European Union may have had all sorts of economic and other manifestations, it was about building peace, stability and security in Europe because we did not want these things to happen. I believe it is a tragedy that we have turned our backs on that when we remember those young men assembling on the south coast.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this debate, the opportunity to make a short contribution to it, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, getting the energy back into it. I am still getting used to the customs of the House, but I think it is a shame the debate was subject to an interruption; I am sure it was for a good reason, but it is lost on me.
As the debate so far demonstrates, many want to recall the historic importance of D-day, the scale of the endeavour, the context of the time and particularly, as we have just heard, the bravery and fortitude of those who took part. I come from an old and proud regiment, the Green Howards—now part of the Yorkshire Regiment—and we featured significantly in the D-day story. The 6th Battalion that landed on Gold beach early on D-day itself made the most progress of any unit of any nation on that day, reaching the small village of Crépon. We have a fine regimental memorial in the middle of Crépon: a statue of a soldier sitting down, looking exhausted, having a smoke. It is a great place to go. En route to Crépon, the sergeant major of B Company, Stanley Hollis, earned the only Victoria Cross awarded on the day for repeated acts of bravery. He is still remembered as probably our greatest regimental hero, as much for his humility and quiet demeanour as for his remarkable example. He is also remembered because D-day does not feel so very long ago, particularly to the officers and men I grew up with, many of whom were, or served under, Normandy veterans and could tell first-hand tales.
My thoughts today are more about the lessons that D-day holds for us—particularly, why did so many countries have to pay so much in human terms to re-establish peace, stability and freedom? Do we take peace, stability and freedom too much for granted today? My strongly held view is that the United Kingdom has become somewhat complacent about its defence—not about its security; the two are different. Indeed, as a society, if anything we have become far more sensitive to the so-called novel threats of the age, which are, in truth, largely a reflection of the relative weakness of our enemies. These novel forms of conflict—so-called—such as cyberattack, disinformation, proxy-terrorism, hybrid war, political assassination and fake news are the asymmetric tactics of the weak; they do not represent existential threats. They are not the true wars of our time; they are security challenges which breed a wholly understandable societal anxiety.
To me, the lesson of D-day is that we should guard against complacency about our national defence—a complacency borne of the forgetfulness that peace and stability are not naturally occurring. They have to be earned, paid for and, occasionally, fought for. People need to remember that, to a large extent, armed forces are built on an expensive paradox: the better they are at fighting wars, the less likely it is they will have to. Most importantly, as many have said, the more like-minded friends you have, the safer you are far more likely to be. Security challenges, I fear, are the natural symptoms of a restless and dynamic planet. Strong and collective defence is what keeps them in that perspective. D-day should remind us of that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other speakers this evening, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for bringing this debate and giving your Lordships the opportunity to reflect on D-day, to think about what happened in our past, where we are today and where we may go in the future.
Past, present and future are what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, has just been talking about, and in many ways that is what is so important at a time of an anniversary. We could simply look back and be mawkish about the past; we could reflect simply on the history books; we could say that that was another country, and we did things differently then. There was a touch of that in at least one of the speeches this evening.
One of the key things to remember about this anniversary and the commemorations this week, and the anniversaries and celebrations five years ago on the 70th anniversary of D-day, as well as the four years of anniversaries we had to commemorate the First World War is that they provide us with opportunities to commemorate the acts of sacrifice of so many, so that we can live the lives we have in 2019. People can demonstrate outside the Palace of Westminster. We may not wish them to do that; we may feel that it is inappropriate to demonstrate against the President of the United States, but the sacrifice given by so many has enabled all of us to be free. For that, we can and must be grateful.
