House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The Disclosure and Barring Service is a vital part of the safeguarding regime. The DBS issued more than 5 million certificates last year, which was more than the previous year. The Home Office, as the sponsoring Department, continues to oversee the DBS’s performance.
John Spellar
Does the Home Secretary not understand —I think he does, along with the Justice Secretary—that it is widely accepted across the House that the service is not fit for purpose, because it makes it far too difficult for those with a record to get back into work, which is bad not only for them but for their families and society? Can we have some urgent action to get back to trying to rehabilitate offenders by putting tight limits on disclosure, especially for cautions and minor offences in early years, and so let many of our citizens turn their lives around? Why does he not cut through the bureaucratic inertia in the Home Office and get a move on?
Sajid Javid
The House will be aware that there have problems with the service in recent years. As a result, a number of changes are being made and performance is up. In fact, a new chief executive is starting this week, I believe, so there is new management. On the actual policies it implements, the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Changes can be made and active discussions are taking place right now between me and the Justice Secretary.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Already this phenomenal summer of sport will have inspired many children to play football, tennis and cricket, with netball, golf and rugby still to come, but there are still failings in our safeguarding processes, including the DBS checks. I worked extremely hard with the excellent Minister on this policy. The main issue remains broadening the remit of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to include sports coaches, but will the Home Secretary update the House on progress towards strengthening DBS checks for those involved in coaching, including assistant coaches, to ensure the next generation of possible sporting heroes and heroines are safe from abuse?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she has been doing for several years to encourage more people, particularly young people, to take part in sport. She is right about the current position: sports coach is not included as position of trust. Enhanced criminal checks are available, but I agree that we need to do more work, which is why we are reviewing the effectiveness of the law on those who take advantage of young children with sexual relationships and are looking at what more we can do to include them as positions of trust.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The scope of the DBS is far too narrow. Private tutors are exempt, as are host families of international students. As we head into the summer, it is a reminder that we need to safeguard all young people. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure it is far more comprehensive in who it covers?
Sajid Javid
I understand that the hon. Lady has had a meeting recently with the victims Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), on this very issue, and I am glad that she has raised it. She may be aware that there are changes we have to, and want to, make because of a recent Supreme Court judgment, and because of that I want to bring forward other changes that we are looking at and planning and that, when they happen, she will welcome.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Some of these DBS checks take far too long and prevent people from getting into employment. Is it the fault of the DBS, local police forces, or both?
Sajid Javid
Sometimes, when there are delays, they will probably be very case-specific, so it is hard to attribute fault, but my hon. Friend is right to raise the need for speedy checks. There have been significant improvements. He may be interested to know that there is a 14-day maximum on the basic checks we apply, and in 98% of cases that has been met.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
Last week, the Government published a new economic crime plan in partnership with the private sector to create a whole-system approach to economic crime. Her Majesty’s Government are investing at least £48 million this year to bolster capabilities to tackle economic crime, including with the establishment of the National Economic Crime Centre, to increase the number of financial investigators and to recover more assets.
Nigel Mills
I welcome the new economic crime plan, and I agree we need more resources to finance people to tackle these various crimes. What more will be done under that new plan to strengthen our protections against fraud?
Mr Wallace
The new economic crime plan brings together all the different actors on the stage the Government have invested in and identifies all those areas that need to be solved. It is a better analysis of economic crime. We have set up the NECC to bring together all the assets of government—everything from UK Visas and Immigration and the Home Office to the intelligence services—to focus on some of the biggest money launderers and to implement the new powers in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, to deal with criminals and money launderers and to take the money back from them.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
Given the economic character of that question, the best thing is for me to write to the hon. Lady with the detail of the number of financial investigators—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady has not been particularly specific. Does she mean the number of detectives within the National Crime Agency, within the Met’s serious organised crime command, within the regional organised crime units or within the local forces? I will send her the details so that she can analyse and discuss them.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the economic crime plan, but I do not see any mention of extending the “failure to prevent” offence to include economic crime. Is the Minister still keen to do that?
Mr Wallace
Absolutely. Building “failure to prevent” offences such as bribery and tax evasion into statute makes a real difference. It is important for us to give our law enforcement agencies powers to deal with, for instance, corporations that engage in conspiracies, because in the past that has been very hard to prove.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Poor pension transfer advice can amount to fraud, but in my experience local police officers often refer such cases to the Financial Conduct Authority, which often focuses on administrative penalties rather than criminal prosecutions. Will the Minister agree to meet me, and to review economic crimes against pensioners, so that justice can be done?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. While large sectors are regulated under the FCA, we have seen fraudsters exploiting marketing as a guise to escape that regulation. When we identify them, there are criminal investigations, but I should be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and hear more about his views.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
How will the forthcoming legislation requiring the registration of overseas entities prevent money generated through crime and corruption overseas from being invested in the London property market?
Mr Wallace
Transparency is the best disinfectant in such cases, and the Government are working hard to improve the operation of Companies House to ensure that we get to the bottom of some of these spurious companies. We are also fully committed to the establishment of a public register of property ownership in the UK, and are working with overseas territories to ensure that similar registers are established to cover ownership there.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
As capital moves ever more easily, it is imperative that we look again at the very limited circumstances in which large financial actors can at present be held accountable before the law. The Minister mentioned corporations a moment ago, but the Government’s economic crime plan totally fails to take on the issue of corporate criminal liability, which we must consider. Here is a very simple question: what are the Government afraid of?
Mr Wallace
As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have been talking about that issue for a long time, and we have been working hard on it. “Failure to prevent” in relation to tax evasion is now being rolled out, and the National Security Council discussed the issue more than a year ago. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, wait to see what happens, but we are determined to try to deal with it.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
EU citizens are our friends, our neighbours and our colleagues, and we want them to stay. The settlement scheme is performing well. The latest published statistics show that more than 800,000 applications have been received and the majority of people are finding it easy to apply. Additional support is available to those who are vulnerable, or who do not have the appropriate access, skills or confidence to apply online.
Ronnie Cowan
Instead of implementing a scheme that makes EU citizens—many of whom have lived here for a great many years—unlawfully resident if they fail to apply by December 2020, will the Minister introduce a declaratory system whereby people apply for proof of settled status rather than the right to stay?
Caroline Nokes
A declaratory system that did not require EU citizens to obtain status and provide evidence of it would risk causing confusion, especially among the most vulnerable, and people might struggle to prove their status in years to come. There would also be a risk of confusion among employers and service providers, and the system might impede EU citizens’ access to benefits and services to which they are entitled.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The vast majority of people I hear from say that the settled status scheme is working very well and is easy to use. Many receive responses within a few hours of submitting their applications. However, it is a bit frustrating that the service is still not available on Apple devices such as phones; can the Minister update us on when it might be?
Caroline Nokes
It is not just anecdotal information that tells us that people are finding it easy and quick to apply; we know that most applications are settled within one to four working days. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been tireless in pursuing the issue raised by my hon. Friend, and we are very hopeful that the app will be available on Apple devices in the autumn.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Change UK)
There is a significant eastern European community in Enfield and other parts of London. Sections of the Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish and Roma communities can be hard to reach, and some have limited English language skills. Community representatives are concerned about individuals who have worked in the grey economy as cleaners or handymen, or for unscrupulous employers, being able to supply the right paperwork. What further steps is the Department putting in place to support these communities and to ensure that everyone can access, and apply to, the scheme?
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Lady will be aware that the Home Office has provided up to £9 million of grant funding to 57 voluntary and community-based organisations specifically to help the vulnerable people to whom she refers. I was pleased to visit the East European Resource Centre and to have the opportunity to speak to a group of long-standing UK residents about the support available. She references the grey economy; we do not wish to see anybody working in the grey economy, but we recognise that there will be those who do. The Home Office is absolutely prepared to accept a wide range of evidence of people’s stay in the UK, including tenancy agreements or letters from health providers with whom they have been in contact. This is absolutely about working with individuals. The EU Settlement Resolution Centre is up and running, and is incredibly well staffed. I was pleased to visit it, to see the help that it can give to individuals.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
There is a seeming desire among some Opposition Members for the EU settlement scheme to be a complete failure, but will my right hon. Friend again confirm that this is a successful scheme and that take-up has been positive? If Opposition Members continue to tell their EU citizen constituents that they will not be able to apply, they are not being helpful.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme has been a success, and it is shocking when hon. Members talk the scheme down. It is working well. We are determined to put in place support for those who are vulnerable, as I said. Later this week, we will see the latest statistics surrounding the scheme, which will show a considerable uplift from the figure of 800,000 reported from the end of May.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
We continue to engage with international and domestic delivery partners and stakeholders, as we work through the detailed policy and operational considerations for the new global resettlement scheme. In the meantime, we continue towards our commitment of resettling 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees affected by the conflict in Syria.
Thangam Debbonaire
The Minister knows that I would like the ambition to be as high as possible. What plans has she got to consult refugees and refugee organisations about the lessons that can be learned from current resettlement schemes?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady will know—this is an ambition that I have often voiced to her—that we have sought to bring together the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme and the gateway protection scheme, to consolidate our refugee programmes. We continue to work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and indeed with those delivering the schemes, local authorities included. As part of the ambition—this is why we have given a figure in the region of 5,000—it is important that we learn from VPRS, work through local authorities to establish the number of people they can best assist through the schemes and make sure that we do not downgrade the good commitments we have previously given on resettlement.
Helen Hayes
Young adult asylum seekers often face unique and complex challenges to their mental health and wellbeing, with many having survived unimaginable experiences in their country of origin and during their long and treacherous journey to reach this country. In setting out details of the integrated programme to resettle an additional 5,000 refugees from 2020 to 2021, will the Minister commit to there being a youth welfare officer in every asylum accommodation and dispersed accommodation location, so that vulnerable, traumatised 18 to 25-year-olds receive the support that they need to recover from their experiences and can live as well as possible in the UK?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out the distinction between the formal resettlement schemes referred to in the question and those young people who have made, in many instances, terrible and perilous journeys of many thousands of miles and who have travelled across the whole of Europe to get to these shores. It really is important that we work to support young asylum seekers; I am conscious that the largest numbers will be found in a small number of local authorities, particularly Croydon, Kent and Hillingdon, which work incredibly hard to support not only unaccompanied minors but those leaving the care system and those for whom we have a responsibility up to the age of 24 under the Children and Families Act 2014. It is crucial that we get this right; that is why I was so pleased to see the uplift in funding to local authorities for unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Scotland has played a leading role in the current vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, resettling nearly 3,000 people across all Scotland’s local authorities. Recent opinion polls show strong support in Scotland for maintaining that commitment and, indeed, for improving on it. Will the Minister join me in welcoming Scotland’s success story, and will she commit, through the comprehensive spending review, to funding integration support for refugees under the new scheme at the same levels that are currently provided under the VPRS?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right to point out the significant role that Scotland has played. In Jordan last summer, I was pleased to meet a family who were being resettled to East Ayrshire within a few days of my visit. It is important that we provide not only support for resettling people but the necessary integration, not least through the provision of English language teaching, which is a crucial component. She will know from previous comments I have made in this House that one of my big passions is ensuring that we assist those with refugee status into work and ensure that good schemes exist across the entire country to help them to do that.
Mr Speaker
I can tell that there is a second question coming from the hon. and learned Lady.
Joanna Cherry
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As well as Scottish local authorities, Scottish community groups are also planning to sponsor refugee families. I met representatives of Refugee Sponsorship Edinburgh in my constituency recently. This is the first group of people to do this in Scotland. They will be delighted that the UK Government have finally agreed that any refugees supported under the community sponsorship scheme will be additional to those resettled under the UK Government scheme. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the new scheme will make it easier for named individuals to be resettled and for family members dispersed across the world to join refugees who have already been settled here? I am sure I am not alone in being approached regularly in my constituency surgery by refugees with those concerns.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right to highlight the brilliant role played by community sponsorship schemes. They are absolutely the gold standard of resettlement. However, it is important that we continue to work with the UNHCR to ensure that it is the most vulnerable people who are resettled here, whether through community schemes or through the sponsorship of local authorities. It would be very wrong for us to use resettlement schemes to resettle people from safe third countries when many people across the middle east and north Africa region and across the world are in parlous situations and in real danger. They must always be our first priority.
Mr Speaker
In noting that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) was chuntering from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of the length of an inquiry, I simply say to him in the gentlest possible spirit that I feel sure that, in his own mind, his own questions are never too long but merely fully developed.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Around 16,400 UK businesses are within scope of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Home Office has commenced the first stage of a compliance audit, following which non-compliant businesses will risk being publicly named. We are developing a Government-run registry to track compliance and make it easier for consumers and others to scrutinise business action. We are also consulting on strengthening modern slavery reporting requirements, including improving compliance and the quality of business statements.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the Minister for her answer, but the number of potential victims of modern slavery identified in the UK each year has more than doubled since 2015 and now stands at just under 7,000. The Modern Slavery Act was a step in the right direction, but it has been left to go stale due to lack of enforcement, with a staggering 40% of companies not complying with it at all. Will the Minister take urgent action to commit to an enforcement body to enforce sanctions against non-compliant companies?
Victoria Atkins
I think that, when we have the opportunity to do so, we should talk up our country and what we are doing to lead the world in tackling modern slavery. We really are leading the world; the Prime Minister hosted a dinner last week with the McCain Institute, at which people from across the world acknowledged the world-leading work we are doing in this country. Of course there is more to do, which is precisely why we asked the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and Baroness Butler-Sloss to conduct an independent review of the Act to ensure that it is up to date and working. We know that modern slavery criminals change their mode of working. From that, last week we announced £10 million over five years to establish cutting-edge policy and evidence centres on modern slavery and human rights. We also responded to the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act and accepted the majority of its recommendations. I really believe that this work on transparency in supply chains will be groundbreaking.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I entirely endorse what the Minister said about how this country leads the fight against modern-day slavery, which is a great credit to the Prime Minister, but should she not encourage all businesses to report possible victims as they come across them in their daily business? Police would prefer to have an investigation that leads to nothing than leave victims in modern-day slavery.
Victoria Atkins
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who has done much work in this field. We have only to look at the terrible case that was finalised last week to see the breadth and range of ways in which people who indulge in modern slavery torture and enslave their captives; some of the details of that case were truly shocking. It absolutely underlines the fact that every single business that meets the criteria in the Act is obliged by law to report and ensure that its supply chains are free from slavery. That has a trickle-down effect for smaller businesses that are contracted to those larger businesses, because they have to make sure that they are doing the right thing too.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Will that requirement be carried out in the public sector? Given the size of the procurement budget, will the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have to ensure that Government spending is within the scope of the Act?
Victoria Atkins
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman, as I said, for the work that he and his colleagues did on the review? It was an extraordinary piece of work and very thorough, and I know that he was pleased that we were able to accept the majority of its recommendations. We absolutely accept the point about the public sector, and he will know that the Prime Minister recently made an important announcement to confirm that Departments will make modern slavery statements to ensure that their supply chains are free from slavery. As for the further details, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches appreciate the progress that has been made on modern slavery thus far, but the House will be aware that there was recently a shocking case of agricultural slavery. A fresh produce supplier to major US supermarkets was using slave labour in its supply chain. Does the Minister accept that consumers who are conscious of issues such as organic production and sustainable food production will not appreciate unwittingly purchasing fresh food with slave labour in its production? Will the Government act more swiftly? We need faster action than she is suggesting to get proper business compliance with their modern slavery legislation.
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted that this is one of those issues that enjoys the support of Members from all parts of the House. The right hon. Lady will know from the announcements last week on our response to the independent review that we are very much seeking to toughen the regulations and requirements for the largest businesses. For what it is worth, some 75% of businesses that are in scope have set down a modern slavery statement, but we want to make it easier for civil society and others to judge how effectively businesses are doing, which is why we are looking into setting up a central Government registry to help that happen. We are conscious, too, of the role that non-governmental organisations can play in this space. Only last week, Oxfam released its new behind the barcode supermarket scorecard, which shows how the sector as a whole needs to step up activity to identify and rectify labour exploitation risks. I am delighted that many UK supermarkets have signed up to that.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The Home Office is bound by the public sector equality duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote good race relations. The Equality Act 2010 provides that discrimination is not unlawful if it is required by legislation or authorised by Ministers. For example, a visa regime that applies to a particular nationality constitutes discrimination, but is lawful under the Equality Act.
Kate Hollern
An Iranian refugee in my constituency applied for a Home Office travel document and has been refused. He was told that he must get a passport from his own country, which, as he fled that country, is almost impossible. Even to apply for a passport, he would have to agree to sign up for national service. Surely that is discrimination.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that specific issue. Although I cannot comment on individual cases, we do not wish to see anybody disadvantaged because of the individual requirements of travel documents from their country of origin. I would be very happy to work with her to see whether we can find a solution.
Matthew Pennycook
The Department’s own statistics make it clear that last year’s average refusal rate for entry visas from Nigeria was 37%, and almost 44% for entry visas from Ghana, compared with an average refusal rate of only 12% across all countries. Can the Minister explain to my west African-born constituents, whose family members, friends and ministers of religion are being refused visitor visas in ever rising numbers, why the system is discriminating in that way?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the system is not discriminating in that way and that the Home Office is obliged to consider all visa applications in light of the evidence presented by the applicant. He might be reassured to learn that, in the year ending June 2018, we saw a 2% increase in the number of visas issued to sub-Saharan African nationals compared with the same period of the previous year.
Janet Daby
The Home Office has offered warm words and reassurances to migrant communities about a movement away from the hostile environment, yet the Government are appealing against the High Court ruling that the right-to-rent scheme, which requires private landlords to check the immigration status of tenants, is discriminatory and breaches human rights law. Does the Minister believe that discrimination is a necessary price to pay for enforcing the hostile environment?
Caroline Nokes
The Government disagree with the judgment and are appealing. The evaluation conducted during phase 1 implementation found no evidence of systemic discrimination as a result of the scheme. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has commissioned further evaluation, which will examine the potential for discrimination in right-to-rent checks.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Churches in Stirling and in other parts of Scotland are struggling with the recent change in immigration rules for visiting ministers of religion. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the degree of difficulty this is causing faith groups in Scotland? What can be done to alleviate it?
Caroline Nokes
I was very pleased last week to meet ministers of religion across a wide range of faiths to discuss this specific issue. I am sure Members will agree that when it comes to ministers of religion, as opposed to religious workers, it is imperative that those who are going to preach and conduct pastoral work within any religion need to have a good standard of English, which is why the Home Office is requiring them to apply for a tier 2 visa, as opposed to a tier 5 visa, which of course does not require the language check.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Windrush crisis did not fall from the sky but was a direct result of the hostile environment, which the High Court has found directly causes discrimination. The Windrush compensation scheme took over a year to set up and has a two-year deadline. Has anybody actually received the money in their bank account yet? How will the Minister ensure that claimants receive speedy compensation? Does she believe that two years is long enough to ensure that nobody who is entitled to compensation loses out?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will, of course, recall that elements of the compliant environment were introduced under the last Labour Government, including the controls introduced in 1999 on temporary and illegal migrant access to benefits and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which introduced controls on local authority social care.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the Windrush compensation scheme, and it is important that we have the scheme up and running and are receiving applications. We have, of course, undertaken to provide regular updates to the Home Affairs Committee, which will provide exactly the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Of course, it is a requirement under legislation that the compensation scheme be for a period of two years, but we are looking closely at that. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that should there be a requirement to extend it, which would undoubtedly need primary legislation, we would be happy to consider that.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Diverting young people away from crime is at the heart of our approach to tackling serious violence. Factors such as domestic abuse, truancy and substance abuse can make a young person more vulnerable to becoming a victim or perpetrator of serious violence. That is why, for example, we are investing £220 million in early intervention schemes—a record amount.
Giles Watling
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. We all know that instances of violent crime in urban centres such as London get the most media attention, but sadly we are also seeing our share of violent crime in my coastal constituency. We had one robbery at knifepoint and one serious assault in the same area of the town in the past week. Following a campaign that I led in Essex, we have seen 12 more officers on the streets of Clacton. They work so hard, but what more can be done to prevent young people in areas such as my constituency from turning towards violent crime?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has led an excellent local campaign and I commend him for it. As he will know, Essex police has received £1.7 million from the £100 million extra funding to tackle serious violence that was recently announced. In addition, his local police and crime commissioner has been provisionally allocated a further £1.16 million for a violence reduction unit. He may also welcome the £660,000 allocated to Essex from the early intervention youth fund.
Sir David Amess
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating N-Act, in my constituency, which has toured the schools producing plays that have a profound effect on young people, meaning that they do not get involved in gangs, and Gorgui Thiam, a Senegalese sports coach whose work has been very effective in breaking up violent gangs through the power of sport?
Sajid Javid
I happily join my hon. Friend in commending that work. The work being done there locally and similar work across the country shows the power of early intervention. That is why we have set up funding to support more and more schemes like that, both through the early intervention youth fund and the youth endowment fund.
Mr Speaker
Of course we all join in the celebration of the power of sport as a positive force, be it, for example, tennis, cricket or indeed football. [Interruption.] And lots of other sports to boot—netball, hockey, rounders and athletics. We also celebrate those who teach sport, and those who broadcast it and write about it, one of whom I spy not very far from me at this every moment—the great Richard Evans. [Interruption.] That will do for now.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady raises an important point and it shows precisely why we are planning to introduce the public health duty—to get more Departments and public agencies to work together in providing early intervention through many different types of programme. She is right to highlight alternative provision and some of the issues associated with it, especially how some of those children, sadly, become the target of gangs, and we are doing more work across government.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
When it comes to early intervention, youth activities, youth clubs and the kind of thing we have just heard about in Southend are the sort of important work that we want to support more. I have talked about the £220 million of early intervention funding, which is a record amount, and it will go towards doing that, supporting some 200 different projects.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
You are far too kind, Mr Speaker.
What difference does the Home Secretary believe putting 20,000 more police officers out on the beat, catching criminals and deterring crime, will make in practical terms?
Sajid Javid
I have long said that we need to tackle crime, especially serious violence, on many fronts, and that means making sure that the police are properly resourced so that we have enough police on the streets. That is why this year we had a record settlement of almost £1 billion, which was voted for and supported by Government Members but rejected by Opposition Members.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Often, the focus is on violent crime in cities, but towns such as ours in West Yorkshire have seen an increase in robberies and antisocial behaviour, and the results of county lines and drug violence, too. Our area has lost nearly half its neighbourhood policing, which the Home Secretary will know has been cut throughout the country. The Home Affairs Committee has called for more police on the beat—we need more police back on the beat—and the Home Secretary has recognised that we need 20,000 more police back on the beat. When does he estimate we will get them?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with the right hon. Lady about the need for more police. That is why we had a record settlement this year, which included, for example, more than £28 million extra for her local police force, which is leading to more police officers and more police staff. I have said that we need to go further, and we are discussing that internally in Government to see what more can be done. I hope the right hon. Lady recognises, though, that it is about more than just police; it is about early intervention and understanding some of the underlying causes of crime. I have always recognised the need for more resources and more police.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Home Secretary referred to the new public health duty. The Opposition agree that it is a good idea in principle, but does the Home Secretary agree with the Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, who has said that the change is not enough on its own and who is calling for the next Prime Minister, and perhaps his Chancellor, to ensure that preventive services such as youth services have the right resources? Will the Home Secretary tell us how often the Prime Minister’s knife crime taskforce has actually met?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Lady has mentioned an important partner in tackling serious violence, and the Children’s Commissioner is part of the serious violence taskforce and we listen to her important views regularly. Of course, the Children’s Commissioner is right that this issue requires action on many fronts. There is no one single answer—we have talked about resources, new powers, early intervention and, of course, the public health approach—which is why we are working across Government. We have institutionalised that in Government in many ways, including with the taskforce that the Prime Minister set up, which has already met once and is meeting again today.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Our £63 million “Building a Stronger Britain Together” programme provides funding to local community groups that seek to challenge extremist views. Since 2016, we have supported more than 230 civil society groups, which have access to training opportunities and a network of 40 expert counter-extremism community co-ordinators who are embedded in local authorities.