This has been an absolutely fascinating debate, and one in which if you are speaking towards the end of it, it is clearly foolish to write a speech in advance because everything could have been said, everything that I might have written would have been said and on this occasion could absolutely have been said far more eloquently by people who have been involved in the military or whose families have been deeply embedded. What we heard this evening were cases of deeply remembered sacrifice of families. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, telling us about his uncle being involved in a spy ring and reminding us that, even 75 years after D-day, we do not necessarily know the full history. It is not just a 30-year rule but a 100-year rule that applies in some cases. Even in 25 years’ time, when people celebrate 100 years from D-day, we will still be finding out more about the sacrifices made and about the activities undertaken at that time that are so crucial to our history.
What we learned this evening was about so much preparation. It was not just a day—people talk about D-day, and we are having a debate to commemorate it, but we already know that there were 18 months of preparations and three months of a serious battle. It was not simply a day. The sacrifices were made by so many—by hundreds of thousands of people who all came together at a point in time for us to remember.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, told us of his uncle. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, told us about his grandfather who had said that he was there on D-day but did not want to talk about it. How many more have felt that they could not reflect on what they had done, but wanted to lock it away? Yet, it is so important that we talk about D-day and about what our service men and women did. If we do not commemorate it or forget it, we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.
It is so important that we have such debates to talk about what happened and also to commemorate not just what British service men and women did, but what we did with allied powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, so many Americans and Canadians were in the United Kingdom and fighting on D-day—helping to liberate this continent. We forget at our peril the importance of working with allies. In 2019, it is crucial to remember the relationship with the United States and with our Commonwealth partners—with the Canadians but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, with the Indians who were fighting to ensure our freedom. It is absolutely essential to retain alliances and remember that one of the key factors of D-day was not simply the United Kingdom acting but the United Kingdom acting in collaboration and co-ordinating with allied powers.
Several Members have pointed out that, in the 75 years since D-day, we have created a whole set of international institutions that have ensured that the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of young men—and some women—were not in vain, that we have been able to work in peace, and that those patterns of co-operation have become hugely important. We must not throw that away, and we need to think through not just what people did in the past but recall that their sacrifice was to ensure our future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, pointed out that it is not just those who gave up their lives on the same side as us who matter. Some of the co-operation and collaboration that we have in the 21st century are alliances with countries that used to be on the opposite side. The European integration process has enabled us to ensure that we work with Italians and Germans now not as foes but as friends. The legacy of the past needs to be overcome.
Perhaps the most important historical aspect of today’s debate, however, came from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in his excellent and very timely maiden speech. I suspect that we may not have been listening quite so acutely if we had been hearing about rural broadband, but when he talked about his noble forebears and their important role in the Second World War, we all listened and we all pay tribute to them. We welcome him to this Chamber and look forward to his role here.
Today is about looking back to the past and to those who gave their lives, but also about paying tribute to veterans; those who will be at Portsmouth this week or travelling to Normandy thanks to the Royal British Legion and the War Graves Commission. Like my noble friend Lord Stoneham, I think it is important that we pay tribute to those organisations that ensure we remember—that we do not simply look to the history books to remember D-day but have the opportunity to visit museums and go to the beautifully preserved war graves. They are the living testament to what has gone before, the people who have gone before and the sacrifice they have made.
The lessons we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, were of timing, weather and logistics. Much of D-day may now seem inevitable, but, as we heard, the timing was contingent on the weather. Logistics were crucial, as was working effectively with our partners, day by day, from 5 June onwards. It ensured that we in the 21st century have democracy, human rights and the rule of law as of right. Those values we enjoy, we share with the United States, the Commonwealth and our European partners and allies, and we must not lose them. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, we must ensure that we are not complacent.
We must pay tribute to not just our former service men and women but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, to the serving Armed Forces as well. Just as in the 1940s, so in 2019 our armed services are vital to securing the United Kingdom’s peace and security.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing this debate, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on his maiden speech.
I was going to read the excellent speech that my adviser prepared for me, but I realise that it is not valid. I have no relations who were involved in the Second World War; my father was a hospital worker throughout that period. Little bits of the story have been so well told this afternoon that I will limit myself to commenting on what came out of the quite extensive reading I did in preparation for this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for reminding me how useless it is preparing speeches.