Dr Lewis
What more can the Government do to publicise those important examples of where communities and community organisations have succeeded in the supply of information that has prevented terrorist plots, saved innocent lives and helped to take people who were at risk of radicalisation away from extremist doctrines?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have often talked at the Dispatch Box about, for example, the importance of the Prevent programme, which is fundamentally about safeguarding and supporting vulnerable individuals to stop them becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that in just one year, 2017-18, our Channel safeguarding programme supported some 394 individuals, and 181 different community projects that have reached 88,000 different people.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary really should be ashamed of himself. If he comes to a place such as Huddersfield and other towns in West Yorkshire, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has just mentioned, he will find that it is about not only diverting young people from violence, gangs and crime, but tackling extremist views early on. If the Government dismantle local government youth services, they cannot just pass the responsibility across to community associations and think that is okay.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman should know that we have done a great deal since 2000 to support community projects, including youth community projects. I mentioned earlier the £63 million that we put into the “Building a Stronger Britain Together” programme. That is through the Home Office alone, but much more is going on through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education and local government. He mentions Huddersfield. Just last week, I had the pleasure of meeting a young man called Jamal, who was the victim of racism, a form of extremism, in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency. I had the opportunity to welcome him to our great country and to tell him that what happened to him in Huddersfield in no way represents the people of our great nation.
Mr Speaker
No, no, no; the right hon. Gentleman is ahead of himself. He is working on the basis that we always stick to time, which is not an unreasonable assumption except that it suffers from the disadvantage in factual terms of being wrong.
Sir Roger Gale
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Across Government, we are taking a broad range of legislative, diplomatic and operational action to prevent, disrupt and deter hostile state activity.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) will have Topical Question 1 as well, so he will get two bites at the cherry and he will have nothing about which to complain.
Sir Roger Gale
A wonderful opportunity! Scarcely cricket, but a wonderful opportunity.
Following the attempted poisonings in Salisbury, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took robust action to secure the dismissal from the United Kingdom and other European countries of Russian spies posing as diplomats. There is some reason to suppose that that network is now being rebuilt. Without asking my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to give details of the work of MI5, may I ask him to give us a reassurance that it is very firmly on the case?
Sajid Javid
As my right hon. Friend says, I will not comment on any sensitive intelligence matter, but he is right to be concerned about the rise in hostile state activity. There is ongoing activity across Government to ensure that our democracy is protected. We have taken many steps and co-ordinated them across Government and the relevant authorities. He will also be pleased to know that, now that the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 is on the statute book, it gives us many more powers to counter hostile state activity.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will know that police numbers remain key to hostile state activity prevention. I have still not heard an answer to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) posed—how many extra police officers are going to be recruited, and when, to tackle this important issue?
Sajid Javid
When it comes to hostile state activity, it is not that police numbers are unimportant, but actually, the key is intelligence and support for our intelligence services, especially for MI5 and the excellent work that it does.
Mr Speaker
I am enormously tickled to see the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, beetle into the Chamber by walking across the Government Front Bench. I suppose that he was so long an habitué of the Treasury Bench that it may seem a perfectly normal means by which to enter the Chamber, but, in any case, we are delighted to see him.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I do apologise to the House. It was once the only way that I entered this Chamber.
Mr Speaker
As I say, we are very pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and we look forward to hearing from him ere long.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
As funding for the police increases, we have made it clear that we want to see more consistent, proactive neighbourhood policing, which is the cornerstone of the British policing model.
Ruth Smeeth
I thank the Minister for his reply, but my police and crime commissioner has cut the number of warranted officers by more than 500 since 2010, and, despite the efforts of my brilliant local police, only two are now allocated to Kidsgrove. We have seen a spike in threatening antisocial behaviour in the past month, with some people now refusing to go to the local park. I will not have no-go areas in my constituency, so what will the Minister do?
Mr Hurd
I am a bit puzzled by what the hon. Lady says, because I have spoken to her police and crime commissioner, the excellent Matthew Ellis, and he is extremely animated about how he is going to use the additional money from the funding settlement to move 100 more people into neighbourhood policing by the year end and to get behind proactive policing to disrupt crime, including drug dealing, in hotspots. I hope that she welcomes such plans, and she certainly needs to sit down and discuss them with him.
Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
We all agree about the importance of neighbourhood and community policing, but does the Minister agree that effective community policing does not rely on police officers having degrees? Yes, it is critical that we have enough officers; yes, it is crucial that they have common sense; but does he agree with me and other blue collar Conservatives that it is ridiculous to say that all police officers must have a degree, as proposed?
Mr Hurd
They do not need a degree to go into policing; that is what the apprentice route is for. I know plenty of people with degrees who would make very poor police officers. What we are keen to do is upskill the force and, critically, ensure that the very considerable skills that people coming out of policing have developed are accredited.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Mr Hurd
Northumbria police has had its funding increased by £18 million in a process that the hon. Lady opposed. The excellent Conservative candidate in those elections—Robbie Moore, whom I have met—is absolutely committed to neighbourhood policing, as are this Government. We are making police funding a priority.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Investment in neighbourhood policing looks set to become even more difficult following last month’s Supreme Court ruling that the Government’s post-2015 pension changes were unlawful. This ruling affects tens of thousands of public servants, including police officers, who have no negotiating rights and have had these discriminatory changes imposed on them. Will there be an industrial resolution to this mess for officers who have been left in limbo, and will funding for policing be protected when the Treasury finally brings forward measures to remedy this illegal discrimination?
Mr Hurd
The Government have made very clear the priority that we attach to police funding. We are increasing funding, through council tax and other measures, by up to £1 billion this year. The Home Secretary and I have made it quite clear that police funding is our priority, as have the candidates for the roles of leader of our party and the next Prime Minister. In relation to the very important judgment—it is extremely significant—against which the Government cannot appeal, it is for my colleagues in the Treasury to make a considered response.
Mr Speaker
We are running late, but I want to take the questions from the hon. Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on domestic abuse.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Ending domestic abuse remains an absolute priority, which is why I am delighted to announce that tomorrow we will be launching the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, which will contain a groundbreaking series of measures to promote awareness, support victims and children, tackle perpetrators and improve services.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the Minister for answering my supplementary question before I had asked it—I am delighted that the Bill will be introduced tomorrow. Can she confirm that it will support my constituents in Daventry who have experienced or been victims of domestic abuse, and protect others from experiencing it in the future?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done to raise with me the issues in his constituency. We are delighted that the Bill will be introduced tomorrow. There is also a package of non-legislative measures that will be critical in ensuring that we are supporting victims, preventing further opportunities for abuse and, also importantly, helping children who live in abusive households.
Trudy Harrison
Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the new and excellent Women Out West centre in Whitehaven, which is having a huge impact on women and their families in my constituency in partnership with the Copeland hub, which she recently visited?
Victoria Atkins
I would be delighted to commend the centre. It was a pleasure to visit the Copeland hub—a great example of multi-agency working, which, as everyone in the House knows, is essential if we are to tackle this pernicious crime of domestic abuse effectively across our country.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
It is great news that the Bill is going to be published tomorrow—real credit to the Minister personally for sticking with this. Can she confirm that she has listened to the survivors of abuse, particularly of emotional and economic abuse, through the draft process and strengthened the final Bill as a result?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so, and may I thank the hon. Gentleman, too, for all his work and his lobbying of me to support and protect victims of domestic abuse? I must also record my thanks to the Joint Committee —a brilliant Committee of parliamentarians from both Houses who scrutinised the draft Bill in great detail, heard lots of evidence from incredibly important stakeholders and produced a report, to which we will publish a response tomorrow alongside the Bill.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
We continue to fight serious violence and support our world-class police. Yesterday I announced a new legal duty on public bodies to prevent and tackle serious violence, which will compel all relevant public agencies to work together to understand and address this epidemic. Over the last year, we have engaged with police officers and staff on our frontline review, which was published last week and will lead to even more support.
Sir Roger Gale
Given the ongoing police inquiry into the leaking of confidential Foreign and Commonwealth Office documents, together with the need to protect the freedom of the press, my right hon. Friend has a difficult circle to square. Can he tell the House how he intends to both protect the freedom of the press and ensure that the person responsible for this crime is brought to book?
Sajid Javid
I am not going to comment on an ongoing police investigation—I hope my right hon. Friend understands that—but the person who leaked the document should, of course, face the consequences. When I was Culture Secretary, I was very passionate about the freedom of the press. That view has not changed in any way whatsoever. I will always defend the hard-won liberties and the operation of the free press.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
The latest Government fire and rescue service inspections found that nine years of austerity have created a postcode lottery of response times and crewing levels. We now have rising response times, with fewer firefighters attending incidents. The Government’s reckless lack of oversight and investment is risking the safety of many communities across the country. Will the Minister consider implementing national minimum standards, to confront the geographical inequalities that his Government have deepened?
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
We have introduced independent inspections of fire and rescue services, which in fact show that most people across the country get an excellent service in the response to emergencies, but there are variations. That is why we have introduced a national standards board, which is looking at the opportunity to develop greater consistency in standards across the system in the light of the inspection findings.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Sajid Javid
I commend my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work he has done on tackling homelessness and rough sleeping; I saw that as Communities Secretary as well. The Government believe that no one should be criminalised for simply having nowhere to live and sleeping rough. The Government’s 2018 rough sleeping strategy committed us to reviewing the homelessness and rough sleeping legislation, including the Vagrancy Act 1824. That is what we are doing, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Mr Hurd
The Government continue to give the fire service the resources it needs against a background of falling fire numbers. We continue to monitor that in the run-in to the comprehensive spending review, working closely with the fire service. On the remediation of buildings and the urgent review of a fire safety system that had clearly failed, we continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in our consultation on that.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Sajid Javid
As my right hon. Friend knows, asylum seekers can work in jobs on the shortage occupation list if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months. I know that she will agree that we need to distinguish between those with the need for protection and those who are here only to work. She is right to raise the issue, and it is time for reform. The work in the Home Office is ongoing, and we hope to bring something to the House as soon as possible.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question on an issue that has been raised several times in the House. The Home Office is working hard to make sure that we have a solution so that not just students at Scottish universities but those in English universities who might be studying a longer course such as medicine, veterinary science or architecture are not disadvantaged. We are determined to find a solution that works for all students.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Mr Hurd
Those of us who have active neighbourhood watch networks in our constituencies know the value of that network of active citizens working closely with the police: it is the heart of our police model. We are big fans of neighbourhood watch and we have supported it for many years. I would be delighted to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss how that funding could help in her constituency.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
We are of course grateful to the archbishop for his thoughts, and to the independent inquiry, which is doing an incredibly important job in looking at tackling institutional child sexual abuse. We have looked at mandatory reporting really carefully, and the balance of evidence came down against, but it is something that we very much keep under review, and I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss it with her.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
My right hon. Friend has led a long campaign against such people. He will be glad to know that in the last few years, with our new impetus on economic crime, we have found that a number have already had their collars felt, some have had to explain their wealth—the latest case being £100 million of London property—£112 million of assets have been frozen, and some have found it very hard to visit the country altogether.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My constituent Bibi Rahima said that
“my life is just a prison”
after she was accused of cheating in the test of English for international communication. She was overjoyed when she won her appeal in May, but I have written to the Home Secretary on her behalf again today to plead against a further appeal now being taken against her. I am certain she did not cheat, and the judge in her appeal in May said that
“there is no specific evidence in relation to this Appellant at all.”
Will Ministers now withdraw that cruel and pointless action?
Sajid Javid
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in this issue and the work that he is doing through the all-party parliamentary group that he chairs and helped to set up. We have discussed the broader issue several times. He will know that in 2012 the National Audit Office highlighted widespread abuse of the student migration system. That said, I have agreed with him and many other hon. Members that we need to look again at the action that was taken and see what more can be done. I am planning to come to the House with a statement to say much more before the summer recess.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Sajid Javid
I commend my right hon. Friend for the work he has done in this space, especially on tackling unauthorised encampments. He will know that the Home Office has identified a set of measures that will extend the powers available to the police. We are also conducting a review of the act of trespassing to see whether it can be automatically criminalised.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Disability hate crime has increased more than fourfold since 2011, and that is not even the real level of hate crime and abuse that disabled people have faced. Disabled people have been particularly hit by this Government’s cuts, so what will the Home Secretary do to tackle not just the consequences of this hate crime but the causes?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The latest official data indicates an increase in police recorded disability hate crime. We believe that is due in part to general police recording improvements, but more clearly needs to be done. That is why we are instigating a review by the Law Commission to ensure that the framework, generally, tackles such hatred. We have had a nationwide public awareness campaign, including specific examples of disability hate crime. We are also funding community projects across the country, including a number that directly tackle disability hate crime, such as Changing Faces and Barnardo’s.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
In his excellent op-ed in the Financial Times on 7 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said it made no sense at all to send back home straight after their studies some of the brightest and most enterprising people in the world, and he also backed a cross-party move to liberalise the student visa regime. Could he update the House on his progress in restoring the two-year post-study work visa that was removed in 2012?
Sajid Javid
I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said. I think that is exactly the kind of change we should be looking at. It is not the policy of the current Cabinet, but, as he knows, there will be a change in the Cabinet very soon. We do not know who will lead that change, but it might well be someone he is quite close to, so he might want to lobby them too. However, I am very sympathetic, and I will happily work with my hon. Friend.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
TransPennine Express recently locked a gate that is a major access point to the Hull Paragon station, and prominent disability campaigners have been protesting about that. It has locked the gate because it believes that that is the best way to deal with the rising problem of antisocial behaviour. Does the Minister agree that the company should be letting the police tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour and not discriminating against disabled people? Will Ministers join me in sending a clear message to TransPennine Express to open the gate?
Victoria Atkins
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I am not familiar with the precise railway gate in question. However, she will know that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides at least six powers for not just the police but local authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour. It might be that the train company would benefit from a bit of discussion with not just the police but local authorities to see whether they can come up with a better solution.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Over the last couple of weeks, my constituency has been rocked by two serious incidents of crime. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to join me in thanking the emergency services and in wishing a speedy recovery to those who were physically injured in those attacks. However, what cross-departmental discussions has he had about providing a more holistic approach to supporting the victims of such crimes?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Having visited her constituency recently, I am incredibly sorry to hear of the experiences her constituents have had. She will know that the Government have recently published the victims strategy, which, although led by the Ministry of Justice, very much had the input of the Home Office as well. We want to ensure that we support victims through targeted, focused help, while ensuring that all the relevant agencies, including the health sector, also play their part in helping victims of such terrible crimes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I will call the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) if he commits to a single-sentence question and then honours his commitment, and I feel sure he will.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Absolutely, Mr Speaker.
Whose interests were served by tearing Lizanne Zietsman away from her family, business and community, and deporting her against the wishes of the entire community of the island of Arran?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will understand the distinction between deportation, which happens to foreign national offenders, and removal, which happens to those who are immigration offenders. There is a very clear difference. He will know that I cannot comment on individual cases, but it is worth stating that the Supreme Court has upheld the Government’s minimum income requirement to have dependants and spouses in this country. That is an important principle, which the Government support, because we want people to have an adequate level of income that will enable them to integrate into society.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Given that we ran a highly successful seasonal agricultural workers scheme from 1945 to 2013, what do the Government think they can learn from a two-year pilot? Since we have an urgent labour shortage in agriculture, will the Secretary of State commit to convert the current pilot into a fully operational scheme next year?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend will be conscious that at the moment free movement still prevails, which is one of the reasons why this is still a pilot. The Government will of course carefully evaluate the outcome of what is scheduled to be a two-year pilot to understand the impact and to look at what we can do going forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sorry, but this will have to be the last inquiry, as demand exceeds supply. I am sure the Home Office ministerial team are delighted to know that they are parliamentary box office.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The cornerstone of community policing in London, to use the Minister’s words, is the safer neighbourhood teams, which have been cut by 50% to 60% and more. When will they be returned to full strength?
Mr Hurd
That is ultimately a decision for the Mayor in his capacity as police and crime commissioner, working with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Our role is to ensure that the Met has the resources it needs. That is why we have taken through funding settlements resulting in the Met receiving £100 million of additional investment last year and £172 million this year, with more to come. How that money is spent and allocated is down to the Mayor and the commissioner.
Detainee Mistreatment: Judge-led Inquiry
(4 years, 9 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 Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if she will make good on her Government’s commitment, made over a year ago, to bring to the House within 60 days their view on reinstating the judge-led inquiry into detainee mistreatment and rendition that the former Government promised in 2012.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
As my right hon. and learned Friend indicates, this issue has a lengthy history. It was in July 2010 that Prime Minister Cameron announced Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry into allegations that the United Kingdom had been implicated in the improper treatment of detainees held by other countries in the aftermath of 9/11.
In December 2013, the Government published Sir Peter’s preparatory work and asked the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to follow up on the themes and issues which that work had identified, to take further evidence and to make a report. At the same time, the Government said that they would:
“take a final view as to whether a further judicial inquiry still remains necessary to add any further information of value to future policy making and the national interest.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 916.]
In June last year, the Intelligence and Security Committee, its work having been interrupted by two general elections and the task of reconstituting the Committee after those elections, published two reports: “Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: 2001-2010” and “Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: Current Issues”.
In response to an urgent question from my right hon. and learned Friend on 2 July last year, the Minister for Europe and the Americas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), said that, in responding to the ISC reports, the Government would:
“give careful consideration to the calls for another judge-led inquiry and will update the House”.—[Official Report, 2 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 26.]
The Government responded formally to the ISC on 22 November last year, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a written statement, said:
“The Government continue to give serious consideration to the examination of detainee issues and whether any more lessons can be learned and, if so, how.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2018; Vol. 644, c. 31WS]
That serious consideration has included the question of a further judge-led inquiry.
As the House will understand, this has been complex work, which has involved some of the most sensitive security issues. I confirm to the House today that the Government will make a definitive statement setting out their decision about a judge-led inquiry later this week and, at the same time, we will announce to the House our response to Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations on the consolidated guidance.
Mr Lidington
I will make sure that your comment to that effect is faithfully reported to my colleagues in Cabinet, Mr Speaker.
Mr Clarke
You have asked the most penetrating question, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for finally producing some indication of when we might get a decision and for saying that the Government have reached conclusions. I will not repeat his precis of events, which goes back to the most firm undertakings in 2010 and 2012 that there would be a judge-led inquiry. The preliminary inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson set out the questions that the inquiry had to answer. It was postponed only because of the police inquiry into the further revelations of rendition to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. After that, the resumption of the inquiry was postponed while the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee examined matters. When the ISC finally discovered the extent of British intelligence services’ complicity in cases of torture and their involvement in hijacking and the unlawful rendition of people for interrogation, mainly in America, the Committee’s investigations were stopped and it made a report saying what it would have liked to examine if it had been allowed to interview witnesses.
For years and years, this has been put into the long grass in the hope that it would eventually go away, so I hope that that comes to an end this week. We need to know how there was such a terrible breakdown in responsibility and communications that produced the misdeeds that took place in the time after 9/11, so that we can avoid the culture of the intelligence services and their relationships with Ministers ever slipping back into the same thing again. I hope that we will not just be told, “It is too late. Everything is all right now; there is no need to do anything,” because if it is all right now—as I trust it is—we have to reduce the risks that in future, we as a country will ever get involved in torture and rendition again.
If this decision comes out in the last days of this Session, on the eve of the summer recess and in the middle of the appointment of a new Prime Minister in an attempt to bury it away in the pages of Hansard and to escape any further challenge until the autumn comes around, it will be the most blatant further attempt to get out of the most solemn undertakings that were given by me when I was Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor on behalf of the then Prime Minister. That Prime Minister gave these undertakings himself, in a Government in which the present Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and many of their colleagues were serving. We had cleared that line and should honour it, and the whole House should demand a proper, full statement later this week. If there is one success that the delay may have achieved, it is, I regret to say, that for serious personal reasons—not because I am going on holiday—I may miss the final denouement and the statement later this week, because I may be absent from the House. However, I hope that the House will hold the Government fully to account if they try to slip out of their commitments and obligations in the end.
Mr Lidington
I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that, far from there being any attempt on behalf of the Government to slip things out under the radar as the summer recess approaches, the Prime Minister has been very clear that she regards it as her responsibility to ensure that the decision is taken and announced to Parliament before she leaves office. It would be understandable if a new Prime Minister on taking office wanted to look again at or acquaint himself with the material that was coming to the present Prime Minister. This decision and its timing are actually designed to ensure that we do not slip anything out under the radar.
I would just say to my right hon and learned Friend that the Government are very clear that officials in our agencies have not been involved in torture and that this Government and previous Governments have been resolute in opposing torture. We are talking about the extent to which it is alleged that there was knowledge of or to some extent complicity in the treatment of detainees held by the authorities in other countries.
In my right hon and learned Friend’s time, a number of significant changes were made, both in internal Government practice and in the law, that I believe have put us in a much better position since his time in office. I agree strongly with him about the need for us when we debate these matters to look forward as well as backwards. That is exactly why I believe it is right that we acquaint the House with Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations on the consolidated guidance at the same time as we respond to the obligation to take the decision on a judge-led inquiry and announce it.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Father of the House for securing it and for being so diligent on this issue. He has spoken with typical lucidity on this matter, and I agree with everything he has said, particularly about the unfortunate long grassing.
There is no need for me to repeat what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already said concerning the constraints that were placed on a nevertheless damning report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. He rightly says that the only way to lift those constraints is to authorise a judge-led inquiry where all the witnesses can be called and all the evidence examined so that finally we can get to the full truth about the historical allegations of torture and rendition that took place under a Labour Government and about the operation of secret courts established by the current Government under the Justice and Security Act 2013.
The inquiry would be for the benefit of all future Governments, whichever party is in charge, as it would enable us all to truly learn the lessons from what has happened and to put in place new procedures and any necessary changes to the consolidated guidance so that we can absolutely guarantee that these abuses will never happen again. The reason it is so urgent is that in fewer than 10 days we will have a new Government in charge led by a Prime Minister who has proven by his actions not just as Foreign Secretary but also on the debate stage last week that he cannot be trusted to stand up to Donald Trump—a President who, let us not forget, has publicly said that he believes that water boarding and other forms of torture are effective and that we have to “fight fire with fire”. If we have a new Prime Minister who is willing to throw our ambassadors under the bus, we must have new procedures in place to stop that Prime Minister allowing our Government once again to be in danger of becoming complicit in torture and rendition by the United States or any other country to whom he kowtows.
I am glad to hear that there will be a further statement, and hopefully that statement will include a decision by the Prime Minister, but will the Minister tell the Prime Minister to establish the inquiry that we were promised seven years ago in the next week and to provide at least one fitting legacy from her time in office and one necessary protection for the country from the recklessness of her successor?
Mr Lidington
Obviously I will not pre-empt the content of the Government’s statement later this week, but I think it is clear from the way in which the right hon. Lady has posed her questions that it is acknowledged on both sides of the House that this is an extremely important as well as an extremely sensitive decision. What I will say to her is that the protections against involvement in the use of torture apply to this and any future Government in the United Kingdom, not least by virtue of Ministers’ obligations to obey the law. That includes our international legal obligations, including those set out both in the United Nations convention against torture and the European convention on human rights.
In recent years we have seen not only a much stronger and, for the first time, a statutory role for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner—who now reports annually on his work, including the application of detainee policy—but enhanced powers for the Intelligence and Security Committee, notably the power that enables it, in law, to require rather than just request information from the security and intelligence agencies.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I hear what my right hon. Friend says about obeying international law, but it is clear from the Prime Minister’s apology to the Libyan victims alone that the British Government, at very best, came perilously close to breaching article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which forbids torture but also its facilitation or complicity in it. Moreover, without an independent judge-led inquiry, the Government may now be in breach of article 13, which, as well as encapsulating centuries of established common law, provides for the right to “an effective remedy”.
I do not know what is making the Government take so long to decide whether to pursue a judge-led inquiry. It may be pressure from the agencies, although I doubt that now, or it may be pressure from allies who were complicit or involved in this. Whatever it is, I hope that what I shall say next will help my right hon. Friend in his argument with them. If he does not announce an independent judge-led inquiry in his statement later this week, or next week, I will certainly seek advice on whether we have broken either of those articles, and, if need be, use the proper judicial mechanisms to ensure that the Government are put back within the bounds of the law.
Mr Lidington
As I said earlier, it is the duty of every Minister, in line with the Ministerial Code, to comply with our international as well as our domestic legal obligations. In the case of officials, those obligations are statutory, because the civil service code is itself incorporated in statute. I hope that when my right hon. Friend sees the detail of what will be announced later this week, he will be able to feel reassured by it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I commend the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House, and for securing what seems to be something of a concession in relation to an announcement later this week. However, it is still very unclear why there has been such a lengthy delay since the undertaking given more than a year ago that the decision would be brought to the House “within 60 days”. Can the Minister elucidate?
Before the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on these matters last year, the United States Government were given the chance to review the report and to request redactions. Will the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the Trump Administration about a potential inquiry, and will he reassure us that the Government’s delayed response is not a consequence of pressure from the United States?
Mr Lidington
This has taken time because the Government have felt, I think rightly, that an issue of such importance and sensitivity requires very careful and meticulous consideration. The Government’s decisions are made on the basis of the United Kingdom’s national interest, and nothing else.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Not withstanding my right hon. Friend’s mellifluous and reassuring tones, it is pretty reprehensible that the Father of the House has had to raise this matter yet again. Not only were he and I members of the Cabinet that promised the House this inquiry nearly 10 years ago, but it is day 378 since the 60-day promise made by the Government and reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in answer to a written question from me. The damage that this has done to the UK’s precious international reputation is not well understood. This is not about hauling individuals before the courts; it is about transparency, openness, leadership and lessons learned.
The right investigation would have been by the Intelligence and Security Committee; a senior group of Privy Counsellors would have been best placed to handle this, and it would have been cheaper, but we are asking for this inquiry, the Government having hobbled the ISC’s inquiry. We are thrown back on a judge-led inquiry, but it must be a judge who is not part of the securitocracy.
Mr Lidington
Looking at international practice, I think we in this country can point to a system that requires high standard, and that is remarkably transparent, given the extremely secret nature of some of the personnel and operations that are relevant here. We now have a statutory role for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and we have his annual reports, including on detainee policy. We have enhanced powers for Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, and the Prime Minister no longer has the power to appoint its Chair. The framework established by the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 measures up against the best standards in the world.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I sit, finished its investigation on rendition, but the Government refused it access to certain individuals, so it could not interview them on the matter. If there were to be a judge-led inquiry, would the Government allow all individuals to give evidence to the judge?
Mr Lidington
I will not speculate on the content of the decision later this week, but I take on board the challenge that the right hon. Gentleman has posed.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I note my right hon. Friend’s answer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) about high standards for the United Kingdom, but if the United Kingdom’s reputation for having the highest standards in this area is to be sustained, surely it is important, in this case and in others in which our security services come into contact with potential violations of fundamental aspects of international law, that there is proper accountability, driven by the Ministers who are meant to oversee it.
Mr Lidington
I agree with the final point that my hon. Friend makes, but I ask him to take account of the fact that we are dealing with the work of security and intelligence agencies—work on which the safety, and indeed the lives, of our citizens often depends—and that information about how operations are carried out can be of great value to our adversaries.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
It must surely be the objective of all civilised countries to ensure that such events as rendition and the mistreatment of detainees never occur across the world. If we are to achieve that, should we not stand on the highest possible moral ground?
Mr Lidington
We should certainly act on the highest possible moral grounds. I believe that we have a statutory framework in which we can take considerable pride, and that marks a significant improvement on the practices that the Intelligence and Security Committee previously criticised.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
As a member of the Committee, I think it is worth putting on record our extraordinary respect for the young men and women who serve in our intelligence services and who make impossible decisions, often at a moment’s notice. I think that an inquiry would show the extraordinary times in which they lived and how life has changed since many of the cases in question came before us. For example, there was no consolidated guidance in the earliest stages of the period we were looking at. I believe that the Government made a fundamental mistake in not allowing us to see the witnesses we wanted to see, because we would actually have been able to show something that assisted the Government—namely, that we live in a completely different regulatory regime. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister made the point about the changing powers and the extension of the consolidated guidance. Will he tell us whether the examination of the consolidated guidance will be announced soon, or whether we will have to wait a long time for it?
Mr Lidington
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for the just tribute that he paid to the men and women working in our security and intelligence agencies. I can give him what I hope is a reassuring answer to his question. Yes, we will be publishing Sir Adrian Fulford’s conclusions and recommendations in full later this week.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Minister accept that any UK involvement in extraordinary rendition is a stain on our reputation as a country that claims to uphold the rule of law and defend human rights? Does he agree that the best way to deal with this is for him to announce this week that there will be an independent judge-led inquiry, and also to announce the appointment of the new Investigatory Powers Commissioner?
Mr Lidington
I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman an answer on that final point this week, but I believe that Sir Adrian’s recommendations will give him considerable reassurance.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the scope of any inquiry will include reports of extraordinary rendition through UK territories such as the British Indian Ocean Territory?
Mr Lidington
As I have said in response to earlier questions, I cannot pre-empt what will be in the Government’s statement later this week. However, I take note of my hon. Friend’s question.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
When a Minister of the Crown stands at the Dispatch Box and says that something will be brought to the Chamber within 60 days, how should we understand such a commitment? Given the utter failure to deliver on this occasion, surely the House is entitled to a fuller explanation than the one the Minister has given so far, which is that this is terribly difficult?
Mr Lidington
It is not just a matter of something being difficult; it is a matter of Ministers having to consider the best course of action when we are talking about the work of security and intelligence agencies, which, by definition, has to be done in secret and whose disclosure could do considerable harm to our national interests.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)
Governments all over the world are challenging international law and the rules-based international order, and we have a President in the United States who clearly does not support those laws, so is it not time for our Government to accept that the promises they made at the Dispatch Box should be carried out? The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, is one of the most experienced figures in these matters, and he has been persistent in trying to get the clarity we need on these issues. When the Government make what I hope will be an oral statement on this, should they not bring the matter to a conclusion rather than forcing us to come back to it again under a new Prime Minister?
Mr Lidington
It will not be in my power to decide whether the House wishes to return to these issues, but I can promise the hon. Gentleman that this will be a definitive statement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Government on their work on human rights, but does the Minister share my concern that failure to protect human rights by complicity by mistreating detainees diminishes the UK’s capacity to be a champion for human rights abroad?
Mr Lidington
It is important that we demonstrate through our actions, not just our words, our commitment to human rights. Moreover, when one has the privilege of speaking to officers in the intelligence agencies about these matters, they make it clear that they want to uphold human rights. The intelligence agencies have to operate within the statutory remit that Parliament has given them. Anything that they do that breaches their lawful purpose and objective is something that they should not do.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Although the Gibson and ISC inquiries were curtailed or restricted, nevertheless they revealed hundreds of cases in which the UK was complicit or benefited from torture or mistreatment. Does that not mean that there is more of a case to set up such an inquiry than there was nine years ago, when the then Prime Minister said that there should be a judge-led inquiry
“fully independent of Parliament, party and Government”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 181]?
The only thing that has changed in those nine years is that it would be difficult now to reach the truth because of the effluxion of time. Will the Minister at least say that there will be an inquiry, even if we hear the details later this week?
Mr Lidington
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in his assertion that little has changed. There have been important statutory changes in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. There have been important changes in the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and in the statutory basis of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and in the practice that Ministers must be consulted whenever an intelligence officer involved in a planned operation believes that a detainee is at risk of mistreatment by a foreign state. That obligation applies even when consulting a Minister might be thought to lead to a risk of a terrorist act succeeding. The rules are much stricter than they once were.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Given that Britain’s reputation is at stake in relation to human rights when we talk to the world about our values, an oral statement should be made in the House so that we can make a judgment on what sort of inquiry should take place and so that we can question the relevant Minister, even if that is the Prime Minister herself.
Mr Lidington
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. What we are discussing as, in fairness, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) acknowledged, are historical allegations, particularly concerning the period from 2001 to 2010, and the immediate aftermath of the appalling 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. The statutory and administrative basis on which our affairs are now organised give us much greater assurance in the House that decisions are made appropriately and that our agencies adhere to the highest possible standards of conduct.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister made it clear that he thought that the change in the legislative, statutory and administrative frameworks were sufficient to assuage concerns that the House might have, but how can the House assess that unless it is thoroughly tested in this inquiry? That is the only way truly to understand whether it is effective or not.
Mr Lidington
The tests would be threefold. First, there will be an annual report from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner on how Government and the agencies use the powers with which they have been entrusted. Secondly, there are the reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the confidence that the House should have that that Committee now has much greater autonomy and power than was once the case. Thirdly, Sir Adrian Fulford, the commissioner, was asked by the Government to review, reflect on and recommend changes to the consolidated guidance, and that is what we will put before the House later this week.
Points of Order
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for taking time on another point of order on the question of the Home Office’s failure to answer questions satisfactorily, but you will recall that it is just over a year since, in June 2018, I raised a point of order on the Home Office’s refusal to provide information about tier 2 general certificate of sponsorship visas in response to written questions that I had tabled. This information was subsequently released in response to a freedom of information request.
When, subsequent to the information being provided via that FOI, I tabled a further question asking for updated figures, I assumed the Home Office would provide them to me, given that the information was now in the public arena, but it refused again, hence my point of order last June. In response, Mr Speaker, you shared my concern about the danger of FOI requests becoming a more effective way for colleagues to obtain information than a parliamentary question, and you said:
“There is a basic issue here of parliamentary self-respect”.—[Official Report, 18 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 78.]
That is clearly relevant to all Members.
Mr Speaker, you also advised me on how to pursue the matter, and I followed up with a letter to the Home Secretary, on 19 June 2018, highlighting your comments. Despite repeated phone calls and emails to the Home Office’s correspondence unit, I have not yet received a response to that letter—over 12 months later.
I finally tabled a written question asking when I could anticipate a response, and I was told that it was “being prepared”. No reason has been shared with me that would explain why an answer about the procedure for parliamentary questions has taken over a year, Mr Speaker, so I would be grateful if you could advise me on how to pursue this matter and how I might receive a response before the House breaks for the summer recess.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it.
In summary, the matter is very unsatisfactory. The way in which the hon. Gentleman has been treated does not fall foul of any particular rule or Standing Order of the House. That said, it does not in any way become any less unsatisfactory. The essential issue at hand is, as I indicated in response to his previous point of order, a matter of parliamentary self-respect and, I say to occupants of the Treasury Bench, of courtesy on behalf of Ministers towards Members of the House seeking to discharge their duty of scrutiny.
It is therefore very disappointing that the hon. Gentleman has not achieved satisfaction in this matter, and what I want to say to him is as follows. First, he has been dogged and persistent in pursuit of this matter and, as he indicated, he has waited over a year for a Minister to answer his letter, which referred to my answer to his previous point of order.
I would hope that the delay in replying—I say this as much in hope as in expectation—is because Ministers are keen properly to address the underlying issue of providing a less helpful answer to elected Members of the House than to those who pursue freedom of information requests.
I hope that Home Office Ministers, having heard this point of order, will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives the full ministerial reply for which he has waited so long, and that he does so in a matter of days—specifically, before the summer recess.
The final point I would make, on which I expect concurrence, not least from senior and experienced Members of the House who have been here for decades, is this: it was at one time a very established expectation that, if Members were experiencing difficulty in securing replies from Ministers to letters or, indeed, written questions, the Leader of the House would see it as her or his responsibility to chase them in order to secure expeditious replies. I am sorry if that is not currently the case, but it used to be the case—[Interruption.] I note that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) is nodding from a sedentary position, and I assume this view would be shared by Members in other parts of the House.
What I would say to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is that he should approach the current Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), and try to extract a commitment from him that he will engage in the matter and pursue Ministers. That is not only right for the hon. Member for Sheffield Central and his constituents but is in the interest of the effective functioning of all Members of the House. This is a matter not of rules but of parliamentary courtesy, and we need to return to it.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would have spoken to you earlier about this if there had not been a muddle in our diaries. I had a similar example, where I had tabled questions on how many victims of modern slavery were held in detention centres. The Home Office replied that it did not know, but an outside organisation, after two Freedom of Information Act requests, gained that information, which the Home Office had denied having. Might I therefore also register through you that there is something much more rotten in the state of Denmark than just one simple question taking a whole year to answer?
Mr Speaker
On the back of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and of the initial intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, I will raise these matters in correspondence with the Leader of the House. But on the principle both of repetition and of reinforcement by numbers, I would strongly advise Members to do so themselves.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Late last week, the Parole Board announced that Vanessa George, the prolific serial child abuser from Plymouth, is being released from jail. She abused toddlers and babies at the now closed Little Ted’s nursery in Plymouth and then shared these images with a national network of paedophiles for their sexual pleasure, and was rightly jailed. I cannot express to you the pain and horror felt by the families involved at the release from prison of Britain’s most prolific female paedophile. As she has not revealed the full list of the children that she has abused, the horrors are probably much greater than those for which she was convicted. What advice can you give me as to how I can place on record the concerns of the people I represent, and have you had any indication from the Ministry of Justice that a Minister will be coming to the House to make a statement on this matter, so that we can question why she was released and why they feel she is no longer a threat to children?
Mr Speaker
I have received no indication from any Minister of an intention to make a statement on the matter. However, the matter is very important and of intense concern to the hon. Gentleman, to his constituents and, I rather imagine, to a lot of people around the country. What is my advice? My advice is that he should persist, persist, persist, as I invariably advise. What persistence means in this case is looking for opportunities to air concerns in the Chamber. My suggestion to him is that he seek an Adjournment debate, either on the specifics of the case or on what he considers to be its wider implications. If he does seek such an Adjournment debate, such applications tending to come my way, he might find that he is successful.
Bill Presented
Employment (Minimum Hours) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Heidi Allen, supported by Frank Field, Ruth George, Ruth Smeeth, Justin Madders, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Rosie Duffield, Anna Turley, Martyn Day, Kerry McCarthy, Mrs Madeleine Moon and Jeremy Lefroy, presented a Bill to require employers to offer workers on zero hours contracts the option of guaranteed minimum hours; and for connected purposes
Bill read the First time; to be read the Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 421).
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill: Business of the House
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill:
Timetable
(1) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption at this day’s sitting.
(2) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption at this day’s sitting.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(3) If, following proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a Legislative Grand Committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(4) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill—
(a) a Legislative Grand Committee withholds consent to any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill),
(b) the Bill is amended to remove any provisions which are not agreed to by the House and the Legislative Grand Committee, and
(c) a Minister of the Crown indicates their intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill as so amended, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2), the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Speaker or Chairman for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
(6) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker or Chairman shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker or Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions. (8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Speaker or Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Miscellaneous
(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.—(Mr Jack.)
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill
Monday 15th July 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 View all High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 July 2019 - (15 Jul 2019)
19:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 253 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 17 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Compensation scheme for tenants—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme to compensate tenants adversely affected by the scheduled works.
(2) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.
(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
New clause 4—Independent peer review—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent peer review of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) project.
(2) The review must include consideration of the project’s—
(a) environmental impact,
(b) economic impact,
(c) engineering, and
(d) governance.
(3) In this section, “independent” means it is carried out by persons who are independent of—
(a) Government,
(b) HS2 Ltd, and
(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works.
(4) In this section, a “peer review” is a review conducted by experts of equivalent professional qualifications, expertise and standing to the persons responsible for each aspect of the project set out in subsection (2).
(5) A report of the review in subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”
New clause 5—Non-disclosure agreements—
‘(1) The nominated undertaker, or any subcontractors thereof, must not enter into any non-disclosure agreement with any party in connection with the scheduled works unless the assessor of non-disclosure agreements related to the scheduled works (“the assessor”) has certified that it is in the public interest.
(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General must appoint a person to be the assessor.
(3) The assessor must be—
(a) independent, and
(b) a current or former high court judge, higher judge or Queen’s Counsel.
(4) In this section, “independent” means independent of—
(a) Government,
(b) HS2 Ltd, and
(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works.
(5) The assessor must undertake his or her work with a presumption in favour of transparency and public accountability in matters connected to the scheduled works.
(6) The assessor must review any non-disclosure agreement between the nominated undertaker, or any subcontractors thereof, and any party in connection with the scheduled works and in place before this section comes into force to certify whether it is—
(a) in the public interest, or
(b) not in the public interest.
(7) The assessor may not determine that a non-disclosure agreement is in the public interest for the purposes of subsection (1) or (6) except for the reason that it is justified because of exceptional commercial confidentiality.
(8) If the assessor certifies under subsection (6) that a non-disclosure agreement is not in the public interest that non-disclosure agreement immediately ceases to have effect.
(9) In this section, a “non-disclosure agreement” means any duty of confidentiality or other restriction on disclosure (however imposed).”
Rachael Maskell
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the new clauses that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends? When Labour envisaged HS2, it was a very different infrastructure project from what we see today. We recognised that the generations, particularly across the north and the midlands, needed far better connectivity. We wanted to regenerate the northern towns and cities of our country, and we saw the potential in the midlands to spark a new industrial age and how that was not being met.
After decades of disproportionate investment in London and the south-east, it was a Labour Government who saw how improved connectivity was needed to attract vital inward investment and to revitalise economies in the north. That is what Labour is about: creating high-quality jobs and opportunities to inspire a generation. It is in our name, Labour. Of course, we all knew that rebuilding connectivity had to start in the north, particularly with the east-west connections, to truly join up what is now aspiring to be the northern powerhouse. However, without the power of investment in the transport system, that will be nothing more than a soundbite. That is why Labour supports phase 2a, which will be the shortest leg of the route, at just 37 miles in total, and provide that vital north-south link, north of Birmingham to Crewe. Our support is not unreserved, though, and we believe colleagues should join us in the Lobby today to vote for Labour’s new clauses.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As the hon. Lady knows extremely well, I have opposed this Bill and its predecessor Act of Parliament, which inaugurated the first phase, absolutely 100% all the way down the line. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the new clauses that the hon. Lady has tabled, I cannot quite understand how she can reconcile what she has just said with the origins of the proposals. New clause 4 says that an independent peer review ought to consider questions relating to the project’s environmental and economic impact and its engineering and governance and that that review must be carried out by persons who are independent of the Government, HS2 Ltd and all the rest. It sounds to me like the hon. Lady is not terribly keen on the proposals.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention seems slightly premature, so I ask him to hold his breath as I come to talk about the other new clauses. This is clearly a massive opportunity, not least for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, to benefit from more high-quality jobs, which our country desperately needs. I am sure that his constituents would want him to go through the Lobby to achieve that aim.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Surely the answer is that, right from the scheme’s inception, there have been serious concerns about the impact on the environment—I do not have time to go through all that—so it is perfectly logical for that to be included among any amendments. However, one of my difficulties with the scheme is that the costs are escalating. Some of my constituents are affected by it but do not get any compensation. From another angle, cities such as Coventry do not get anything out of it because it bypasses Coventry.
Rachael Maskell
I remind my hon. Friend that the whole country will benefit, because this is a national infrastructure project. Indeed, many jobs will be created in the supply chain in his very constituency, which I am sure he will welcome. Of course, the environment is a central plank of why Labour supports the Bill. We want to see modal shift—people moving out of their cars and out of the skies and on to trains—and this project will provide such opportunity.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. She quite rightly points out that this was a Labour initiative. Given the point she just made about trying to move people away from the skies and on to rail, does she recall that the original Arup proposal would have linked HS2 with HS1, so someone could have got on a train in Manchester and got off that same train in Paris? It was Lord Adonis who actually made changes to prevent that from happening and created an environmental catastrophe in counties such as Staffordshire.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman will know that one concern about the HS2 project is the escalating cost, and that is why we have tabled some new clauses. To join HS1 to HS2 sounds like a logical proposal, but it would mean that costs would go up considerably. Perhaps that is a project for the future, but to get that long overdue connectivity in the north, it is vital that we press on and build a network for the future. We will then see serious modal shift, not only of passengers but of goods.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady not also worried by the very long delay before there is any additional capacity north of Birmingham? Is it not a paradox that something that was designed to help the northern powerhouse will actually produce only a Birmingham-London additional railway for the foreseeable future?
Rachael Maskell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I have already said, we would focus on the north and on making sure that we get those trans-Pennine links in place. We see that as a priority over all rail infrastructure projects, because we understand the power of joining up Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield and the cities and towns beyond. We want to see that investment coming forward. Electrification will also ensure that we benefit from better journey times, reliability and connectivity, which are vital for building our railways into the future. However far into the future it will be until we see the realisation of new rail, it does not mean that we will neglect that ambition to build more capacity north to south, which is vital if we are to take lorries off our roads and give freight an opportunity to move on the west coast main line.
Rachael Maskell
I will, if I may, finish my point.
Although we all get frustrated because we want projects delivered sooner rather than later, what is crucial to us is that, if we do not start now, we will push the completion date even further away. That is why we are keen to get on with it today.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I share her enthusiasm for this ambitious project. She talks about journey times. To achieve that modal shift, particularly between Scotland and London, we need to get rail journey times below three hours. Does she agree that that requires much more ambition in the future to ensure that we have a UK-wide network, which includes integrating Glasgow and Edinburgh into the high-speed network?
Rachael Maskell
I certainly do agree with those excellent points, because HS2 cannot stop at Crewe. We must build further north and right into the heart of Scotland, particularly into the major cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, to ensure that we get the connectivity right in the future. We know the power of infrastructure to transform people’s lives. We want to see inward investment into those conurbations, which is why we believe that, at this point—this is where the Government have been far too silent—we need to ensure that we build that vision for Glasgow and Edinburgh and beyond as we move forward. As my hon. Friend is such an excellent champion for his city of Glasgow, I am sure that he will be making those points to the Government time and again until we see more action.
Rachael Maskell
I wish to make a little more progress, and then I will be happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Let me continue talking through a bit of the history of this project. We know that, by 2011, HS2 was being mapped out at a cost of £37.5 billion. We have seen that cost rise to £55.7 billion today. The narrative around the project has also changed. Frustrations has been expressed by the public, and often echoed in this place, because they want to fully understand the benefits that this project will bring. I trust that the Minister will go back and review the communications on this, because clearly people up and down the country have been hearing about the costs involved but not about the benefits. We need far more clarity, particularly when we know that this will be such a powerful instrument in creating jobs. We also want to give hope and new opportunities to businesses in the supply chain up and down the country, and there is work to do on that.
We need to ensure that those people who are making a sacrifice for this project—whether it is their home or their business that they are having to relocate—get the answers that they need. Labour wants far better governance of the project so that the public get their answers in a timely way from HS2, so that they can make their plans in confidence as they move forward.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Scepticism is shared by many of my constituents, especially given the track record of non-delivery for the north. If we genuinely want to power up the north, major infrastructure projects are essential, but we need that Crossrail for the north. I am sick and tired of hearing about Crossrail for the south, and it is great to see some of the southern colleagues on the Government Benches now seemingly speaking up for some constituents in the north as well as those in the south—if only they had done that in the past. I want assurances that this will be transparent and that investment will go into the north.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course constituents right across the north really do want to see that investment, which is so long overdue. Therefore, again, the Government need to bring forward greater commitments in statute that they will deliver Crossrail for the north. We on the Opposition Benches are concerned that Crossrail 2, yet another infrastructure project in London, could well take priority and we will not see the full power being put into the electrification of the trans-Pennine route, which was promised, and let us all remember that that was cancelled by the Secretary of State conveniently on the day that Parliament rose. We want to see that investment for the future for our northern towns and cities, and that is certainly what we would see under a Labour Government.