The first thing that comes across to me is particularly relevant given the present visit of the President of the United States: the role of America in the 20th century, in particular its great President, Franklin D Roosevelt, and how he managed that presidency. The decision to enter the Second World War, in a country that had been isolationist for many years after its experience in the First World War, was enormously difficult for Roosevelt, who had seen that it was going to be necessary to gradually move to that decision. Fortunately for Europe, it was aided by first the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, and then by Hitler declaring war on America two or three days after that event—a tactical and strategic error of enormous proportion.
To me, there is no obvious reason why the Americans then committed themselves to a Europe-first strategy. They had an enormous threat in their own back yard—the Pacific—but they decided that the best way to face it was to commit to Europe. That commitment, not just in the Second World War but in the peace that followed and with the Marshall plan and the creation of NATO, has been the bedrock of the very privileged peace that we—particularly our generation—have enjoyed. When an unfortunate person, in my view, becomes President, we must not lose sight of just what western democracies owe to the commitment of Americans—both in blood and treasure—to that peace.
We also lose sight of the importance in this story of the Russians. Hitler once again helped there by not reading his history. Had he studied Bonaparte more carefully, he might have worked out that attacking Russia had never been a successful enterprise. But he did not do that, and he declared war on Russia. That drew the Russian people into the war, whether they liked it or not. One cannot do other than admire their enormous fighting retreat. The Germans got within artillery range of Moscow, but they fought back at enormous cost, in people and resources. By the time of D-day, they had stopped the advance at Stalingrad and effectively won that battle. The battle of Kursk, the biggest tank battle of all time, had taken place, and the Germans were effectively in retreat and devoting a substantial part of their military capability to the eastern front. D-day and the campaign that followed it would have been very different if the Germans had been able to focus their total military effort on the second front.
Today of course has to be a commemoration, but to a degree it also should be a celebration. D-day was one of the most brilliant pieces of logistics in all history. The bringing together of the resources—the men, the machinery, the supplies and the training, all working together to get the procedures right—was so successful; anyone who, like myself, was involved in bringing things together will know that. It was an exercise that was not, I am sure, on budget, but it was certainly on time. It is not an easy thing to assemble 2 million people, ready to attack. Things must have gone wrong, but the machine barely paused. The extremely clever, in-depth logistics had self-amending built in, so that when things went wrong they were corrected, and everything came together on time. It was also a magnificent example of co-operation, between nations and between senior people and those working at all levels of the machinery. There was interaction between the three Armed Forces—the Navy and the Air Force and the Army—and between those of different nations, coming together. It was a brilliant piece of logistics.
Sitting alongside it was an incredible deception. It started with the code breaking, but the security services were able to ensure that every spy that the Germans tried to infiltrate into this country was caught. As far as we know from the records, no German spy was successful in England. They were caught and executed or turned. The successful turning of those agents meant we were able to build this tremendous deception, which carried on many days after D-day—forces actually turned back to Calais again. The Royal Air Force made a brilliant contribution by dropping pieces of foil in its progress across to Calais which looked on the German radar as if there really was an invasion about to happen.
One of the few things that I know a bit about, having been an aviator, is the contribution of Group Captain Stagg. People do not notice how good modern weather forecasts are. If we think back, we would not believe it. We get a very good picture now of the weather about seven days ahead with only relatively minor variations. The world was nothing like that in 1944. There was not even an agreed allied way of doing forecasts. There was a very clear difference between the American view and the British view. Because of his eloquence and his ability to explain things, Stagg’s view prevailed. He and his team had one advantage. A book by John Ross states:
“The Allies had a much more robust network of weather stations in Canada, Greenland and Iceland; of weather ships and weather flights over the North Atlantic and observations by secret agreement from weather stations in the neutral Republic of Ireland … Those weather stations, in particular one at a post office at Blacksod Point in the far west of Ireland, proved crucial in detecting the arrival of a lull in the storms that Stagg and his colleagues believed would allow for an invasion on June 6”.