Michael Fabricant
I totally agree with the hon. Lady: she is absolutely right about there being a need for a Crossrail in the north because the east-west communications are so bad, but I just want to ask her one thing. She is quite right to say that investment in the capital programme of HS2 will generate jobs and skills, which we so much need, but she also says it will create employment opportunities afterwards; does she not fear that Britain might go down the French route whereby jobs are in fact sucked south into London rather than being generated in the north?
Rachael Maskell
France is a very different country from the UK, and we must bear in mind the potential opportunities from improved connectivity across the north given, for instance, the power of the ports in Hull and of course in Liverpool. There is an opportunity for the economy to be built up through those ports, particularly when the Government are looking at our whole trade policy. So there is real opportunity in this project if we get the infrastructure built right, and that is why it is so important that HS2 does not stand alone but is fully integrated across the whole of our transport and rail network to ensure we get the power of the whole project.
Sir William Cash
I am not sure whether this will come as music to the hon. Lady’s ears, but I am proposing to vote for her new clauses. However, I am really puzzled by new clause 4(4) and (5) and what they say about the independent review, which I am completely behind, as it is to be completely independent of HS2 and the Government and the persons contracted and so forth. Is this not really just window-dressing, however, because the new clause goes on to say the report
“must be laid before the House of Commons within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent”?
In other words, it will be enacted, although I want to see it repealed—[Interruption.] Yes, I do indeed. What is the use of a report being produced by all these incredible independent experts if it will simply not be carried through?
Rachael Maskell
There are two separate points. We want to ensure that we get value out of the project, and it is astonishing that the Government have not put in place the peer review mechanisms over it—both economic and engineering peer reviews—as has been the case for other major infrastructure projects. This is a way to build public confidence and to ensure that we have a real comprehension of the power of these projects. Unfortunately, HS2 is working very much in isolation, and that responsibility sits with the Secretary of State, who is not calling it to account enough; it is a shame not to see him in his place today because he is answerable to the House for this project, and he has not done his duty in ensuring that HS2 fulfils its responsibilities. But perhaps we will get a showing from the Secretary of State later—let us hope so.
I want to talk about the environmental concerns that have been raised and the costs. Many have also questioned the engineering itself. In my experience, senior engineers from across the rail industry—not necessarily involved in the HS2 project—have been making these points and have called for greater scrutiny. It is therefore really important that we identify any fault lines in the project to ensure that amendments are made. Of course, it takes time to ensure that there is a proper review and that the project is built for the long term.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Just before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the hon. Lady mentioned that she was in favour of—I think these were the words she used—a joined-up transport project with better co-ordination. At staggering expense, this project will take passengers from my constituency who want to go to Heathrow to a place called Old Oak Common. Now, I have never been there—it might be a most charming place—but I suggest that my constituents will want to go directly to Heathrow. If they wanted to go to HS1 and link up to Brussels, Paris or wherever, as it is they would have to go to Euston, and either walk down the pavement, get in a taxi or get on a bus. That does not seem to be very clever co-ordination of the most expensive railway that man has ever yet conceived.
Rachael Maskell
My new clauses are so important to ensuring that we get that desperately needed connectivity built into the infrastructure. The fragmentation across our rail network is incredibly costly; there are delays and there is no joined-up thinking. That is why Labour wants to bring rail together. It is so important to reunite the whole network in one public body, of which we envisage HS2 being a part. We will then get the connectivity that the public would expect from a rail network. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support my new clause later today to take that idea forward.
Mr Paterson
Does the hon. Lady therefore question the current arrangements as proposed, and is the Labour party prepared to vote against them unless this railway is realigned—with a direct link to Heathrow or a direct link to HS1?
Rachael Maskell
Labour is very clear that we will be supporting phase 2a that is before the House today, but we have called into question the way in which the Government are approaching the whole governance of the project. That is why we want to drive the project forward in a different way. I call on all hon. Members across the House to join us in the Lobby today to ensure that we get the right scrutiny over this project to drive it forward in the interests of their constituents, the public and the whole economy.
Members who attended the Westminster Hall debate last week will have heard the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who so eloquently set out the idea that we measure what we treasure. I heard the powerful case for the east midlands, where over 60,000 jobs—high-quality ones, at that—have already been created, and we know that this project will bring opportunities across the country.
I hear the same expectations from Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester; from Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool city region; from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), the Mayor of the Sheffield city region; and from Judith Blake, the leader of Leeds City Council. Not only will 30,000 jobs be developed across the project; hundreds of thousands will also result from investment across the north and the midlands, including in my home city of York. That in itself is a game-changer in tackling social mobility issues and rebalancing national inequality, and will draw investment into places that are in urgent need of regeneration. The issue is not whether HS2 is the right project, but the governance that surrounds its planning and construction.
As I have already said, Labour would integrate HS2 with the rest of our rail enhancement programme and integrate the northern sections of the route fully with the trans-Pennine connections, ensuring the connectivity, journey times and reliability that are so desperately needed. This is what we can achieve with one transformative, publicly run rail service, and it is also what we believe the Government can achieve if they are serious about delivering the rail system needed for the future of the country. We also believe that the environmental value of this project needs greater scrutiny.
Mr Sweeney
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about why we need to improve the governance and oversight of this project, to ensure that the maximum benefit is realised for the country. I am thinking of the supply chain benefits, particularly in my constituency, which was once a world leader in locomotive and railway manufacturing. We are just about to lose the last railway engineering works in my constituency because of a lack of coherent planning. There is a lack of capacity in the rolling stock overhaul business in this country, because of the failure to anticipate it. That is exactly the opportunity that this new clause presents, to ensure that we can respond better to changes in the market.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. The jobs in his constituency are vital. Having met some of those workers, I know that many of them have tremendous skill and could participate in this project. I urge the Minister to look at that situation and ensure that the gates do not close and that those jobs can be saved and integrated into the HS2 project. I trust that she will want to meet my hon. Friend, to advance the case that he has been fighting so hard for.
Rachael Maskell
I will continue for a little bit, if I may.
HS2 provides a crucial opportunity to create a significant number of freight paths on the west coast main line, thus moving freight from road to rail, with additional capacity, which will attract more passengers to move from air to train and car to train, due to the attractive journey times. That is a crucial shift if we are to reduce our emissions, which are currently at 29% in the transport sector, and our carbon footprint. Of course, that means saving lives, from the poor air quality that so many people experience because of the use of poor fuels on the transport that many people use to get about our country.
Labour’s new clauses seek to address something that is vital to rebuilding public confidence in the project: a transformation in the way that the governance works. We truly believe that the Secretary of State has failed in his obligation to hold HS2 fully to account and certainly has not brought the level of transparency we would expect from a Secretary of State to such a major infrastructure project. He cannot and must not hide, as he is today.
Rachael Maskell
Indeed. In the light of concerns expressed by Members from across the House, Labour’s new clauses 1 and 4 seek to drive greater transparency and accountability for the project.
John Redwood
Does the hon. Lady agree that early and rather more moderate expenditure on digital signalling could greatly increase capacity and, along with short sections of bypass track, could improve reliability of fast train services, which is needed?
Rachael Maskell
I am honoured to have a centre for digital signalling in my constituency and have seen the power of it, but sadly, to achieve the capacity that we will need for the future, we have to build more routes. That is what this project will do. It is not either/or—both are required for the future of our rail network, but the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
First, we are calling on the Secretary of State to bring quarterly reports on the environmental impact, costs and progress of the HS2 project to the House. This is far too important a project for the Bill to be passed and then for us to read in the press that the costs have gone up and there are delays. The project must be far more accountable to the House, as should the Secretary of State.
Secondly, Labour believes that the scheduling, the integration, the engineering in places and the scope of the project need review. We cannot simply have HS2 Ltd saying, “This is what it is.” There are major issues to be resolved, not least the vital Yorkshire hub and getting the right connectivity into Sheffield. Members and community groups have undertaken detailed work on how improvements can be made to parts of the route, and that is one such example. Labour is calling for the whole of HS2, including phase 2a, to undergo a complete peer review appraisal by independent engineering and economic specialists. We believe that that is the only way that Parliament and the public can have full confidence in the HS2 project. Such a process will ensure that the scope is right, that the integration with the wider network is right, that governance is put right and that the maximum environmental gain is harvested while the cost of the project is minimised. It will not delay the project but enable it to proceed in a way that delivers maximum benefit.
Ensuring that the best modelling of the wider economic benefit is properly appraised is also urgently needed on this project, while at the same time proper security can clearly deliver a focus and confirm that north-south connectivity—and, I trust, east-west too—is really integrated to deliver and to ensure that we get maximum benefit from it. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the new clauses, which would answer many of the questions that they have been asking and enhance the Bill and the project.
Michael Fabricant
I just want to emphasise the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I understand the logic of what the hon. Lady says about peer review and so on, but supposing that says that the project must be done in a completely different way, for example using the original Arup route to which I referred earlier. That will not be possible if the Bill has become an Act. Surely she should oppose the Bill, have a peer review and then decide whether to support the legislation.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman appears not to want to see the line built in his lifetime, my lifetime or the lifetime of any current hon. Member. The reality is that we believe that the route needs tweaking, changing and integrating, but that does not mean ripping everything up. We will never be able to satisfy everyone, because in the history of the railway there has always been a farmhouse, a field or a golf course in the way. Indeed, 27 vintage trees will be in the way on this section, and we are very concerned about them.
It is important that we press ahead, but that we review the project—especially the governance. That is about the management that we proceed with.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Would it not be right to think about my hon. Friend’s proposal in new clause 4 as an attempt to learn the lessons as we go along? It is not as though this is a project without review or evaluation. Already it has oversight from the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, and it is subject to National Audit Office review. It is hardly as though people are completely deprived of information. What we need to do is pull together that information and learn clear lessons as we proceed.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend speaks eloquently and is right. We need to pool the information, including the scrutiny the House has put over the project and the external scrutiny, to ensure that we get the project right. That is what will build public confidence as we move forward.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job in making the case. Does she accept that the information that is available to the House through the various bodies and institutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned is massively undermined by the number of non-disclosure agreements that have been applied to former members of staff of HS2? More than 270 NDAs prevent people from saying what they really believe about the capacity and costs of the scheme. What does she think about that in terms of transparency and openness?
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point and I will return to it shortly.
Rachael Maskell
Not at this time—I am going to move on.
As raised in Committee, there is a major issue with compensation for those who rent. For example, a tenant farmer who works on the land may be moved and have to work away from their farm. People who rent privately consistently miss out when infrastructure projects force them out of their homes or away from their businesses. We believe that they must receive compensation. The issue was raised at the petition stage of the Bill and it would be right to respond today. The new clause would enable that to happen when the statutory instrument is laid.
Let me briefly move on to new clause 5. I am looking forward to the contribution from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), and I confirm that Labour supports her new clause. There has been a lot of learning around non-disclosure agreements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) alluded to. I know from my time as a trade union official, and from my time on the working party on bullying and sexual misconduct procedures here, that these agreements are used to see that commercially sensitive information is not shared with external parties, but they are also used around failures of management, and bullying would be one such example.
If the culture is wrong, it is not right to put money into it, and the management should be held to account. My hon. Friend said that 270-plus non-disclosure agreements have been signed, so we need to ensure that there is proper scrutiny and transparency. New clause 5 addresses that issue very comprehensively, ensuring that commercial sensitivities are not undermined, and also that all of us can have a real grasp of what is happening in the culture of HS2. It is a sensible way of addressing the serious amount of money that is being spent on these agreements. We certainly believe that the culture in HS2 must move forward.
We will listen to the debate to decide how we handle the new clauses I have laid before the House. I hope the Minister will give us assurances on them, and I will be listening carefully to determine whether to proceed to a vote. With these enhancements to the Bill, the whole HS2 project could proceed with far greater confidence and far greater support.
Sir William Cash
I made it clear in my remarks to the shadow Minister that I am minded to vote for these new clauses. However, towards the end of what she said, serious doubt began to descend on the House as to whether she would actually push them to a vote. She is therefore welcome to come back to the Dispatch Box to tell me whether she in fact intends to do so.
On new clause 1, it would be eminently sensible to have quarterly reports on environmental impact, costs and progress. One thing that has been completely lacking is any proper analysis by the Government or HS2 of all three of those issues.
Sir Edward Leigh
On the question of environmental impact, does my hon. Friend think that we were too obsessed by speed in the early years of this project? The Government now justify it on the basis of capacity, but there would still be much less environmentally damaging ways of increasing capacity—for instance, by laying more of the line along existing motorways such as the M40. Will my hon. Friend and other hon. Members also bear in mind counties not directly affected by the line, such as Lincolnshire, which are being starved of resources for our rural and commuter lines?
Sir William Cash
I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend. The very fact that he is in the House, as are other Members who are not directly affected by the line, is a reminder of the fact that, on the last occasion the Bill was voted on—on Second Reading—the number of people who actually voted was very small compared with the number of people who could have voted, from which one might infer that the enthusiasm for this proposal is minimal. I think as many as 200 MPs did not vote, which was quite extraordinary.
On the question of environmental impact, I would simply say that my constituents will be deeply and profoundly affected not only by the havoc that will be created by forcing this juggernaut through my constituency from top to bottom, but by the dislocation, the highways and the impact on businesses. A quarterly report is, quite frankly, a very good idea, but I am more interested in getting an answer from the shadow Minister—it is not forthcoming at the moment—because there is no point in putting forward the proposals if they will not see the light of day in a vote.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
We started off with a figure of about £35 billion or £36 billion. The latest figure is somewhere around £55 billion. My hon. Friend and I have seen credible estimates upwards of £80 billion. Should the House not know what it is actually voting for tonight? How much will it be?
Sir William Cash
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—a real friend, quite apart from being an hon. Friend—and I would add that we only have to look at clause 61 to realise the financial implications and how costs will be dealt with. There is talk about the overall cost being about £51 billion—there has been an upgrade in the amount of money intended to be applied to this part of the proposal. We cannot separate out the cost of distance between London and Birmingham, and then leave out Birmingham to the ultimate destination. The reality is that we are faced with a proposal under the Bill that is excessive in its totality and unjustified in the unbelievable havoc it will cause my constituents.
The other point I would make on new clause 2 relates to the compensation scheme for tenants, an idea I put forward on a number of occasions. There is no doubt that a huge number of people will be adversely affected by the scheduled works. It is not just tenants who will be affected but property owners. They will be severely damaged. Many of my constituents have been put under the most incredible stress and anxiety. There have been suggestions that some people, elderly people in particular, have been under such intense stress that they have died prematurely.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
There are some unusual cases in my constituency. There are a number of people with canal boats who pay for moorings. They are very hard to locate, and they will get no compensation. There are those with farm tenancies that give them security in their home, which is very difficult to replicate under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. Those are the kinds of tenants who need to be compensated, are they not?
Sir William Cash
They certainly are, and there are also freehold properties. People who own property, as I have just described, are being put under the most intense anxiety, so I understand the reasons that lie behind the principle of new clause 2.
On new clause 4, I made my point in my intervention on the shadow Minister. I simply cannot understand it. Notwithstanding the intention that appears to be behind the first part the new clause—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for backing me up on this—it is inconceivable that the report should only come into effect within 12 months of the Act receiving Royal Assent. It is nonsense. I ask the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) to note that although I shall vote for the principle of an independent peer review, it will be on the strict understanding that that is without prejudice to my concern that the Act will need to be repealed.
I make this point now and may do so again on Third Reading: we are about to experience a new Government, effectively, with a new Prime Minister, depending on the outcome of the leadership election. The two contenders for the leadership have differing views on HS2: one is in favour and the other says that he wants to put it under review. Although rumours are like bats that fly in the night, the fact is that there are very strong feelings in favour of abandoning this entire project. We understand that it has already cost about £5 billion or £6 billion. That is enough money in itself, but to subject this country to unbelievable havoc as the project goes through constituencies such as mine, with all the attendant problems and anxieties that I have described, and to say, at the same time, that the proposal will go through and that the Labour party, by all accounts, will vote for it seems to be completely at variance with all the evidence and reports—I referred to them in the Westminster Hall debate and on many other occasions—which indicate that this is not a viable project. It was dreamt up by a Labour peer. I am never quite sure what the noble Lord Adonis’s allegiance is these days, but he was certainly a Labour member of the Government when this was proposed, and he deserves to be thoroughly condemned for it.
John Redwood
Did my hon. Friend notice that while Labour says that it wants a 12-month review of fairly fundamental things, it made it very clear that it does not want any material changes to the project that might delay it? I do not really see what the point of the review is.
Sir William Cash
The hon. Member for York Central is smiling as she looks across the Chamber—[Interruption.] She says that it is unbelievable, but it is anything but unbelievable—it is entirely true and entirely credible. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield backed me up on this. What is the point in having a first-class, independent review of the kind that is being advocated and saying that it will come into effect only after this has been made into the law of the land? [Interruption.] I see the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), chuntering, but perhaps he would like to come to the Dispatch Box and explain the nonsense that lies behind that reasoning.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that this is just good governance? If we are spending this amount of taxpayers’ money, we have to have decent oversight to make sure that the money is being used to the best effect. That should perhaps have been built into the process earlier, but the fact is that it is being brought forward at this stage. Presumably that is why he supports it, but let us be honest: whatever is introduced, he will never support this project, which I do strongly, because this is about not just rebalancing the UK economy but connecting the north to great opportunities across the whole of mainland Europe.
Sir William Cash
The hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that I will never accept this project. I have made that abundantly clear not only by my votes, but by the arguments that I have presented. I come back to this point: we cannot say that there is transparency if this is turned into the law of the land. It is one of the most nonsensical new clauses that I have seen, notwithstanding the fact that I strongly believe that an independent peer review would be a good idea. However, it should come before Royal Assent, not after.
Michael Fabricant
My hon. Friend is making complete sense. He mentioned Lord Adonis earlier. Is my hon. Friend aware that the original plan for HS2, designed by Arup, would have gone up the M40 and connected with Heathrow, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said, and it would have connected with HS1 not by linking in the south at great expense, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) suggested, but by going directly through St Pancras?
Sir William Cash
That all sounds frightfully interesting, but I am afraid that it is not what we are dealing with. We have this Bill and a project that is the biggest white elephant that has ever been seen in modern history, as far as the United Kingdom rail system is concerned. It is a complete outrage that my constituents should have this perpetrated on them.
I am serious when I say that I shall be campaigning not only for a review of these proposals but in pretty short order to have the Act repealed, because that is the only way this can be sorted out. It is a complete disgrace that the Government have introduced the Bill in the dying days of this Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) is laughing because she knows I am right. These proposals almost certainly would not survive the review that will be taking place under a new Prime Minister. I am making a fair assumption about who that person will be.
Sir William Cash
I will give way again to this extremely energetic Member of Parliament.
Jim McMahon
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not feel energetic. Is it not the case, though, that the zero-based review, which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury proposed, is not a genuine review of the project but is about creating a war chest to buy the support of Conservative shire candidates? It has nothing to do with HS2; it is about clawing back the money for a fighting fund.
Sir William Cash
The hon. Gentleman has very sensibly tempted me into saying something else that I believe. I am completely against these proposals in relation to my constituents and the national interest—it is the biggest white elephant of all time, as all the reports I referred to in my Westminster Hall debate demonstrated. There have been even more since, including one from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which rated the whole thing as amber—although in fact it probably thinks it is in the red. If only, it said, we could get rid of this ridiculous proposal and put the money where it deserves to go, which is across the country, east to west, which I happen to agree with very strongly. On that point, I had some sympathy with what the shadow Minister said.
There is another factor. This incredible waste of money could make an enormous difference to this country’s coffers in the not very distant future. It seems absurd to be wasting money like this. We hear all these ridiculous arguments about Brexit, but this is the kind of thing that is bringing the country to its knees by virtue of wasted expenditure on projects that are no more than a white elephant.
Laura Smith
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). We disagree on almost everything, but I do sympathise massively with people’s concerns about their property and will always support them as their constituency MP.
This is a significant Bill of vital importance to our future prosperity and a key feature of any strategy to build a more balanced economy. My contribution to this debate will outline the reasons why I believe we must support the Bill and also the vision that underpins HS2. Without that strategic outlook, we risk losing the bigger picture to narrow debates about direct benefits such as commute times or becoming distracted by false choices, such as whether to spend on HS2 or northern powerhouse rail.
Of course, it is important that any publicly funded project be wholly transparent and subject to proper scrutiny. Let me begin with my own constituency of Crewe and Nantwich. It goes without saying that Crewe is famous for being a railway town. In fact, it has been suggested that Crewe was actually named after the railway station, rather than the other way round. Before the Grand Junction Railway company chose Crewe as the site for its railway station and works, Crewe was reportedly a tiny village with as few as 70 residents. That was until our current station was completed in 1837. About a decade later Crewe Works was producing one locomotive a week. Our communities flourished around the works and ours is now widely recognised as one of the most historically significant railway stations in the world.
Sir William Cash
The hon. Lady might anticipate what I am about to say. The proposals put the railhead down at Yarnfield, which itself is an absolute and total disgrace. It was originally going to be in her constituency. She has just been rightly praising the people of her constituency for their wonderful work over the last century and a half. Would it not have been so much better had the proposal been to put the railhead in Crewe, as was originally intended, and not down in Yarnfield, where it will destroy so much of my constituency?
Laura Smith
I personally believe that the hon. Gentleman needs to look at the benefits of HS2 for people in his constituency, such as the jobs that it will bring. I do not think that it is all doom and gloom for his constituents, and I will continue to speak positively about my own constituency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. What the hon. Lady is saying is important, and I presume that she will be linking her remarks to the new clauses.
Laura Smith
My speech is all about the way in which HS2 will help to deal with these matters, but I will speed it up, Mr Deputy Speaker. My apologies.
I am not for one moment suggesting that HS2 will solve all these problems alone, but it can and must play an important role as part of a wider strategy. As I said on Second Reading:
“My vision for HS2 is not as an end in itself, benefiting only businesses and commuters, but as a catalyst for the radical rebalancing of our economy”.—[Official Report, 30 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 741-42.]
I firmly believe that we need to shift our economy towards investment-led growth. The choice that has been presented between HS2 and better east-west links in the north is an entirely false one. In any case, Northern Powerhouse Rail services will, at two of their most important regional links, run on HS2 infrastructure.
Some businesses choose to pay almost four times as much per square foot for premises in London and the south because of the poor connectivity in the north. Last year, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research North indicated that planned transport investment in London was two and a half times higher per person than in the north of England, and productivity in London is reported to be some 40% greater than in the north, demonstrating a strong correlation between connectivity and productivity. In its recent report, High Speed Rail Industry Leaders set out why it believes that improved connectivity will lead to greater regional productivity, and enhanced specialisation that will help us to bring about a more balanced economy.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes the case eloquently for her constituency. This independent review is so important because it is not about the pounds being spent globally; it is about the impact on jobs and local communities, economies and supply chains.
Laura Smith
Absolutely. The review is incredibly important. What does the review mean for places like Crewe? Crewe has the potential to build on the 360° connectivity it already has to become the key regional hub bridging the north and the midlands. The local enterprise partnership is working alongside Cheshire East Council on a proposal for a Crewe HS2 growth corridor that will bring together strategic development sites in Crewe, Middlewich and Winsford, so that they can build on their traditional strengths in high-value manufacturing. As for the model through which the LEP proposes delivering that corridor, it will invest up front to unlock development, and will be repaid through the generation of new business rates. Any surplus income will be used to help finance station improvements.
I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker; I get the impression that I might have pushed my luck a little, but I am still fairly new to this process, so please excuse me. I reiterate that the passing of this Bill is not nearly enough to unlock my constituency’s full potential. I would like the Government to commit to seven HS2 trains per hour stopping at Crewe, and more frequent regional train services to and from Crewe on each of the lines radiating out of the town. A northern junction at Crewe is essential to allow Birmingham-Manchester HS2 services to stop at Crewe, and to allow Crewe to be part of the Northern Powerhouse Rail network, which would open up the possibility of direct service to Leeds and other destinations east of the Pennines.
I am concerned that some appear to be flirting with the idea of scaling back HS2, either through short-sightedness or, worse, for political gain. HS2 has shaped our local planning framework, and so much work has gone into bringing all stakeholders together to realise the potential of HS2 in Crewe that it would be nothing short of tragic if the Government failed to deliver.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is always interesting to follow the hon. Lady, who is my neighbour. She extols the virtues of HS2, but it is not her constituents but mine who will feel an impact. The rolling stock depot and the northern Crewe junction that she speaks of are not in Crewe; they are in Eddisbury. Largely owing to the extremely hard work of her Conservative predecessor, Edward Timpson, who argued for a tunnel under Crewe, a massive amount of the local impact will not be felt in Crewe. Perhaps the hon. Lady ought to spare a thought for constituents whose homes and lives are being destroyed.
Laura Smith
I absolutely agree. Constituents and businesses have come to me, as they have done to the hon. Lady, and we have dealt with them. I also agree with her new clause. I am not saying that what is happening is simple, and I have every sympathy for everybody affected, but I am looking at what benefit can come to Crewe and Nantwich, and the whole area, because of HS2. Without doubt, this is a huge project, and there will be winners and losers, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
Antoinette Sandbach
Sadly for Eddisbury, the number of losers there is very large. It will cost an extra £100 million just to do the extra 20 km of track from Crewe past Winsford. The geotechnical engineer’s report that was served on HS2 many years ago has not yet been answered. I would much rather see that money going into improving public services and housing stock in my area.
New clause 5 seeks to restrict use of non-disclosure agreements by HS2. The reason that I tabled it is that a business in my constituency has been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and it potentially affects the jobs of 166 of my constituents. I do not think it right that Members of Parliament are being denied information that is being stitched up by HS2. This relates not only to private businesses but to councils, in relation to denying elected members information. That is why the new clause is necessary.
Scarcely a day passes without a discussion on non-disclosure agreements. Last week, there was a discussion on NDAs in relation to the Labour party, but we have also seen questions about their use by businessmen and others to keep former employees and others quiet about information or personal conduct within a company. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who sits with me on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, for his work on the all-party parliamentary group on whistleblowing. The group has today launched a report calling for reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. What concerns me most is that HS2 appears to be stepping up its use of NDAs. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) described HS2 as having signed more than 270 NDAs, and the New Civil Engineer reports that the figure could be as high as 280, with 40% of them having been signed in the last year.
Mr Ivan Lewis
Last week, the hon. Lady’s party rightly called for Labour to do something about non-disclosure agreements in relation to staff employed in the Labour party. Does she agree that, to be consistent, Ministers should instruct HS2 to release people from their obligations under non-disclosure agreements so that they can share with the House the truth about their experience of the capacity and cost issues when they were working for the organisation? Her new clause deals with the future, but does she agree that it should be able to deal with the past, too?
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He will see from the drafting of my new clause that it would allow an assessor to assess NDAs that have already been signed, and to allow them to be retained only in circumstances of exceptional commercial confidentiality. I would argue that that is the only ground for retaining them, and that an independent assessor—either a QC or a former High Court judge—should be appointed to assess those NDAs.
John Redwood
Could my hon. Friend give us some idea of what kind of information she thinks might be suppressed that we ought to know about? What is the inducement being offered to make people sign these things?
Antoinette Sandbach
So far, HS2 has refused to answer freedom of information requests. It claims, in answers given to me as a result of FOI requests, that it is unable to provide answers because it does not know how many NDAs its lawyers have got people to sign and because it would cost too much to provide a Member of Parliament with details of the number of NDAs.
Mr Lewis
Is it not true that a number of former senior HS2 employees who have expressed concerns about financial information provided to the House and other appropriate oversight bodies were soon asked to leave the organisation on the basis of non-disclosure? Does the hon. Lady agree that that is incredibly serious, which is why Ministers should instruct that those people be released from those non-disclosure obligations as soon as possible?
Antoinette Sandbach
I completely agree. I am worried that NDAs are used to cover up wrongdoing in HS2, particularly in relation to redundancy payments, which have been discovered by the National Audit Office, and it has been agreed that the scheme was inappropriate. The difficulty is that without such provision being included in the legislation, that statutory protection is not available to those who wish to blow the whistle or otherwise highlight failures.
NDAs are also used for local authorities. I know that, because it applies to my own local authority. In answer to a written question, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), the HS2 Minister, reported that 31 local councils have an NDA in place with HS2, including Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East Councils, which cover my constituency. Apparently, they are required to discuss advanced planning issues and matters of a commercially sensitive nature. However, the councils also sit on the implementation advisory group which feeds back to my community what HS2 plans to do in my area. Matters that go beyond planning and commercially sensitive information are being withheld on the basis of those NDAs signed with HS2, denying me as the Member of Parliament the ability to quiz HS2 on what it plans to do in the area. How, for example, will road movements be affected, and how will that affect my industrial estate? How is the public interest served by those NDAs, which limit the information that councils can give to my constituents?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. I am shocked by what she has revealed. Does she have any idea what is driving those NDAs, and how long are they valid for? What is the intention behind this?
Antoinette Sandbach
I have asked for details, and for a copy of an NDA but, again, there was a refusal to disclose that to me. The claim is that that is exempt from disclosure, because it is commercially sensitive information, but I am afraid that I simply do not agree that all those NDAs are required just for commercially sensitive information. As I said, 40% have been signed in the past 12 months, and I am concerned that they are used to withhold from the public and from elected representatives information that the organisation may not wish to go into the public domain.
Antoinette Sandbach
I do not know, but presumably for the length of the project.
That has an impact on Members representing constituencies on phase 2b of the route, because we cannot get information from HS2 about how it will impact our constituents. Any Member of the House who has had dealings with HS2 knows that it has an approach to secrecy unparalleled since the cold war. If our councils are prohibited from telling us details of their discussions, we struggle to assess local impacts. Clearly, there is a problem. My new clause tries to steer a path between an outright ban and the current approach of issuing NDAs as a matter of course. It tries to operate within boundaries already established for HS2 best practice and it gives discretion where necessary while erring on the side of transparency and the public interest.
HS2 already has a residents commissioner and a construction commissioner who, together, act as impartial monitors of HS2 and offer advice to those affected by the scheme, be they residents, businesses or other groups. My amendment would add an assessor, who would be a QC or a High Court judge. This individual—appointed by the National Audit Office, Parliament’s spending watchdog—would be required to approve as in the public interest any future NDAs that HS2 seeks to enter. The assessor would also have the power to review all previous NDAs and assess whether they, too, are in the public interest. If the assessor judges an existing NDA to be not in the public interest, it would cease to have effect.
My amendment would unshackle whistleblowers and elected officials to discuss HS2 freely and honestly. If, after any revelations emerge, Members wished to continue with the scheme, they would at least make that decision on the basis of the facts, and not the partial picture we see today.
I make no secret of my approach to HS2, but my amendment should appeal to everyone, whether or not they support the project. Those who see HS2 as a grand success should want to see it shouted from the rooftops, not swaddled in secrecy; and those of us who believe the costs will continue to spiral until the game is not worth the candle would be able to see for ourselves the full costs involved.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, I take a personal interest in this matter. I am sorry that I have not been here for the debate, but my parliamentary duties elsewhere have prevented me from being in the Chamber to support her. Does she agree that the precedent for this secrecy on HS2 was set when it was revealed that the main reports on the project were going to be kept not only from the public but from this House, when the then Secretary of State for Transport refused to publish the reports from the Major Projects Authority? That, in itself, was very damaging. By setting that bar for secrecy, and through the NDAs, the largest infrastructure project in Europe continues to be concealed from Members of this House and from the public.
Antoinette Sandbach
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why I tabled new clause 5. NDAs should not be used to shut people up and prevent them from saying what is happening inside the organisation. Not only that, but NDAs are being used to deprive elected Members of this House and other officials of important information about some of the impacts and problems, which we should be scrutinising.
Jim McMahon
I absolutely respect that the hon. Lady is giving voice to her constituents, but she has been fairly negative so far. Can she think of one positive that HS2 will bring?
Antoinette Sandbach
I am glad to be giving voice, because I sound a bit croaky—I am losing my voice.
I agree that there are potential benefits, but the question is whether those benefits are worth the cost and whether the business case stacks up. I would much rather see the east-west Northern Powerhouse Rail connection happen as a priority.
When a rolling stock depot is moved from another constituency to mine and put next to a school, thereby requiring the whole school to move, there seems to be either a level of incompetence or staggering complacency in the management of the project. I have been at events where my constituents have asked questions and not received answers.
There have been ministerial orders to provide mock-ups of the rolling stock depot so that we can understand the scale and impact, and HS2 has just ignored them and said that it will not provide the mock-ups. Then there has been a change of Minister, who has taken a different approach.
My concern is that, unless this protection is in the legislation, we will potentially see a change of Secretary of State, and that we will then not have the protections in relation to this kind of infrastructure project that all our constituents deserve.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I rise briefly to support new clause 4 and the call for a full peer review of this project. I will also call for the review to go wider, particularly to look at the geographical impact of the HS2 investment and the impact on cities and towns. I raise this because, like most Members of this House, I strongly support the need for substantial investment in our transport infrastructure. I think it needs to increase; we should be spending more capital investment on transport, particularly on our railways, especially given the climate change challenges we face.
The more we look, however, at the current Government’s transport infrastructure budget, the more doubts we should have about the continued focus on cities, rather than towns, and about the continued concentration of the capital budget on cities, rather than towns. HS2 and its plans raise those serious questions, which is why serious issues need to be reviewed about whether or not HS2 is the right priority now, given the need for investment in our towns. According to the National Infrastructure Commission, the Government propose to spend £4.5 billion a year on HS2 between now and 2025, but only £200 million a year on Northern Powerhouse Rail. We must bear in mind that Northern Powerhouse Rail is also predominantly focused on cities.
I want to set out the impact on my constituency, but the towns there could reflect many across the country. It is not clear that HS2 will have any benefit for Normanton, although Ministers say that it will mean faster trains to Leeds. Normanton used to be at the heart of the rail network. We used to have 700 jobs on the railways alone in Normanton and 700,000 passengers used to go through it. Normanton used to be a central railway town, but now there is only one train an hour to Leeds, even though it is less than half an hour away. Therefore, any benefits from speeding up journey times for anyone in my constituency just disappear, because the connections into Leeds are so rubbish. From Castleford, Pontefract and Knottingley, there are a few more trains, but they are often cancelled or late, or there are just too few carriages and so people cannot get on.
After the May timetable changes, things got worse. One constituent told me that on his regular trains the seating capacity was reduced by between 58 and 130 seats, making it impossible for many passengers to get on, so they were just stuck on the platform. Some trains currently run to London from Pontefract Monkhill, but it has no disabled access. So I have had constituents with wheelchairs who have been stranded on the platform as a result or who, in one case, have had to crawl over the bridge. Yet there is no sign of the investment in our station just to get basic disabled access. This is the capital investment we need in our towns.
We are told in other parts of our area that the regular trains cannot go any faster because the lines need upgrading, but there is no sign of it ever happening. Time and again we are told that HS2 will mean better connections for our country and for our towns, but we never see it—we never see any credible plan. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who spoke from the Front Bench, has rightly talked about boosting the connectivity between Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. I strongly support that, because I believe that it will hugely benefit the north. Indeed, I think the House of Lords report was right when it said that investment in improving the rail links in the north of England would deliver greater economic benefit for every pound than HS2 would.
Having those connections between our northern cities would be substantial, but the economic benefits from better connecting our northern towns with neighbouring cities would be huge. That would boost our towns; give employers in our towns and our cities a far bigger catchment area, for staff and for customers; and build the size of local markets. Those town connections should be done first, before any of this, but we do not see it ever happening. We do not see it ever coming. As a result, we do not believe it is ever going to come. We get all these promises from these massive national infrastructure projects, which always concentrate on our cities, but we do not believe this is ever going to benefit our towns.
Mike Amesbury
In 2017, Northern rail should have been delivering two trains an hour from Northwich to Manchester on the mid-Cheshire line; it is still not doing that. When we hear of HS2’s costs spiralling from £57 billion up to even £106 billion, people look at the northern powerhouse slogan as a real damp squib.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am just a little worried: we are obviously talking about new clauses to the Bill, and as much as we have all suffered with Northern rail, I want to try to keep the debate where it should be.
Yvette Cooper
Mr Deputy Speaker is completely right: we could go on for a very long time about the problems with Northern rail. My hon. Friend is also right. The review in new clause 4 should focus on the geographic impact and the impact for towns, because time and again we just see our town services go backwards and our chances of getting any capital investment in towns disappear, while the Government always talk about these huge billions of pounds going into connections for the cities. The compact between different parts of the country, particularly between our cities and towns, has now broken. I do not think anybody quite recognises the seriousness of that. This debate about HS2 is carrying on while we ignore that serious and growing divide.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Department for Transport needs to update its national rail travel overview survey report, on which so much of its planning is dependent? It has not been updated since 2010. I received a written answer that said the Government are
“currently considering updating the National Rail Travel Survey”.
Does the right hon. Lady think that that needs to be done as a matter of urgency, so that the survey reflects the exact points she is making?
Yvette Cooper
If there has simply been no updated assessment, that might explain why so many of my constituents get stuck on platforms in Leeds, trying to get back to Castleford, or on platforms in Castleford, trying to get into Leeds. So many more people are commuting for work, yet the commuter infrastructure for them is just not there. It is continually our towns that are being let down.
Yvette Cooper
I am conscious of the time and see Mr Deputy Speaker looking at me, so I shall give way only briefly.
John Redwood
How would a review help, given that the right hon. Lady’s Front-Bench colleagues and the current Government are united behind the current scheme, which does nothing to help our towns?
Yvette Cooper
Nobody has done a proper assessment of where transport infrastructure investment is going and what the impact is on cities and towns. Some assessment has been made of the impact on different regions of the country, and that is important. Actually, it is significant, because I think the New Economics Foundation cites HS2’s own figures showing that 40% of the benefits from HS2 will go to London, whereas only 10% of the benefits will go to Yorkshire. I want to see a broader assessment of the impact on cities and towns.
Job growth is twice as fast in cities as in towns. New digital jobs, service jobs, university-related jobs and cultural jobs are all being concentrated in cities, but manufacturing, distribution and retail jobs are disappearing from towns. That is a result of automation or changes to our economy, but public sector investment decisions, including on transport priorities, are making that worse. Public services are shrinking back from towns into cities, and the new infrastructure investment is always concentrated on cities rather than towns.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way, even though I said that the previous time was the last.
Jim McMahon
I took the hint from Mr Deputy Speaker that he was relaxed about interventions.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her work to give a voice to towns, which is important. Does she accept that the capital focus of HS2 is one thing, but it is revenue spend that has massively affected towns? In Greater Manchester, we have lost 30 million bus miles because of central Government revenue cuts. One thing we could do today is reinvest the revenue that has been lost.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Certainly, for bus services, which are crucial for our towns, the loss of revenue has been particularly crucial and devastating. This debate is about towns getting their fair share of both revenue and capital investment. Currently, I do not think we are getting either.
The campaign to power up the north led by some of our regional newspapers is immensely important, and I strongly back it, but I also think that it is time to power up our towns, as they have immense potential and are not getting their fair share of investment. Time and again, whether through HS2 or Crossrail 2, too much money—the big billions—is still going into the cities rather than the towns. That is why I support this review, but ask for it to be broadened.
I urge the Minister to broaden it as well, because the truth is that Members from our towns have been respectful, we have asked sensible questions, we have been patient, and we have waited and waited and, frankly, we have got nothing. We see no sign of anything improving for our transport infrastructure. We see no sign of anything other than warm words about promises in the future. We need that review of the geographic benefits and we need a proper towns plan—a proper plan for major infrastructure investment. Until we have that, the Government’s transport infrastructure plan is simply not in the national interest.
John Redwood
My worry about the Labour new clauses is that they will not achieve the objective that Labour seems to think they will achieve. The truth is that, with the legislation already in place and the likely passage this evening of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, all the legal powers are there to proceed with the scheme as originally designed. As the contracts are settled, the scope for any fundamental changes arising from a review is either limited or non-existent. As the project develops, there is less and less scope to make any changes to it.
I speak as someone who, when we were first faced with the decision about HS2, decided that it was not the right project. I fully share the ambition of practically everybody in this House that we need an even more successful northern powerhouse and better transport and connectivity throughout those northern cities and towns. As someone who represents a very fast-growing and hard-pressed area of the country, just outside London, I would love to see an even more effective counter-magnet to London elsewhere in the country to pick up some of that growth and some of that prosperity, because we have the difficulties of managing so many people coming in and so many people moving around on transport systems that are woefully inadequate for the task. I share the ambition for the northern powerhouse, but I accept that a decision has already been made in principle, that a lot of money has now been committed and that various works have been undertaken in the name of the project, so it would become more and more difficult to make fundamental change or to think about cancellation.
As it happens, I think that there will be another decision taken quite shortly about this mighty project, because the very likely next Prime Minister has said that he wishes to review it and to think about it again, and I wish him every success with that. It would be a very difficult task, and it would need to be done with reasonable speed. Given that we have committed so much and that there is some reasonable merit in the project, he may conclude that he wishes to go on with it. If he were to make a more fundamental decision, all that we are talking about this afternoon in this House is a waste of time, because, clearly, the project will be cancelled and everything else will lapse.
I work on the assumption that, after review, the new Prime Minister may continue with the project, and that we are in the business of trying to mitigate the difficulties and damages. My colleagues who represent constituencies who are very badly affected by this project deserve special treatment over how it can be ameliorated and improved and how compensation can be paid and businesses dealt with.
Certainly, we need transparency. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for raising the issue. I want to hear from the Minister about what is going to be done on transparency, so that those who are most adversely affected, should the project go ahead in full, are able to see why the decisions are being made and also have access to the information that they need to get proper compensation.
I myself will not be voting for the Labour amendments, because they simply do not bring any advantage either to those who support the project in full or those who have the problems of handling the disadvantages of the project in their constituencies. I do not see how a further review suddenly will make this a better run project. If the project goes forward, this Minister and any future Minister will have to deal with how the costs will be controlled, how the works will be carried out in a speedy manner and to a high quality with safe standards for the workforce, and how the impact of those works can be minimised on those most affected by them as they go ahead. These remain continuing management problems. An additional independent review is not going to solve any of that. We are now getting to the point where it needs individual management solutions. It is about managers on the ground, how contracts are handled on the ground, and the extent to which Ministers can and should have proper oversight of those contracts, given their commercial nature and given the technical expertise of those actually running the project.
I do not see how an independent review can help at all. I do not believe that any serious change could result from it, because the contracts will be let, and we will be told that the contractors have to get on with it. There does remain the issue of whether a new Prime Minister wishes to reopen the whole question, but assuming that he does not we will need proper answers from Ministers about what action they have taken to control the costs, improve the quality and deal with safety, and about how much power they will have in future, given the commercial nature of the operation.
Jeremy Lefroy
I am generally very supportive of additional high-speed capacity between London, the north-east, the north-west and Scotland, but I have consistently opposed HS2 and the plans for it because this is not the right way to go about it. It is not a question of whether or not my constituency is affected; I would be happy to see a sensible route through my constituency. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) were quite happy to see the very large Norton Bridge junction project in our constituencies, because although it caused quite a lot of disruption, we could see the benefit for the west coast main line—for improving capacity and for increasing speeds to the benefit of everybody. He and I and other colleagues do not see such benefits from HS2 as a whole. However, I personally would like to see a different design and lower maximum speeds—not the 400 km per hour that is projected but something more sensible between 250 km and 300 km per hour. That would allow for a route that is not straight as an arrow, but that has some bends in it that could avoid the villages in my constituency. That kind of route, which would also be more consistent with the kind of trains that we currently have running on the west coast main line, would be infinitely preferable to what we have at the moment. Unlike to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) whom I greatly respect on this matter, I do not think that it is too late to think again about some changes that would make this or a similar project more acceptable to my constituents.
I will support new clauses 1 and 2, certainly, and new clause 5. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) has already eloquently set out the reasons why we should support new clause 5, and I will certainly do so.
John Redwood
I stress that I do not want to stop my hon. Friend getting a better deal for his constituents; I wish him every success in doing that. I was saying that once the contracts had been signed for this project, he will not be able to get change.
Jeremy Lefroy
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not a believer in breaking contracts if contracts have been signed and if they do not have get-out clauses. I would strongly recommend that we put in get-out clauses, because there will be massive changes over the coming months and years. I accept, however, that once a decision has been taken by this House, if we are in a minority, we are in a minority and it will go ahead. I am just flagging up some of the problems that may be encountered in the future.
In respect of new clause 1, I welcome the quarterly reports. This is a very sensible approach and it is something that has been lacking. We have had intermittent reports from HS2 to constituency MPs who have been affected. We have had the occasional statement from the Minister—and I welcome the work that the current Minister and indeed previous Ministers have done to keep us informed—but what we have not had is an honest assessment of the cost of this project. We were told originally that it was in the £30 billion to £35 billion range, and then a Minister came forward a few years ago and said that it was going to be about £56 billion, but since then we have had nothing. They have stuck to the figure, and what we are being asked as a House today is to vote on a figure that I simply do not believe.
The figures I have seen, calculated by experts in the field, indicate that the cost will be in the region of £80 billion. I have heard it might be more, but let us stick at £80 billion. This House is being asked to agree today to a not insignificant part of a project for which we do not have an accurate cost estimate, and which could be as much as £24 billion a year more. I agree that this is a capital rather than a revenue project, but that is two thirds of what we spend on defence every year; that is an enormous sum of money about which we are not being given any indication. If these estimates are wrong, let the Minister come forward and say that they are wrong and prove that they are wrong. Of course estimates are estimates, and we know that we cannot pin them down to the last million or so pounds, but it is possible to try to disprove the credible figures that have been put in the public domain, and so far they have not been disproved.
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be massive revenue losses once the railway is up and running, because if it turns out that the number of seats provided is greatly in excess of demand, which some people think will be the case, there will be heavy discounts and lots of empty seats, and therefore a very major demand for a taxpayer subsidy?
Jeremy Lefroy
As so often, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what has also not been forthcoming is a proper business case. We have had the business case for HS2, but we have not had—I have asked for this time and again—a business case for the remnant west coast main line, which will still be a much larger transport network than HS2. We are told that there will be freight on it, and it is good that there will be additional freight, but freight is a very competitive market and will not replace the extremely lucrative premium revenues that come from high-speed trains.
What we will be left with on the west coast main line, which is absolutely vital for my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Stone (Sir William Cash) and so many others, is a line which takes freight, which of course is heavy and causes extra maintenance, and with suburban and stopping services such as the London Northwestern Railway. That is an excellent service and I use it frequently, but I often pay £15 or £20 for a single ticket from London to Stafford. I welcome that, but it is not possible to run a proper, profitable railway on income like that. What it relies on of course is the incredibly expensive £106 or £108 single peak fare from Stafford to London—my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will probably be able to quote the figure from Lichfield. These are the fares that pay for the railway at the moment.
Michael Fabricant
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that—I do not know whether this is because of HS2 or not—at present the Department for Transport has no plans for the replacement of the ageing Pendolino fleet?