It had been a dreadful summer and the weather on 6 June was crucial. The invasion would have failed on 5 June or 7 June because of the weather. The next slot in terms of the moon, tide and those sorts of things was 14 June, when the worst summer storm for years destroyed one of the Mulberry harbours. The contribution of Stagg and his team would not have been easy. One has to admire Stagg, who would have had to stand up to considerable debate, and the bravery of Eisenhower backing him to go on 6 June that made it possible. I am just in awe that all these things worked. I wish things I have planned had gone so well and I bet that the Government do too—imagine if they could have done universal credit like D-day. But we put that to one side.
If I were of the age then I suppose I could have had a go at the logistics. If I had done the training I could have had a go at the meteorology. But I cannot understand the raw courage of those young men, many of them conscripts and most of whom had never been in combat before, who knew in the first wave that they may lose half of their people. I do not how they got into those boats or how they got out of the landing craft. I cannot look at myself and be sure that I could do it. There were very ordinary people who had the raw courage and selflessness to do it. It is impossible to express my awe and admiration for them and the leadership that made it a success.
We are commemorating and, as I said, in a sense celebrating D-day because it is crucial that we remember it. I am not a historian, but my vague feeling for the history of Europe is that, broadly speaking, over the last 1,000 years, Europe has either been at war, recovering from a war or preparing for a war. That may be a slight overgeneralisation, but the 70-plus years of peace that we have enjoyed since the Second World War is a very special period in European history. It is so dangerous to forget what it came from. We must remember how to avoid war. We must spend our time preaching that and of course deterring war. Commemoration is essential so I applaud the work of the Royal British Legion and of the Government in their co-operation in the commemorations. D-day and the subsequent campaign was a brilliant success. Things went wrong, but it was a brilliant success. It was born and persisted out of selflessness, courage, sacrifice and co-operation. If only we could show more of those qualities today, the world be a better place.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it is a feature of your Lordships’ House that a debate of this kind is virtually certain to elicit contributions of the highest calibre from all Benches—not only for the wealth of informed comment and historical detail that noble Lords are able to lay before us, but equally for the elegance with which such contributions are delivered. So it has proved today. I thank all speakers for taking part in this debate, timed as it is to mark one of the most momentous events in the history of this country and that of many other countries around the world. The issues on which we are focused, it goes without saying, are not ones that in any sense divide us politically, and in recalling the events of June 1944 I believe that all of us have welcomed the opportunity to do one thing above all: to pay tribute to the men and women who served this country and its allies during a period of the Second World War that was so critical to Europe’s successful liberation over the weeks and months that followed.
I hope that I will not be contradicted if I say that no facet of the D-day story or the lessons to be drawn from it has not been touched on today by one or more of your Lordships. That leaves me to say very little. However, it is right that I highlight the themes that have so appropriately threaded their way through this debate, whether through the personal stories that we have been privileged to hear, as from my noble friend Lord Astor or the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, or the historical context of D-day, which many noble Lords focused on. A great many of the themes can be brigaded under one heading—the debt that we collectively owe to that extraordinary wartime generation.
We owe debts to our own forebears for their sacrifice and courage; to our friends and allies, not least the United States, as has been rightly emphasised, for its indispensable contribution to D-day and the victory that followed; to the countries of the Empire, now the Commonwealth, and to the veterans of those countries. We owe much, too, to some remarkable individuals: Churchill, of course, whose wartime leadership is today universally acknowledged, but other political leaders as well, such as Roosevelt and Truman. Inspired military leaders such as Eisenhower and Admiral Ramsay have been singled out but of course, there are many others who have not been named today—and there are many, often, without names, such as the brave agents of the SOE and MI5. There is Stagg and the forecasters of the weather and, as was rightly said by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, our war widows and the families truly bore the human cost of the war.