Jeremy Lefroy
Yes, I do. I think the Pendolino fleet, introduced by a previous Labour Government, has done a great job, and I am therefore very disappointed that Virgin Trains and Stagecoach are not going to be involved in the next phase of this service. In the nine years in which I have had the honour to represent my constituents in this House, I have used that service between two and four times a week, and it has been late a handful of times. It is an excellent and reliable service; others may have had different experiences, but that is my experience over the past nine years.
Sir William Cash
I am glad to confirm everything my hon. Friend has said, but I am a little puzzled that he left new clause 4 out of the list of amendments on which he was intending to cast a vote. I wonder if he could throw any light on that: is it because of the point that I and others have made about the report coming into effect only after the Act has received Royal Assent, or is it because of something else? Most of the measures in new clause 4(2) would give rise to the business case my hon. Friend is calling for, and with which I agree.
Jeremy Lefroy
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, and in principle I support the proposal, but I also recognise the points made about the fact that a review is needed now rather than in a year’s time or a year after Royal Assent, which of course will not come until a few months after their lordships have considered the Bill.
I say to the Minister, for whom I have great regard, that there should be a proper business case for the west coast main line post the introduction of HS2. Although I do not know the east coast main line or the line out of King’s Cross nearly as well, similar questions about the loss of premium fares might apply to it, although I recognise that the geography and the areas served are slightly different.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point, although I am not convinced that the new clause is the right way forward. He talks about business cases, and my concern is that there are indirect impacts that should also be considered. For example in my constituency, on the midland main line, there will be an impact on the Chesterfield Canal Trust’s attempt to regenerate our area; that has been held up now for nearly six years because we cannot get a guarantee from HS2 that it will not be impacted. Those kinds of costs must also be considered.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to such matters in a moment. He makes a very important point about the eastern side of the network, which is absolutely vital; we are obviously concentrating today on the west midlands to Crewe line, but we will come to that area later this year or next year.
Finally on this matter, I ask for my point to be seriously taken into account, because at the moment large subsidies are paid into Network Rail by the operators of the west coast main line, and in my view that will no longer be the case after the introduction of HS2.
Turning to other matters, I have serious concerns about the way in which HS2 has handled two or three areas in my constituency. Ingestre Park golf club has given evidence to the Committee and has been listened to by the Committee; however, it has still not reached an agreement with HS2 over what is going to happen. It is seriously concerned about the impact on the club and its employees—is it still going to exist? I ask the Minister to urge HS2 to reach an agreement as soon as possible with the golf club, as it did with Whittington Health golf club in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield under phase 1.
I would also like to raise the village of Hopton, which will be grossly affected by HS2 in the phase we are currently considering. It has constantly asked for more mitigation of the impact of the line, which goes pretty much straight through the village. Because of the impact on Hopton it is the village with possibly the highest proportion of houses that HS2 has had to purchase, certainly in this phase. We are asking for more mitigation. I know that the villagers will attempt to petition their lordships about this, but I ask the Minister to instruct HS2 to be more sympathetic than it has been so far to the needs of the village of Hopton.
Michael Fabricant
The position of Hopton is very similar to that of my own villages, and the problem is exacerbated by the fact that there does not seem to be any co-ordination within HS2 itself. On occasions villagers will get advice from engineers or liaison people from HS2 telling them what route HS2 will take, and then only a week later somebody else from HS2 will give a completely different answer. This only exacerbates the worries of constituents.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have had a number of similar cases. In fact I was about to refer to one involving a constituent of mine who does not mind being mentioned: Mr Jim Prenold has a farm that is bisected by HS2 and has been trying to negotiate a proper solution to the problem caused by HS2. After several years—it is now more than six years since the route was initially published—there is still no solution for Mr Prenold and his family. Again, I urge the Minister to instruct HS2 to sort this out. That can be done very easily and quickly, and with good will.
Let me return to a matter that has an impact on costs and is therefore relevant particularly to new clauses 1 and 4: the whole question of the reuse of soil from the line, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is very knowledgeable. HS2 considers that it can reuse on the line something like 80% of the spoil from cuttings and other excavations. If that is the case, I welcome it, because it would cut down the number of lorry and truck movements required to take away the spoil and to bring in the new spoil needed for embankments and other works. But what we understand—this needs to be proven or disproven—is that the percentage of excavated soil that can be reused on the line is in many cases as low as 20% and possibly even less. Hon. Members can do the maths and understand that we are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of tonnes of spoil that have to be taken off site because they cannot be used on site, and which then have to be replaced by millions of tonnes of spoil for use on site. That has two major implications: cost, and impact on the transport network in our neck of the woods.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) were here, he would refer to junction 15 of the M6, which is already one of the most difficult junctions on the motorway network and needs to be remodelled. The number of truck movements through that junction will increase enormously if the figures about the use of spoil that are built into the provisions of this phase are not correct. The A51/A34 Stone roundabout would also be affected, because it is directly on one of the routes used by vehicles, as would many other parts of my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Stoke-on-Trent South and the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly).
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
May I take my hon. Friend back to his remarks about his constituent’s farming problem? When I was on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill Committee, we had some problems like this and representatives of the National Farmers Union gave evidence to the Committee. The NFU is constantly in touch with HS2 Ltd. There are well-known valuation techniques for dealing with all the problems relating to land that may be taken; it is just a question of getting HS2 round to actually doing it. May I suggest that if my hon. Friend’s constituent were to contact the NFU, he might get some action?
Jeremy Lefroy
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. My office has been in touch with the gentleman in question for many years and we are also in touch with the NFU. I agree that there are many cases in which the course of action that my hon. Friend describes has been successful. The NFU has done a great job, as have local land agents and my constituency office. I particularly want to mention my chief of staff, James Cantrell, who has done a fantastic job on this for many constituents over six years. However, there are unfortunately still too many exceptions to the rule. I do not want to do down HS2’s staff, a lot of whom work very hard and try their best to work for my constituents, but they are often frustrated by decisions higher up that do not give them the latitude to make sensible decisions locally on behalf of my constituents.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. On the Committee, we also found that cases tended to get resolved much quicker when a Member of Parliament got involved on behalf of a constituent. I say to the Minister, who I hope is listening, that HS2 should have sufficient staff that it should not be necessary for a Member of Parliament to get involved in every single individual case, whether it involves the taking of a house, a bit of a farm or whatever. Unfortunately, it is all too often necessary for a Member of Parliament to get involved, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated with his examples.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but sadly we have had to get involved in almost every case, and some cases have taken far too long to resolve partly because of the lack of delegation.
Sir William Cash
Only a few days ago the Stone Railhead Crisis Group, which represents the interests of my constituents around Stone, met the regional director of Highways England and discovered that there are some very serious problems for Highways England at both Hanchurch and the proposed HS2 junction at Yarnfield Lane that really require re-evaluation, which I intend to go into a bit on Third Reading. Is my hon. Friend aware of those conversations and the fact that Highways England is in fact very concerned indeed about the situation?
Jeremy Lefroy
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I did in fact refer to junction 15, which is also known as the Hanchurch junction. It is actually a series of junctions that are critical to the national road network, not just the local road network. Junction 15 is one of the most difficult and congested junctions on the motorway network because of the topography of the area, and it finds it difficult to handle the current amount of traffic, let alone the vastly increased amount that there will be under phase 2a of HS2.
Michael Fabricant
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that I am not a controversial person. Far be it from me for one moment to cause any internecine warfare between my two great friends on the Back Benches, my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), but I am afraid that I am going to have to take the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on the case of the NFU. I have been involved both with phase 1 and phase 2a. My staff and I personally have been involved in trying to get people to meet HS2 and to have meetings with the NFU and HS2; it just does not often happen. HS2 has seen a huge turnover of staff, including managing directors and chairmen, so trying to get any form of co-ordination between one lot of HS2 people and another lot—let alone their meeting at the NFU locally—is often impossible. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
And that is from a non-controversial Member.
Jeremy Lefroy
Sadly, I have to agree that what my hon. Friend says is sometimes the case, but I would hope that with the Minister’s intervention—she has been kind to intervene in a number of cases—matters will speed up.
Given that the Chair of High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), is in the House, let me just say that it has been remarkable how some matters have been settled just when they were about to go to his Committee. It is therefore a matter not just of an MP getting involved, but sometimes of an issue actually coming before the Committee. That should not be the case. Common sense should prevail; getting common-sense matters put in place should not depend on pressure from a Member of Parliament or the Committee.
I am most grateful for the forbearance of hon. Members, but there are several very important matters that the House needs to be aware of and which I have tried to summarise. The first is the overall cost, about which we need the Government and HS2 to be honest with the House. The second is the question of the use and reuse of the spoil from the railway, another matter about which HS2 needs to be frank and honest with the House because of the consequences for the transport network and costs. The third is a plea that HS2 is open and transparent with all those affected, that it deals with things on the spot and that it delegates authority to its staff on the ground so that decisions can be made without the great distress that has been caused to so many of my constituents.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank you for allowing me to speak in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it gives me an opportunity to put on record my views and those of many of my constituents regarding HS2.
I have never voted for any motion relating to HS2 in the House, over many years, and that will be my consistent position today. That is why I will not even be voting for any of the amendments or for the Bill in due course. I cannot condone any expenditure in relation to this project, and I do not believe that the further reviews and reports proposed in new clauses 1 and 4 will do anything other than reinforce my view and that of so many of my constituents that the business case for HS2 has simply not been made.
It is a hugely expensive project. It will not proportionately benefit my constituents, who time and again say to me that the huge amount of money involved would be much better spent on improving local transport services, whether it is the cycleways; the bus services, which have been reduced and need reinstating, particularly for the elderly; a bypass for Holmes Chapel; or better facilities at Sandbach station.
I need hardly mention the catalogue of concerns about local rail services that have been brought to my attention. I held a surgery a little while ago at Congleton railway station, and almost 40 constituents turned up to express their concerns about local rail services. They want to see better local rail services. That is a particular concern. If money is going to be invested in some form of Crewe hub, that will simply not be of benefit to my constituents unless there are appropriate local rail services fanning out from Crewe to Alsager, Congleton, Sandbach and Middlewich. That assessment needs to be done. I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said that we need an assessment of the benefit of these proposals to local towns, not just cities. That is what my constituents have been saying for many years—what is the benefit to them?
I am entirely in agreement with many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), in particular regarding the current west coast main line. We need a proper business case for what will happen post-HS2 for the west coast main line. I use it every week, and I know that I am not alone among my constituents in thinking that the service currently supplied by Virgin is perfectly satisfactory. My constituents cannot understand why there is a need for them to contribute to the huge expense of HS2, particularly as only a tiny proportion of them are likely to use it.
Michael Fabricant
My hon. Friend will know that the Government argue, as indeed does the Labour party, that the reason for HS2 is to relieve the congestion on the west coast main line. Is she aware that double-tracking from just north of Rugby down to Euston, where two extra platforms are being prepared anyway, would resolve that problem?
Fiona Bruce
My constituents have often argued that solutions can be put forward using the west coast main line as it stands and that it should not be necessary to have the additional infrastructure that HS2 necessitates.
Moreover, there is real concern about the high—possibly too high—ticket prices that HS2 is likely to incur, when many rail charges are already very expensive for those who want to travel down to London. Speaking of London, many of my constituents are concerned that all this will do is draw business down to London. For a constituency like mine, which will not have a direct connection with HS2, there will still need to be local connections, whether it is from Crewe or coming up from Birmingham or down from Manchester. There is no confidence that HS2 will attract business to our area. There are many other reasons why business would be attracted to my part of Cheshire. It is a wonderful place to live—it is very attractive, with great schools and a good quality of life—but there is no confidence that the huge expenditure of HS2 will lead to increased business in our area. A proper business case has never been made for this.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Unlike my hon. Friend, I have in the past supported measures related to HS2, but this evening I shall no longer be doing so, because the escalating cost estimates and the lack of apparent accountability for those increases is now quite frankly ridiculous. Does she agree that a fraction of this amount could be much better spent on improving connectivity within the north of England, rather than wasted on this vanity train set?
Fiona Bruce
That is exactly the point that I am seeking to make. I agree. It is very interesting that the Lords Economic Affairs Committee found evidence that the costs of HS2 appear to be out of control. That does not inspire confidence in my constituents. If there is going to be improved connectivity outside our constituency, many of them would prefer to see it across from Manchester towards Leeds and Yorkshire, rather than further connectivity down to London, which they already think is quite satisfactory for their purposes.
The case for speed has never been made. People work on the train and, because my constituents will have to make a connection—whether it is from Crewe or elsewhere—they are not convinced that the slim time saving justifies the expenditure that will be incurred. If the aim of the project is to narrow the gap between the north and London, the investment needs to be in the north.
Jim McMahon
I accept that Governments need to balance the books—they cannot spend the same pound twice. Quite a few times in this debate, we have heard northern MPs call for the money to be shifted across, but when has the same been done in London? When does London have to choose between good infrastructure and capital investment on the one hand, and affordable, efficient transport at a local level on the other? London does not have to choose. Why should we?
Fiona Bruce
Absolutely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to the series of junctions on the M6. Junction 17 of the M6 at Sandbach in my constituency needs improvement to take the additional traffic that is increasingly burdening it, particularly because of the additional house building. It is one of the few junctions in the country without a roundabout serving it. Each morning, we see huge pressure, in particular from those commuting from Sandbach to Manchester and elsewhere. It is highly unsatisfactory and another priority that needs to be looked at—in my constituents’ view, looked at in preference to the proposed investment in HS2.
There is going to be an impact in my constituency, because while HS2 does not pass through it, it passes within yards of it. It will pass through Stanthorne and the Bostock Hall estate, literally within yards of Middlewich. Many of my constituents will be impacted—the quality of their lives will be impacted—by this without any compensation being available to them.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a compelling case. As a London MP, I want to point out that people on Wells House Road in my seat, which HS2 will pass through, do not welcome this development at all. They are already living on a building site seven days a week, and that will carry on for 10 years. The streets are not paved with gold, and even in London, people do not want this.
Fiona Bruce
I fully empathise.
Of course, there are also environmental concerns. New clause 1 proposes a review of those concerns, but they are self-evident. The Wildlife Trusts says that hundreds of special wildlife habitats are under threat from HS2, including ancient woodlands, lakes, meadows and other important habitats. We do not need an assessment to tell us that—it is obvious.
Michael Fabricant
Does my hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that the original proposal by Arup for HS2 was that it should travel parallel to the M40 on an existing transport corridor that would have connected with Heathrow and the channel tunnel, but the Labour Lord, Lord Adonis, changed it to an incredibly environmentally damaging route?
Fiona Bruce
It will do much damage at a time when we are becoming increasingly aware of how important it is to address issues such as environmental protection and climate change.
My constituents are frustrated that HS2 will effectively terminate at Euston. So many of them would prefer not to fly to the continent from Manchester airport, but to take a train, but it would be impractical to have to trundle heavy suitcases across London.
We started with a cost of £35 billion and the latest figure is in the region of £56 billion. No one believes that the costs will not escalate, and there are now credible reports of up to £80 billion. Those are still only estimates, and that is unacceptable. My constituents do not see HS2 as a value-for-money enterprise.
In the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said:
“Commuter services in the north of England are badly overcrowded and reliant on ageing trains. Rail connections between northern cities are poor”—
and between northern towns. He continued:
“rail infrastructure in the north should be the Government’s priority for investment, rather than improving north-south links which are already good. The north is being short-changed by the Government’s present plans, especially as construction on HS2 is starting in the south. Any overcrowding relief from HS2 will mainly benefit London commuters.”
If we are to have any assessments, reviews or reports, we need to look at how we can ensure a fair and proportionate benefit to constituents such as mine from an investment of this size.
Mr Ivan Lewis
I am happy to support the new clauses as they make a lot of sense in terms of accountability, evaluation and transparency, as well as ensuring constant review of a project as massive as HS2. It is also important to acknowledge the scandalous inequality of investment in the north of England that has been the case under successive Governments.
The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, deserves some credit for the concept of the northern powerhouse and the whole principle of devolving maximum power, but that has to be accompanied by resources. Since the change of Prime Minister and because it was the former Chancellor’s project, the Government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to devolution and the northern powerhouse, and it is even less a central component of the Government’s agenda than it was in the past. So I will actually say that the Conservative Government did more in terms of devolution in principle in England than previous Labour Governments had done, but it was not accompanied by investment and, since the change of Prime Minister, that agenda has been sidelined.
Jim McMahon
I should say that I think Labour has a good track record on devolution and devolving power. Does my hon. Friend accept that the concept of the northern powerhouse is like the concept of a cake without the ingredients?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I do not want to hear too much about cake.
Mr Lewis
I know exactly what my hon. Friend is saying, although I do not watch “The Great British Bake Off” regularly. He is right and he was in the vanguard as one of the local government leaders in Greater Manchester who were the most dynamic and entrepreneurial in looking at the potential of devolution to transform the communities that he now represents in this place. He demonstrated that local leadership in that capacity could make a transformational difference and I pay tribute to him for that.
My hon. Friend also articulated, more than most, the risks of the northern powerhouse model that was presented, in terms of the lack of resources and investment, and the failure to transfer adequate powers. He is right that the Labour Government did some good things on devolution. I remember attending seminar after seminar at No.10 Downing Street about how to improve buses outside London. Every time we were asked the question and at every opportunity we said, “Reregulation and integration”, but that was refused by the then Government. While it is true that many good things were done, that Government were reluctant to devolve in the way that they should have done.
Hon. Members have expressed concerns about the specific nature of HS2, but it is sad that we do not hear enough from them about the centrality of rebalancing the economy if we are to achieve our potential on a long-term basis. Whether we are for or against Brexit, that is a fact. If we continue to ensure that swathes of this country are not supported to fulfil their potential through investment, we are not only damaging those communities and preventing individuals from having the opportunities and life chances that others have, we are damaging UK plc by failing to see that it has a massive dampening effect on our productivity, our competitiveness and our capacity for innovation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House and representing all areas of the country should acknowledge that this issue is about the national interest. It is not just about the interests of the north of England, although we are here to represent and articulate those interests, but about the long-term interests of the country. Our constituents have been short-changed for far too long in terms of the share of the cake that is available to be distributed under any Government.
I say gently to one or two Conservative Members that Lord Adonis has not been a Transport Minister for about nine years, so Conservative Ministers have had opportunities to make one or two amendments to the scheme if they are uncomfortable with it. I wonder whether their concerns about Lord Adonis have something to do with other factors than his tweaking of the route—
Michael Fabricant
I am bemused by the hon. Gentleman’s talk of one or two amendments and tweaking. Does he not think it is more than a tweak when the railway line was originally proposed to use an existing transport corridor up the M40 and then suddenly was changed with a ruler to go straight through the most virgin of countryside? That was more than a tweak.
Mr Lewis
I have been following instructions from you for 20 years, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will continue to do so in this debate. The hon. Gentleman used his usual colourful language, but my point was that for nine years Lord Adonis has been nowhere near this scheme or the Department for Transport. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely feels that a massive mistake was made, Lord Adonis’s successors have had plenty of opportunities to address those concerns.
Fiona Bruce
I want to put on the record that I believe that in the last nine years our Transport Ministers have taken a lot of cognisance of the needs of northern constituencies. My own constituency has funding for bypasses in Congleton and in Middlewich. Ministers are also looking favourably on reinstating Middlewich railway station. It is not as though our Ministers have not taken note of our requirements; it is simply that we feel that the HS2 project could provide better value for money if spent differently.
Mr Lewis
I respect the hon. Lady’s views on some of those issues in the context of the debate, but I have to say assertively to her that, in the context of austerity, those at the bottom of the pile have suffered more than everyone else. When we look at the impact of austerity on the country and on communities, we see that many northern communities were starting at an incredibly low base. The impact of austerity, therefore, is not simply that we have not been able to catch up; the inequality and disparity in terms of the investment in skills, jobs, infrastructure and public services have actually made the situation far worse. That combination of austerity and the low base of investment, which has been an historical reality under successive Governments, is having a devastating effect on many northern communities.
The hon. Lady therefore really cannot afford to be complacent; she may have had some funding for a bypass in her constituency, but the reality in many of our constituencies in the north of England is that this has been an incredibly challenging and difficult period. If any business had 50% reductions to its budget in a four or five-year period, it would go bankrupt; that is what is happening to many local authorities in the north of England, and especially in Greater Manchester.
I want to come on specifically to the new clause on the non-disclosure agreements tabled by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). My view, having come reasonably late to this topic, is that what we have seen in terms of non-disclosure agreements in the context of HS2 is nothing short of a public scandal. Essentially, many of these agreements have been used to silence people inside that organisation who are concerned that Parliament has been misled on a regular basis about financial information. Let us be clear: people have been given redundancy from HS2 because, internally, they have articulated concerns about misleading information that has been presented to this House in terms of finance and capacity.
Ministers have a responsibility to disinfect this issue. They should now make it clear that, former members of staff subject to non-disclosure clauses and paid redundancy simply because they felt Parliament was being misled should be released from those non-disclosure responsibilities and should be able to share their views with Parliament and to put them in the public domain. It is totally hypocritical to talk, quite rightly, about the outrage of the Labour party imposing non-disclosure agreements on its staff, but then for Ministers not to release members of staff in HS2 from such requirements.
I would like to reveal to the House today that a consultants’ report costing at least £1 million was commissioned from a well-known consultant, which did not say what HS2 wanted it to say. That report was more or less shredded; it was certainly never put in the public domain or shared with Parliament.
We know that the costs have escalated time and time again and that some people in the organisation have alerted the HS2 board and other senior executives to the difficulties. I am not saying that HS2 should be scrapped, but for parliamentarians to make a rational, proper judgment on its viability, desirability and achievability, we have to have full possession of the facts. There is absolutely no question but that Ministers have not always been given full information by HS2. As a consequence, Select Committees and the House itself have not been given the full information that we and the public are entitled to in any debate about the desirability of this scheme.
John Redwood
If a Government had decided to offer all the northern councils involved their proportion of the original budget for HS2 as capital spend, to spend as they saw fit, does the hon. Gentleman think they would have spent it together on the railway or on something else?
Mr Lewis
I say genuinely to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a false choice. In Greater Manchester, thanks to changes the Government have made, we are seeking finally to have the capacity to reintegrate, re-coordinate and, where appropriate, re-regulate our buses. However, the level of subsidy per commuter in Greater Manchester, compared with London, is frankly shocking in terms of the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s capacity to radically improve bus services across the conurbation. I genuinely say to the right hon. Gentleman—this is not a party political point—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are straying way off. We are not about bus services. We are not about subsidies. I am sure the Member for Bury South will not be tempted. That is what Members are trying to do: they are trying to tempt him into a debate that we are not having at this stage.
Mr Lewis
I entirely accept what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he was talking about a genuinely false choice, and we should not go down the road of such false choices.
I am agnostic about HS2. The reason I have become agnostic is that I am absolutely convinced that Members of this House and people in this country are not being given full, appropriate and adequate information on cost and capacity, both of which are central to whether this project, compared with other projects, should go ahead and whether it can be delivered in budget and on time, in the way that Ministers have suggested.
I want to conclude by saying this to the Minister. It really is time for Ministers to insist that there is maximum transparency and maximum disclosure of information in terms of the amounts paid and the number of non-disclosure and similar agreements issued. Ministers also need to go further and instruct HS2 to ensure that people are released from these non-disclosure responsibilities where it is clearly in the public interest to do so. It is most definitely in the public interest to do so when senior members of staff were made redundant simply because they articulated concerns within the organisation that false financial information was being put in the public domain, which is not in the public interest. In those circumstances, Ministers have a duty and the right to instruct HS2 to release people from their obligations. For us to make considered and measured judgments about the future of the scheme, we need all the facts in the public domain, as do the people of this country.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I rise to support the HS2 rail development and to support the Government ahead of the votes this evening. The name HS2, as many have said, is somewhat misleading, because the project is clearly more about capacity. The greatest gain will be in terms of capacity and therefore improved resilience, allowing us to connect the north to the south and, I hope, the east to the west.
As it is Monday, I feel particularly able to talk about rail, because I have just enjoyed my twice a week, five and a half hour commute. I travel from Bootle village to Barrow, and change. Then, I move from Barrow to Lancaster, and change. Then, I move from Lancaster to Crewe, and it was lovely to hear the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) talk about her constituency, because I enjoyed a most memorable 25 minutes on platform 5, before moving again, from Crewe to London Euston. That is a journey I make twice a week—a round trip of 11 hours.
I can see for myself how vulnerable the infrastructure is and how one train being delayed impacts, with cancelled trains, thousands of inconvenienced commuters, thousands of pounds in compensation claims and, most importantly, lost confidence. That is at a time when the ability to travel by public transport is so vital if we are to decarbonise our transport systems and try to hit that 2050 target.
The Minister for HS2 rightly argues that it is critical to unlocking Northern Powerhouse Rail by providing the foundations on which Northern Powerhouse Rail can be realised. It is also planned that HS2 will link over 25 towns and cities, from Scotland through to the south-east, joining up nearly half the UK. It is important to recognise that the funding for HS2 does not come at the expense of wider investment in the railways; it is not either/or—from my perspective in the north of England, it is in addition. That is about the investment in the Cumbrian coastal railway, but I also welcome the fact that the Government are investing billions of pounds across our railways between 2019 and 2024—the most significant such investment since Victorian times.
Just last week, we celebrated the confirmation of an £8 million investment in the preliminary works on the Cumbrian coast line. Living on the train line as I do, I see from my living room window the increase in services. There are 21 trains on a Sunday, which is a first between Whitehaven and Millom. Never before have we had trains on Sundays. It has made a huge improvement to our tourist economy. We now have 205 services between Whitehaven and Millom. After the tricky situation with the timetable change in May 2018, we have seen huge improvements in reliability on our line —now up to 93.5% reliability. Since the new timetable was introduced last year, the extra services have been running at record reliability, thanks to the intervention of the Department for Transport. That is great news for commuters.
We have seen an end to the very unreliable Class 37 locomotive. I am pleased it has been relegated to the scrapheap—or possibly the museum. We are also seeing an end to the very uncomfortable Pacer trains, or “nodding donkeys” as they are more commonly known in my area. As long as that investment continues locally, with the recently announced millions of pounds to develop preliminary works on the Cumbrian coast line to improve the rolling stock and to ensure that a reliable service connects people to places seven days a week, then I welcome the additional infrastructure investment that the Government propose with HS2 and, critically, Northern Powerhouse Rail. We have in the past referred to HS3 as a follow-on from HS2, but that northern connection is now termed Northern Powerhouse Rail, with a focus on connectivity from east to west from Liverpool to Leeds via Manchester.
New clause 1 refers to quarterly reports on environmental impact, costs and progress. However, the environmental statement, at 11,000 pages, is already incredibly extensive, so I do not believe we need another layer of reporting on a statement that is already out there. The environmental statement has been scrutinised independently and by the Select Committee, which has made its own decisions. It is important to recognise that not all scrutiny must take place in public. Ministers can maintain pressure through a co-operative, sensible, business-like environment, rather than having to shame a contractor on the Floor of the House for the sake of political point scoring.
Trudy Harrison
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I refer him to the 11,000 pages of the environmental statement. We need less pen pushing and paper shuffling, and more progress and more connecting people to places.
We already have compensation schemes in abundance. A plethora of schemes are available: in a safeguarded area, the express purchase scheme and the need to sell scheme; in a rural support zone, we have the cash offer, voluntary purchase schemes and the need to sell scheme; and in the homeowner payment zone, we have the homeowner payment scheme and the need to sell scheme. Outside the zones, we also have the need to sell scheme. How many layers of payment schemes do we really need? Surely, we can recognise that the current compensation packages are sufficient for those affected by the project?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the complexity of the compensation schemes, and no compensation scheme is perfect, but in my part of the world, which is in phase 2b, there are problems with the compensation scheme in the town of Staveley because it does not adequately reflect what is happening on the ground. We have to accept that there are many issues on the ground. There are tenants who are renting from their parents. There are people in trusts to support their elderly parents living there. I hope that the Government will consider those kinds of nuances, on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis, in a way that I have not seen so far.
Trudy Harrison
I do not have HS2 or, indeed, any significant infrastructure projects in my constituency, but I look forward to doing so. In my constituency, we are looking forward to the Moorside development, which will have similar kinds of inconvenience and unintended consequences. I served the Minister in the past. I am confident that she will work with Members across the House and that, where there are issues, she will work with communities.
The independent peer review is another raft of bureaucracy and scrutiny that has been more than adequately covered by this House, its Committees and the Government. The four points addressed—environmental impact, economic impact, engineering and governance—have been reviewed time and again over the past five years. It is time we got on with this project and recognised that this country is crying out for greater north-south capacity.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am very interested in the point my hon. Friend is making. Can she tell the House why, if the reviews she mentions have taken place, the costs of this project have escalated by many billions of pounds?
Trudy Harrison
Any large-scale project, particularly a first like HS2, will see unintended costs, resulting in an increased budget. “You don’t make an omelette without smashing some eggs,” is a common phrase in my Copeland constituency. Regardless of that increase, for every £1 spent on HS2, £2 will still go back into the economy.
The north-south and east-west divides have for far too long separated our nation and stifled our economy. I am not interested in even more bureaucracy. This is about connecting people and places. That is why I will support the Government this evening, and look forward to HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail being delivered.
Mr Paterson
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I have listened carefully to the arguments. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) might be interested to know that I was actually minded to support her new clauses until she spoke. Her new clauses would have no consequences: they would just lay a report and nothing would happen.
I have gone on a journey on this issue. I voted for the project when I was in Cabinet, and I have become more and more sceptical about it. At one stage I thought it might just die, because the finances were becoming less and less sensible. Now, however, I have real concerns. There are problems with it in my own constituency and nationally. I would have supported new clause 1 on assessing environmental impact, costs, progress on the timetable and economic impact, but I realise that all that would happen is that a report would be laid and there would be no consequences.
In an earlier intervention—I am not sure whether you were here, Mr Deputy Speaker—I raised the issue of the route. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) pointed out several times in interventions that originally the route was going to follow an existing corridor up the M40, but is now going to smash through virgin countryside and cause huge damage at vast cost. One thing I have in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison)—it is a great pleasure to follow her—is that we both went to platform 5 at Crewe this morning and changed trains. I moved on to platform 11. I do that every week, twice a week. I raised this point in an intervention: my constituents want to go direct to Heathrow. I am sure Old Oak Common has many attractions and is a lovely place with charming people and wonderful things to do, but my constituents do not want to go to Old Oak Common. They want to go direct to Heathrow or direct to HS1.
Rachael Maskell
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are debating phase 2a of the HS2 project. That is the remit of the Bill—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. That is for me to judge. I have been very lenient to Members on both sides throughout the debate. To try to stop these remarks at this late stage would be a bit unjust. I have tried to stop Members being tempted, but everybody is trying to build on the debate that took us out of scope, and I recognise that at times, we have gone out of scope. We have been in this area once already and it would be remiss of me not—
Rachael Maskell
I just wanted to say to the right hon. Gentleman that my amendment can therefore apply only to phase 2a. His aspiration may be to review the whole project, but my amendment applies only to the contents of the Bill.
Mr Paterson
I totally get that point, but one cannot get from Crewe to the end destinations in phase 1 without getting this part of the project done, and the point is that Labour’s amendments do not allow any action. If the hon. Lady compelled the Government to do something, I might be minded to support that, but as I said, I have become increasingly disillusioned by the cost and the damage to my own patch.
The first I knew about the damage to my constituency was when a notice went up in the village of Woore, which the hon. Lady is probably not aware of, in the most extreme north-eastern corner of Shropshire. It is a salient that sticks out to the east between the counties of Cheshire and Staffordshire. Woore is a village of 1,200 people, with a nursery and a primary school of about 60. People walk every day to school and to work. In parts of the main road through the village, there is no footpath and some of my constituents have to cross the road three times, so the situation caused major consternation.
We have had a significant number of meetings with HS2, and I pay credit to the HS2 officials who have been assiduous in coming to meetings and providing information. We have looked at a whole range of alternatives to what could happen. It seems perverse that the original plan to move 600 vehicles a day through the village has come down to 300 by simply doubling the time—it was going to be 600 for three months and now it is 300 a day for six months. They are doing that because they are going to travel three sides of a rectangle. Every alternative that we have looked at has been turned down, and that is why I do not support these amendments. It is the sort of issue that the hon. Lady’s amendments could have flushed out, and there could have been concrete action.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. Friend have any sympathy for the amendment from our hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) about non-disclosure agreements?
Mr Paterson
I am going to come to that in a minute. I am wholly amazed by the revelations from my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that, because I was really shocked by what my hon. Friend said. Given my experience of having a series of meetings with HS2 officials, all of which have been—at face value—thoroughly satisfactory and an open exchange of views, but have got absolutely nowhere, it now appears that there might some other reasons why that is. Given what she is saying, I cannot find out why, so if she presses her amendment, which I very much hope she does, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government will accept it. If they do not, I will be very happy to vote in favour of it. My hon. Friend has flushed out a most serious issue.
Jim McMahon
I absolutely accept the constituency issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises, and the poor consultation cannot be excused, but he must accept that with a route and project of this scale, the minor changes that are made in one part of it will have a massive impact if that is held across the whole route, and that has an impact on the budget and the timescale. Whether he supports the project or not, he must accept at some point that it is either time to back it or scrap it. There is this idea that we can keep throwing on hundreds of small, different issues and take that as a measure of the project, but that is just not a way forward. This is a major project for this country and it should be debated in that way.
Mr Paterson
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interventions. He has been busy making these points throughout the debate and I understand that he is fully in favour of the project. I began my working life by spending 25 years on Merseyside. I am fully aware of the need for transport connections for the north, particularly including west to east across the north of England. I began wholly in favour of this broad idea, but the more I look at it, the more worried I become.
Let me finish my points on my local issue in the village of Woore. We cannot just dismiss these as tiresome little irritations in a huge juggernaut of a project. These are real people: 1,200 people live in Woore and they will have 300 trucks a day going through a village where, in some places, there is no footpath. In schedule 1, on page 48, Members can see some proposals on mitigations, such as a “realignment of the A525” in a few places. These are just passing places. They in no way satisfy my constituents with regard to what they are looking for and are not good enough at all.
Will the Minister, who is beginning to get her notes together, comment on the proposals from Woore Parish Council that section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should be invoked? As I understand it, under that section, the unitary council’s—in my case—permission is required if there are heavy vehicle movements exceeding 24 a day. In Woore, we were faced with the horror of 600 movements. As a result of stretching out the length of the project, we are now looking at 300 a day, so we are massively over the threshold. I would like to know what would happen if Shropshire Council did not give permission as required under section 17 of that Act. Where would these trucks go? As I said, they are already taking a perverse route, over three sides of a quadrangle, to go from Baldwins Gate to Madeley.
I want to pick up some points that, again, could have been flushed out if the amendment had been properly drafted. Let me look at the economic impact. My worry about this project is that this is actually Victorian technology. Large steel boxes rolling around on steel wheels on steel tracks is not modern technology. [Interruption.] My neighbour, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), is laughing at that. We are looking at the most expensive railway ever imagined. The original proposals were set in 2010 and the projected cost was £32.6 billion. That is now up to over £60 billion. Some estimates are talking about £80 billion, while others suggest £100 million. Let us compare that with what we could do on broadband, where we are miles behind other countries. We have only 4% full fibre connections at the moment. Spain has 71% and Portugal has 89%.
Laura Smith
Can we not start looking at this perhaps as broadband infrastructure and rail infrastructure? All these things in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in mine would be a great benefit to us all. It should not really be either/or.
Mr Paterson
That is a perfectly fair point, but there is no money tree. There is a limited amount of private and public money. I put to the hon. Lady that her constituents and mine have suffered for generations from the innate disadvantage of living in a remote rural area, 200 miles from London. With this new broadband technology, they can suddenly be level pegging with someone in the middle of Manchester or the middle of London. They can be just as competitive when talking to a customer in Ulan Bator or San Francisco. We are all absolutely level, but we have to have broadband. A spokesman from Openreach, picking up on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), said last week that
“building full fibre technology to the whole of the UK isn’t quick or easy. It requires £30 billion and a physical build to more than 30m front doors, from suburban terraces to remote crofts.”
Think of the benefit to our constituents if we had full fibre for £30 billion, which was the original estimate for HS2. This project is getting out of control.
John Redwood
People call this project an investment. Now, one aims to get a return on an investment. If we wanted a very modest 3% real on this £55 billion slug of capital, it should be generating profits of £2.75 billion every year. I do not think it will make a single penny. The case for investment has not been made.
Mr Paterson
I agree. There were questions about its original cost of £32 billion. We are now at £55 billion and looking at £100 billion. We know categorically that we would massively improve the productivity of every single human being in this country if we had full fibre broadband.
I am not prepared to vote for the Labour party amendments. I thought they were good when I first skimmed through them, but they place no consequential requirements on the Government. If the Government do not support my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury’s amendment, I will vote for it, if she presses it. I am also minded to change my opinion of the whole project, mindful that my constituents have not been given satisfaction and mindful that their lives will be turned upside down for a long period by this project, and to vote against the Bill on Third Reading unless I hear otherwise from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It has been a pleasure to hear so many passionate speeches about the power of transport to transform the outcomes of our constituencies and our country. Even though there have been some strong speeches from Members who have HS2 running through their patches—obviously they defend their patches and constituents—we have heard too about the transformative nature of HS2.
There is no denying that HS2 is a large infrastructure project—it is the largest of its kind in Europe—but it is also absolutely key as it links up eight of our 10 great cities. It will be transformative not only because it will increase capacity and reduce the time it takes to reach eight of our top 10 cities, but because, along the way, it will smash the north-south divide, creating jobs and opportunities for people in the midlands and the north.
I need to respond to quite a few Members and go through each of the new clauses, so I will be as swift as I can. I thank the shadow Minister for her comments supporting the project as a whole and her recognition of the number of jobs that will be created along the route and in the supply chain. At the peak, there will be 30,000 jobs, most of them outside London. I also welcome the comments about the urgent need to get on and deliver this vital infrastructure project and about how it is about not just speed but capacity.
I could talk about my passion for the project, but I thought it might be relevant, considering that we are sitting here in the middle of London talking about those who are supportive of HS2 and those who are critical of it, if I mentioned voices that do not often get mentioned in the Chamber. The Birmingham chamber of commerce has said:
“HS2 is a game changer for our region as Birmingham will proudly sit at the centre of a brand new network”.
Judith Blake from Leeds City Council said:
“HS2 will be transformational for Leeds and the region”.
Leader of Derby City Council, Chris Poulter, said:
“Whist I’m aware that there have been some concerns about the impact of HS2; we mustn’t lose sight of the benefits to Derby, and the wider Midlands area.”
There was also a fantastic article put together by the leaders of Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle and the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region. These people represent 15.4 million people, and they say there is no realistic alternative to the delivery of HS2, which we know is key to delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail as well. I am concerned that sometimes the criticism comes from so far south. We should focus on the needs and aspirations of people in the midlands and the north.
Mr Wragg
I am probably as much from the north as Andy Burnham—I am from Greater Manchester—and I am critical of HS2 today. Although my constituents are unaffected, they are none the less aware of the scale of the increase in the expenditure and would consider it a waste of money as much as any Member from the south.
Ms Ghani
The people I mentioned have all made it very clear that they do not think it is a waste of money. I can confirm for my hon. Friend and others that there is only one budget for HS2, and it is £55.7 billion. The bit we are talking about today, phase 2a, is £3.5 billion. The benefit-cost ratio is £2.30 for every £1 spent. There will always be people—we have heard some today—who will never support the project because of its impact in their constituencies, but we must not deny the positive impact it will have on the whole of our country.
I want to take a moment to refer to some of the contributions to the debate before I get to the new clauses. I know that hon. Members will be listening very closely to the words I use. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has been an incredibly passionate advocate for his constituency. I wanted to mention his staff member who has spent years dealing with constituent complaints, but I forgot his name.
Jeremy Lefroy
His name is James Cantrell. I am sure his situation is the same as that of staff in many other colleagues’ constituency offices.
Ms Ghani
I want to put on the record my thanks to James for doing such fantastic work. My hon. Friend raised an important point. It should not be up to Members and their staff to continually liaise between HS2 and their constituents. It is HS2’s job to ensure that the community engagement is appropriate and done with humility and that cases are dealt with swiftly.
My hon. Friend once again challenged the budget. As I said, it is £55.7 billion. It is the job not only of the Department but of the chairman and the CEO to keep budgets tight. He also talked about spoil and its impact on traffic in his constituency. It is expected that 92% of excavated material generated by phase 2A will be used across the HS2 route and that 4% will be directed to local placement along the route. I am more than happy to meet him again to go through his issues and will make sure that Highways England is in the room as well. He mentioned three cases—the golf club, Hopton and Hanchurch. I have an update on all three and am more than happy to put them in writing to save time on the Floor of the House. If he wishes to meet, I can also provide him with an update then, but progress is being made. I understand from my notes that they are more or less satisfied with the arrangements made with HS2.
I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). I agree about the transformative nature of public transport and its impact on national prosperity, which is why we are making such a significant investment in our railways. I remind her, because I know it is incredibly important to Copeland, that there will be more than £2.9 billion of trans-Pennine rail upgrades—the single biggest project commitment in control period 6.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) asked repeatedly what HS2 would do for her constituency. At its peak, there will be more than 300,000 people travelling daily on this line. It will connect eight of our top 10 cities. Two technical colleges are already in place to make sure that our youngsters and older people who want to reskill have a job for life. It will connect our country. I completely understand, as a constituency Member, how Members should and must fight for the best deal for their constituents, but this will be a transformative project. All the cases raised today by Members on both sides of the House of where HS2 Ltd is not acting as swiftly as it could be have been put on the record, and I will do my best to take forward any cases that remain undealt with.
I hesitate to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) in case he makes a passionate intervention, but I cannot see him in the Chamber. No doubt he will come back in. I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) for her support for the Bill. She referred to businesses. There are 2,000 businesses already involved on the line and 9,000 people working on the line, and 98% of the businesses involved in HS2 are small and medium-sized enterprises.[Official Report, 16 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 8MC.] I have personally tasked HS2 with making sure that it makes it an easier process for smaller businesses to bid for projects. I want this project to transform not just large but small businesses, making it easier for them to pitch for work.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke about investment in the north. I was lucky enough to be in the Chamber earlier with the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and I can confirm that we are investing more than £40 billion in our existing network. Network Rail estimates that about 100 cities and towns could benefit from new or improved rail connections as a result of HS2. As some of the passionate speakers have noted today, it is not an either/or project; we need HS2 as well as continued investment in our rail and road network.
I do not see my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in the Chamber, so I will move on. As I am running out of time, I will now deal with the new clauses. I welcomed what the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said about new clause 1, but I do not recognise the need for quarterly reporting. I think that once I have explained why, she will agree with me.
Let me first say something about the environment. The project is already bound not to exceed the likely significant environmental effects that were assessed and reported to Parliament. The environmental statement clearly sets out our approach to the monitoring, reporting and mitigation of environmental impacts during the construction of the phase 2a scheme, and follows industry best practice. Most important, the monitoring and reporting of individual environmental impacts must be tailored to the impacts in question. During phase 1 we are already publishing monthly and annual reports setting out compliance with air quality and dust commitments, and similar monthly reports on noise and vibration impacts are published.
Subject to Royal Assent, local environmental and management plans will be developed for each local authority along the phase 2a route. They will explain how the scheme will adapt to and deliver the required environmental and community protection measures in each local authority area. If we make a decision here today, we will tie the hands of local authorities, which will not be able to engage in important discussions. We should not, here in London, impose something separate and arbitrary that may not be locally appropriate. When authorities have those conversations with HS2 Ltd, they can make arrangements to receive monthly reports.
Contractors working for HS2 Ltd will be required to comply with the measures in the local environmental management plans in order to meet the environmental minimum requirements. HS2 Ltd will also consult statutory agencies and independent experts, such as the HS2 ecological review group, which will advise on the monitoring regime and report impacts on ecology and biodiversity. The hon. Lady said a lot about the need for local engagement, local empowerment and monthly reports. All that can and will take place if we allow it to happen, as it has in relation to other parts of the line. She may not have been aware that that was happening, but I think she will agree that if we accept her new clause we will not only increase costs, but create an unintended consequence whereby local authorities will lose their monthly reporting.
New clause 2 proposes a compensation scheme for tenants. We discussed that in the Public Bill Committee on 25 June, when I responded to a similar proposal. As I said then, the starting point is that the land compensation code does not shut out those who hold land, whatever the duration of their tenancies. It does not bar them from compensation. We have a responsibility to be absolutely accurate when we are talking about policies and the support that is provided. We may make people even more nervous about coming forward if they do not know what measures are available.
Most types of tenancy are already provided for under existing compensation, if they are impacted by the scheme. When they are not, the Government can use their flexible, non-statutory compensation arrangements to provide support where appropriate in a typical case, which is the category into which most of these cases will fall. The amount of compensation payable is set by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It applies to all Government-led infrastructure projects, and not just to HS2. Those arrangements have been debated, agreed and set by Parliament, together with a vast body of case law on the subject.
The hon. Lady may not be aware that HS2 Ltd has published a useful information note—“C15: guide to compensation for short term residential tenants”—which covers atypical cases. I am more than happy to sit down with her and explain it. I am also more than happy to ensure that, if necessary, the position is communicated to local community engagement forums as effectively as possible. I have previously hosted events in the House to enable Members on both sides of the House to manage particular scenarios with their constituents.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
I apologise for missing the start of the Minister’s speech. I was chairing a debate in Westminster Hall.
Can the Minister assure me that the property registers and the holdings of properties will be accurate? I was recently given two lists of properties in my constituency that had been bought by HS2 Ltd, and they did not match. Properties that were missing from the second list had appeared on another list some years earlier. Can the Minister assure me that she will update the property registers, and will ensure that they are accurate in the first place?
Ms Ghani
My right hon. Friend has raised the important issue of transparency and the need for data to be up to date. Members of Parliament who are working hard for their constituents need to know exactly what data they are speaking about. I shall be happy to ensure that any case that my right hon. Friend raises is dealt with by HS2 Ltd, and also to ensure that there is even greater clarity about the compensation packages that are available.
Let me now deal with new clause 4. Phase 2a has been under independent scrutiny since its conception. All elements of high-speed rail have been subject to scrutiny since the outset, not least in the House, through the petitioning process, through Public Bill Committee scrutiny and debate, and also through independent scrutiny conducted by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Audit Office.
Let me assure the House that, while HS2 is making huge progress in supporting 9,000 jobs across the country and being backed by businesses and business leaders in the midlands and the north, we will continue to scrutinise the project. HS2 will boost economic growth across the UK, and we are already seeing the benefits in the midlands and the north. However, I do not see the benefits of a further environmental assessment, given that we have already consulted extensively. That includes a seven-month consultation on the route back in 2013, a scope and methodology consultation in preparation for the environmental impact assessment in 2016, a consultation on the working draft of the environmental impact assessment—also in 2016—a consultation on the environmental statement deposited alongside the Bill in 2017, and two more consultations on the environmental statement and supplementary environmental statement alongside the additional Bill provisions in 2018 and 2019.