The debate today has enabled Members of your Lordships’ House to bring that whole time to life and to shine a light on those aspects of the D-day story that we should constantly remember, especially the human dimension: the men who fought and died, and their courage. Those who landed in Normandy to defend our freedom were the flower of the youth of the countries that participated. In some cases those young men were not yet 20 years old, as is evident from the age of the veterans who will be gathering in Portsmouth tomorrow and around whom the forthcoming commemorative events will be centred. These themes have brought an elegiac flavour to our debate which I am sure will stay with us as we go back to the safety of our homes this evening.
I shall answer one or two specific questions that have been put to me. I will be happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. The Government recognise the unique commitment that service families make to the country, and we remain sympathetic to the circumstances of those widows who remarried or cohabited before 1 April 2015. However, as I am sure the noble Baroness recognises, this is a complex policy area and it is taking time for us to consider as carefully as we need to the potential options within the constraints that inevitably bear upon us, but I assure her that we are working across government to find a solution. I look forward to talking to her about that.
I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, about the Royal Navy’s amphibious capability. While the noble Lord well knows that the Royal Navy no longer operates the same number of ships, I am sure he will acknowledge that today’s modern fleet delivers a strong and versatile service, with ships that are able to deliver more fighting capability than their predecessors and are better equipped to deal with the threats we face now and those we anticipate facing in the future.
It is right that this generation should do what it can to honour and commemorate the people who paid the ultimate price in the Normandy campaign. In that context, I again emphasise how much I welcome the work of the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, and his fellow trustees, whose efforts will lead to the creation of a most dignified memorial to the British dead from those crucial months of 1944. From the designs I have seen, I can tell noble Lords that it will be a very inspiring memorial. The Government will continue to support the efforts of the trust in completing it, and I believe the commitment by the President of France jointly to inaugurate the memorial is indicative of its special place in the consciousness of both countries.
I shall also respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who suggested that we should do more to honour all living United States veterans for our freedom as well as our own veterans. I understand the sentiment that lies behind that suggestion. Britain is perhaps parsimonious with honours. It is not our way to offer honours and awards so long after the event. After the First World War, we honoured the US unknown warrior with the Victoria Cross, and that was reciprocated with an American award to our unknown soldier, but that award was intended as an acknowledgement of the sacrifice of all the US servicemen who fought for freedom.
I shall, of course, write to noble Lords to whose contributions I have not properly responded, and I hope I will be forgiven for not mentioning the majority of today’s speakers by name. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, like many other contributors, spoke warmly of the fact that the D-day landings and the Normandy campaign were an allied effort. The truth of that observation is undoubted, and it is reflected in the attendance of so many Heads of State and Government or their representatives at tomorrow’s event. That is our salute to their veterans as well as ours and to their extraordinary sacrifice.
To make a personal observation, I am particularly pleased that so many D-day veterans will be congregating in Portsmouth tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, referred to his grandfather’s reluctance to speak of his experiences. This is something that many of us have been told many times. Equally, we also hear that sometimes when anniversaries such as this occur those men and woman start to open up, often to their grandchildren or great-grandchildren, to relate their experiences.
As the noble Lords, Lord Livermore and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, so rightly said, the issues at stake on D-day were above all about values. We have today been speaking of a time when Europe was not divided not just by politics but by steel, concrete and barbed wire. We are now in a very different world. Germany is now our close ally rather than the enemy it was on D-day. That is highlighted by the presence of the German Chancellor at the commemorative event tomorrow. The values that were fought for on D-day are the ones that we still cherish today.
Sadly, of course, we are now divided from one of our most important wartime allies, although that situation has fluctuated over the intervening period. As many noble Lords have said, we should never forget the contribution of Soviet Russia to the eventual victory in Europe. Thankfully, Europe is not divided in the quite the way it was even 30 years ago. The barriers that our veterans fought over 75 years ago remain only as a few historic relics. The barrier that subsequently spread across the middle of the continent has gone. I think we would all agree that no matter what our views are on the future relationship with the institutions of Europe we would not wish to see any new barriers erected. That could be seen as a real and lasting memorial to the efforts of the veterans and heroes whose exploits we are remembering this week.