I hope Members agree that a huge amount of scrutiny has already taken place. There is also a board, which was strengthened last year by a new chairman, Allan Cook, who works closely with the executive to review the capability and capacity of HS2. It is the job of the chair and the board to ensure that the entire programme continues under scrutiny. I do not see what more another review will achieve, apart from adding another layer of bureaucracy and another cost, given that there have already been so many.
Let me now deal briefly with new clause 5. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for being so patient. She has cited some very complicated cases, some of which have taken a long time to resolve. I can only apologise on behalf of HS2 Ltd if it has not worked as efficiently as possible with her constituents, or in providing information about local schools.
Mr Paterson
If my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) presses her new clause, will the Government encourage other Members to support it? While I have the Minister’s attention, may I also ask her to address my point about schedule 17, which deals with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? The local council must give permission for more than 24 heavy vehicles per day to travel down a route. My constituents in Woore will be afflicted by 300 per day.
Ms Ghani
I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s frustration with the impact that the build is having on his constituency, but I am sure that he and his council would agree that this is better done sooner rather than later. I am more than happy to sit down with him to go through the lorry movements in his constituency.
On new clause 5, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury that non-disclosure agreements are used for good reason, and not for any underhand purposes. I hope that when I list some of the good reasons for their use, she will understand—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The Minister is trying to address points made in the debate, so it would be appreciated if we could listen to what the Minister is saying; there is a lot of chatter.
Ms Ghani
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The NDAs that HS2 has are fundamentally to ensure that it can continue to work with businesses, communities and local authorities on issues that are competitive and sensitive. They enable conversations with companies and local authorities about options under consideration. They allow HS2 Ltd to make better recommendations to Government, and to develop better proposals, because it has had access to the right information when making decisions.
We must not forget that NDAs provide value to the taxpayer by reducing uncertainty and by helping to reduce generalised blight. For example, HS2 Ltd entered into such agreements with local authorities in the early stages of exploring route options. I am more than prepared to ensure that HS2 Ltd, if it is able to, sits down with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and goes through every NDA case that she wants to bring forward. HS2 Ltd is not exempt from the national whistleblowing policy in primary legislation. It has not entered into any NDAs with any HS2 staff.
Antoinette Sandbach
HS2 has a number of subcontractors and contractors, and it has entered into NDAs with them. Under my new clause, an independent assessor would assess past NDAs. HS2 is incapable of even saying, in reply to a freedom of information request, how many NDAs it has. Given that it cannot comply with that request, I am concerned that the Minister is not in receipt of full, accurate information.
Ms Ghani
I would uphold my hon. Friend’s concerns if they were valid. As I have said to her, HS2 Ltd has not entered into any non-disclosure agreements with HS2 staff, but when it is business-critical, it needs to be able to have confidential conversations. Agencies have to agree to NDAs. There are also processes in place; two sets of legal teams provide review. I am not sure that my hon. Friend wants an outcome in which a third legal team is put in place. That will not really help what she is trying to achieve, which is ensuring that HS2 does not have one-on-one NDAs; there are none of those with staff on the project.
Mr Ivan Lewis
Will the Minister confirm that what she said to the House a few moments ago is true—that no former member of HS2 staff has an element of non-disclosure in their redundancy package?
Antoinette Sandbach
The Minister has explained why it is important for the efficiency of HS2 that it should have NDAs, but does she think that is right if it comes at the cost of constituents being able to respond to consultations? What if, for example, a council is withholding information under an NDA, or if employees who are at risk of losing their jobs at an affected site find that their company is covered by an NDA, and information cannot be disclosed to them? The NDA must surely be subject to a public interest test.
Ms Ghani
I feel that my hon. Friend is talking about particular cases in her constituency, on which I am more than happy to provide further information. I will work with her to ensure that she is able to represent her constituents, and that they get satisfactory responses from HS2 Ltd. It takes part in many local engagement events; it has met several thousand residents up and down the country. I do not believe that new clause 5 will deliver what she is asking for.
Ms Ghani
I am running out of time; forgive me.
New clause 5 would slow down the process, and I do not think that it would work effectively. There is already a statutory framework in place for HS2, which includes the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The new clause is designed to prevent HS2 Ltd from acting as a commercial organisation, and tries to prevent it allocating most of its money, which, I remind everyone in the House, is from the public purse, directly to the programme. Unfortunately, I therefore cannot support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury.
Rachael Maskell
I have listened carefully to the Minister, and in the light of the power of our new clause 4, I withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Independent peer review
‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent peer review of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) project.
(2) The review must include consideration of the project’s—
(a) environmental impact,
(b) economic impact,
(c) engineering, and
(d) governance.
(3) In this section, “independent” means it is carried out by persons who are independent of—
(a) Government,
(b) HS2 Ltd, and
(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works.
(4) In this section, a “peer review” is a review conducted by experts of equivalent professional qualifications, expertise and standing to the persons responsible for each aspect of the project set out in subsection (2).
(5) A report of the review in subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’—(Rachael Maskell.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than 10 minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will be tabling the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in Mr Speaker’s provisional certificate, issued on 24 January 2018. Copies of my final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are now available. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England 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 Schedules to, the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill:
Clauses and Schedules certified under SO No. 83J as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1 to 33, 35, 37 and 40 to 62 of, and Schedules 1 to 28 and 30 to 32 to, the Bill (Bill 397).—(Ms Ghani.)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
We should not let these sittings of the English Parliament go completely unremarked. In particular, it is good to see the Secretary of State for Transport in his place because, of course, as Leader of the House he introduced the EVEL—English votes for English laws—processes in which we now rejoice.
As you said, Dame Rosie, as the Member for a Scottish constituency, I am completely diminished in these proceedings, having no opportunity to vote, but I am glad the House had an opportunity to do so earlier. One day, as I have said before, Members from England will speak in the Legislative Grand Committee but, once again, I fear we are to be disappointed this evening.
Question put and 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
Ms Ghani
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In 2015, the Government decided to accelerate the construction of the section of High Speed 2 between the west midlands and Crewe. This has become known as phase 2a. Our intention is to open this section of railway earlier than the rest of phase 2, to start bringing the benefits of the new railway to the north as soon as we can. Today, we can give an unequivocal statement that we are investing in our rail network, and in the midlands and north of England. This House has already given its backing to the building of phase 1 of High Speed 2, paving the way for the first new railway north of London in more than 100 years. Our creaking rail network, which the Victorians took the bold step of building, has continued to serve us well, perhaps beyond the dreams of the visionaries who brought it to us. However, it is bursting at the seams, with more passengers than ever before, and certainly more than were ever envisioned. We have exhausted the options for just “improving” our existing west coast main line; 60% of the peak capacity from the £9 billion west coast route modernisation project, completed as recently as 2008, had already been used by 2014, so we can have no more sticking plasters.
I am delighted that the Bill for phase 1 received cross-party support. High Speed 2 was a 2017 manifesto commitment of not just my party but Her Majesty’s official Opposition. We all recognise that High Speed 2 is needed, not least because it will reduce congestion on our important rail transport arteries—it will also increase capacity. Adding an entirely new line between the west midlands and Crewe will increase capacity elsewhere on our existing rail network.
Michael Fabricant
I think that if my hon. Friend, and she is my friend, had been in the Chamber earlier, she would have heard a number of interventions. May I invite her to check Hansard? Perhaps she is forgetting that I was in the Chamber. Perhaps now I should ask my question. She will know that there is no direct benefit to Lichfield, because the train does not stop in the area. She will also know, because I gave her a copy of a motion that was passed by Lichfield District Council, that it asks that
“all enabling works for HS2 in Lichfield District should be paused until the notice to proceed to main works…has been approved.”
It has not been approved yet and will not be until December. May I ask her to comment on that and reassure my local council that no works will go on in the district?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before the Minister replies, I should say that I was in the Chair earlier. The Minister did look around eagerly during her wind-up for the hon. Gentleman and I fear he was not there.
Michael Fabricant
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did speak to the Minister earlier and she suggested that I intervene only once Third Reading had begun and not during the earlier stages. I only wished to comply with her.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I think we should now probably just resume the debate.
Ms Ghani
I am not sure who is chastised there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend is in his place. The notice to proceed and the business case will be in the public domain later this year, which is why we need to have enabling works, so that they support the “pre” work that needs to take place before the line can be built. I know that my hon. Friend loves progress and speed, and he would like our country to be seen as a progressive country that connects cities to cities. He will want to see this line built as fast as possible and he would never want to be held responsible for slowing it down.
Steve McCabe
The Minister will no doubt be aware, as are other Members, of how often the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) likes to refer in this Chamber to the wise words of the Mayor for the West Midlands Combined Authority. Does the Minister think he may be interested to know that when I met the Mayor this morning he was extolling the virtues of HS2, and insisting how important it was for his work and for the benefit of the entire region?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Ghani
I am afraid that I am going to have speed on and perhaps not take any more interventions.
As I have said before, the intention is to smash the north-south divide. This line is about progress, opportunity and skilled jobs, and radically improving connectivity between not just London and the midlands, but the midlands and the great cities of the north—it is about connecting eight of our 10 largest cities. This is more growth in the UK economy, more skilled jobs and more opportunities. In particular, these new opportunities will be brought to the midlands and the north earlier than before.
We debated the principle of the Bill thoroughly on Second Reading in January 2018, when we voted overwhelmingly for the Bill and commended it to a special Select Committee. As we know, phase 2a will take HS2 to the north. It is the enabler for phase 2b and the northern powerhouse rail. I must take a moment to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), who ran the Committee that oversaw that work on this phase of the Bill. The Committee received 302 petitions, which it had to work through. I apologise for not mentioning him during our earlier debate and I hope he will recognise our recognition of and respect for all the work undertaken by him in chairing that Committee.
As we know, the phase 2a Bill will help to take this project even further north and it is the enabler for phase 2b and the northern powerhouse rail. Without this section of the line, we cannot make progress towards a three-hour journey time to Scotland. Colleagues from across the House will know how much support there is for these two projects among business and local authorities.
I have said it before and I will say it again: there is no either/or between the second phase of High Speed 2 and northern powerhouse rail. High Speed 2 is vital to the provision of the network improvements that northern powerhouse rail will build on. I encourage all Members of this House to visit the places benefiting from High Speed 2 to hear the enthusiasm for the project—these include Birmingham, which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will be visiting soon— and to hear about the ambitious growth strategies at first hand. Leeds intends to use High Speed 2 to almost double the size of its city centre. The east midlands wants to use Toton to attract new homes and jobs; the Toton innovation campus has the potential for up to 10,000 new jobs to be created. Manchester’s continued prosperity can be ensured by High Speed 2 trains calling at Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly. None of that is possible without the support for this legislation today.
This short section of railway will take trains beyond Birmingham, bringing the High Speed 2 network one step closer and unlocking phase 2b and northern powerhouse rail. We must not forget the two bespoke colleges, one in Doncaster and one in Birmingham, which are enabling more skilled young and older people to continue to build for our country. I do believe that we are responsible for bringing economic growth to our regions, and that is exactly what HS2 does, as well as improving capacity and connectivity between our great cities. I do believe we should be steadfast in unlocking the investment this project will bring. I, for one, want to look forward and be ambitious on behalf of our country. I want us to succeed as a nation, on the back of a high-speed, interconnected railway line. I urge you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my colleagues and the rest of the House to help support the next stage of HS2 railway by positively supporting the Third Reading of this Bill. I commend it to the House.
Rachael Maskell
We have had an extensive debate on phase 2a of HS2. Although the Bill is not as robust as the Opposition would have wanted it to be, not least in respect of the accountability and transparency that are needed to make the project succeed, it is so important that we press ahead by investing in vital infrastructure that will benefit not only the midlands but the north and beyond.
We look back with nostalgia and admiration at the Victorian rail infrastructure that has served us for 200 years, but it was a very different story in this place at the time. If one reads the debates in which Members tussled over different routes and projects, it feels like our approach to rail infrastructure has rarely progressed. One of my predecessors as MP for York, George Hudson, took things to the extremes; I assure the House that my dealings seek to achieve consensus and, ultimately, the right infrastructure across the transport network for our long-term future, and to do so transparently.
I formally put on record my thanks to the Clerks who have been so helpful trying to support our efforts to improve the Bill. As ever, we are indebted to their wisdom and advice in ensuring that we can use the mechanisms available to try to improve legislation. I thank all Members who have participated in debates and Committees to ensure that this part of HS2 is given the necessary scrutiny. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) for their important role on the petitions Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who kindly stepped in for me in Committee when I totally lost my voice.
It is always hard to pass legislation on infrastructure when many of us may not live to see the project’s completion, or may live far from the line; however, HS2 is a vital legacy that we must pass on to the generations to come, because the whole country will benefit from this infrastructure project. We have heard about the power of jobs to transform people’s lives. Whether in respect of building the infrastructure or the inward investment that we will see in towns and cities throughout the country, it is such an important project.
As we connect Birmingham to Crewe, over just 37 miles in phase 2a, confidence can start to build and investment can start to flow into places such as Crewe. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) is fighting so hard for that. She will regenerate her community and provide all with new opportunities as a result of the decision taken by the House today. But it does not end there: the rest of the midlands and the north can now be encouraged that they, too, will benefit, as we start the process of debating the next phases, including delivering for Scotland. All we need now is to fully integrate HS2 with the rest of our rail network, to start to see the real benefits.
I am sure the House will not have to wait long, because a Labour Government is in our sights. We will build a public rail service, under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), that is there to serve towns and cities up and down the country. The power of modern rail services will not only transform communities and people’s life chances, but the scale of investment will enhance our environment as we realise the potential of rail to change how we move goods and people across the land. Let us have confidence that, in getting the arteries right to the midlands and the north, we can restart the heart of the economies and communities that have longed to connect to the transformative power that inward investment and jobs will bring. Labour is about transforming lives, and that is why we will support the Bill today.
Sir William Cash
Having listened to the Front-Bench speeches from both the Government and the Opposition, I could not disagree with both of them more. This Bill is a travesty. It is an abomination. I heard the Opposition spokesman say just now that it will transform the midlands, providing huge opportunities. I do wish that she would understand from what I said earlier that my constituents most emphatically do not agree with one word that she said—or, for that matter, with what the Minister said, either—because, as far as we are concerned, HS2 is a disaster. It is causing havoc in my constituency, in respect of property ownership, the environment and the economics. The trouble is, as I said earlier, that not a single report is in favour of this monstrosity. This white elephant should be condemned to the rubbish dump.
On the question of highways, let me refer briefly to a meeting that took place only two or three days ago. It was attended by the regional director for Highways England and by my constituents, including the redoubtable Trevor Parkin. The meeting lasted for two hours, and new information emerged. HS2’s detailed borrow-pit report, which was prepared for the National Farmers Union and finalised in April, undermines its claims about the 2,500 missing heavy goods vehicles at Hanchurch, as well as the false information regarding its ability to U-turn HGVs at Yarnfield that HS2 presented to Stone Town Council on 23 April. The meeting also covered the question of HS2 Ltd’s unsafe and unacceptable proposals for changes to the Hanchurch interchange and the A519.
On 3 July, there was also a meeting in Hanchurch village hall on Whitmore Road with the residents of Newcastle Road, which is on the A519. HS2 Ltd had nothing new to say or to offer, and I am told that its four representatives
“got a very hard time from the local residents. We asked for the designers (Arup) responsible for the shambolic design work, together with the HS2 person overseeing their work, to be made available for a further meeting, but HS2 stonewalled on this saying that these people did not attend meetings.”
We need the Minister to intervene to ensure that something actually happens. HS2 is not only an administrative disaster, costing a vast amount of money, with far too many people being hopelessly overpaid, but they just simply do not do their jobs properly.
For practical purposes, the question of lorry movements is a matter of the gravest concern to all my constituents, as, indeed, it is to my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson).
As far as compensation is concerned, the amount of money made available to recompense people is inadequate. In addition, the way in which the compensation claims have been dealt with is completely unacceptable.
As was said in earlier interventions—my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and I are completely on the same page on this—the bottom line is that the amount of money that is being spent requires a business case and one has not been provided. I voted for new clause 4 because I had hoped that might give an opportunity for a review, although the Labour party’s proposals would take effect only after Royal Assent.
The legislation needs to be repealed. I say, with respect to Ministers, that it is disgraceful that, in the dying days of this Administration, this Bill should complete its procedure when it has been so severely criticised by so many reports. I will not go into them now; I set them out in the Westminster Hall debate, and Ministers know the ones to which I refer. The bottom line is that this is not the time to put this Bill through and to give it the final seal of approval from the House of Commons. This should have been deferred until the review, promised by one of the candidates for the Conservative leadership who I hope will become Prime Minister, has had the opportunity to grapple with the terrible anxieties and difficulties that have been inflicted on my constituents. I condemn this Bill. It is a disaster; it is a white elephant; and it deserves to be sent to the graveyard.
Town and Country Planning
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Minister to move motion 3 on town and country planning, I should inform the House that the Speaker has certified that, for the purposes of the Standing Order, it relates only to England and is within devolved legislative competence. I remind Members that the statutory instrument must therefore be approved by both a majority of all Members and of those Members representing constituencies in England.
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move,
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
The regulations were laid before the House on 10 June 2019. If approved and made, they will remove a sunset clause in the existing 2012 fees regulations, thereby ensuring that local planning authorities can continue to charge fees for planning applications. Planning fees are an important source of income, supporting local authorities to have the resources and capacity to make effective planning decisions. It is therefore vital that the fees regulations remain in force. The regulations introduce a fee of £96 for prior approval applications for a larger single-storey rear extension to a house. If approved by this House, this new charge will come into effect 28 days after the regulations are made.
Planning application fees are crucial for a well-resourced, effective and efficient planning system. They provide local planning authorities with much-needed income to consider planning applications, which in turn provide new homes and deliver economic growth for our country. In January 2018 we raised planning application fees by 20%—the first uplift since 2012. This has increased income for the planning system and has enabled local planning authorities to improve their performance. We estimate that in England the total income raised through planning applications fees is £450 million. If there was no application fee, this cost would have to be funded by the council taxpayer.
I turn to the details of the regulations. First, the regulations propose to remove the sunset clause of 21 November 2019 contained in the existing 2012 fees regulations, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. By removing the sunset clause, local authorities will be able to continue to charge planning application fees, in accordance with the 2012 fees regulations, beyond that date. If the sunset clause were not removed, the fees regulations would cease to have effect after 21 November. This would mean that local planning authorities would no longer be able to charge fees for planning applications.
The 2012 regulations provided that there should be a review of their operation within five years, to ensure that they continued to achieve their objectives. The accompanying sunset clause meant that no action would be required if it was decided that the regulations were no longer necessary. I am pleased to confirm that the review was undertaken in 2017 and the outcome report laid before Parliament in December 2017. The review concluded that the 2012 fees regulations had achieved their objective. It confirmed that they ensured an effective planning application fee regime, which benefited both applicants and local planning authorities in providing for the proper consideration of planning applications. It is therefore appropriate that I bring these regulations before the House, to ensure that the planning application fees regime continues. The regulations will also ensure that those wishing to take forward development pay a fair fee and that local planning authorities have the resource and capacity they need to make high-quality and timely decisions.
Secondly, the regulations introduce a £96 fee for applications for prior approval for existing permitted development rights for a larger single-storey rear extension to a house. The prior approval process means that a developer has to seek approval from the local planning authority that specified elements of the development are acceptable before work can proceed. The matters for prior approval vary depending on the type of development, and those are set out in the relevant part of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. A local authority cannot consider any other matters when determining a prior approval application.
The permitted development right for a larger single-storey rear extension to a house was made permanent by way of amendments to the general permitted development order on 25 May, but currently the associated application for prior approval required to exercise this permitted development right attracts no fee. Now that the right is permanent, it is appropriate that we should enable local planning authorities to charge and receive a fee for the work they undertake to process and determine the applications they receive.
Other comparable applications for prior approval have a £96 fee, and we consider that that would also be an appropriate fee for a larger single-storey rear extension to a house, as the cost to the local planning authority of handling these is similar. Although a fee of £96 is an additional cost on homeowners wanting to extend their homes, it is not considered fair that the cost of the applications should continue to be subsidised by all taxpayers. The fee is modest, at less than half of the £206 fee that would be required for a planning application to carry out works to a house were it not for the permitted development rights. It will provide local planning authorities with resources that may otherwise have been diverted from other planning applications.
In line with existing fees for planning applications to alter or extend a home, the draft regulations provide that the fee will not apply where the application is for development designed to provide means of access for a disabled person or facilities designed to secure that person’s greater safety, health or comfort. That will mitigate the potential direct impact of the new fee on disabled persons, who might be considered more likely to make use of the permitted development right for larger home extensions.
We continue to keep the resourcing of local authority planning departments and where fees can be charged under review. We announced in the spring statement that the accelerated planning Green Paper, to be published later this year, will look at new approaches for local authorities to meeting the costs of their planning service and delivering improved performance. In the meantime, the draft regulations will ensure that local authorities can continue to charge planning fees after 21 November, including the new prior approval fee, thus providing them with the important resources they need to consider such applications. I commend the regulations to the House.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his outline of this statutory instrument. The important first part of the SI ensures that the fee regime set out in the 2012 regulations is able to continue. Secondly, and perhaps more controversially, the SI amends regulation 14 of the 2012 regulations to include a £96 fee for an application for prior approval to build a larger rear extension to a dwelling house without the need for a full planning application to be made.
The Opposition do not seek to prevent the 2012 regulations from continuing, but we point the Government to their own consultation on devolving fee setting to local authorities. It would be good to have an explanation as to why the Government have failed to act on the outcome of their planning consultation, particularly on full cost recovery. As the Minister will know, the consultation found that there were substantial cross-party concerns that local authority planning departments do not have sufficient resources to provide an effective and wide-ranging service. The majority of respondents from all sectors supported increasing planning fees beyond the 20% increase already given by Government, often citing concerns about the low level of resourcing in local authority planning departments.
There are issues with local fee setting, as it may help resource planning departments better in areas of high growth but does little for those where development is more difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the issue of getting more money to planning needs to be resolved urgently. Labour’s planning commission has found that poor resourcing of planning departments is the most significant issue raised by communities, planners and developers alike. The Government need to set out clearly what they are going to do to ensure that all planning departments are properly funded.
Total expenditure on planning has fallen by almost 20% since 2010. That fall would be far higher were it not for the fact that spending has been propped up by a 50% rise in planning income. If we remove income from the equation, total net expenditure on planning has fallen by 42% on average, and by up to 60% in some regions, and that of course has led to a huge reduction in the number of public sector planners. In a recent report, the Royal Town Planning Institute showed that when a high number of applications are permitted, with fewer resources committed to each, the main loser may be local communities. Another crucial issue is that planning officers may, as a consequence, have less time truly to engage communities. The impact of austerity on planning is felt keenly by planning officers, who have to operate with fewer resources and to deal with the public dissatisfaction that can arise from that. It would be useful to hear how the Minister intends to address that issue.
The second part of the SI causes significant problems for us and, we think, for the country at large. Since 2013 Labour has been consistently against the ever increasing moves by the Government to replace proper planning permission with permitted development. The fee proposed here, £96 for prior approval for a large extension, is derisory. Large extensions, as the Minister should know from his mailbag, often cause considerable problems for neighbours and the issues involved can be complex, necessitating a great deal of work by local planning officers which will not be covered by the £96 fee by any stretch of the imagination. Large extensions should have to obtain planning permission, and bypassing communities with greater use of permitted development is just wrong.
A recent report from Shelter has made clear the enormous damage the ever increasing use of permitted development has had on the quality of our built environment, highlighting that local authorities can turn down PDR developments only in very limited circumstances, and cannot require social housing contributions or enforce space standards covering minimum sizes, leading to the delivery of rabbit-hutch homes. PDR allows developers to build the slums of the future.
An open letter from the Local Government Association in January 2019 made clear the extensive problems caused by permitted development, as did the large number of people who responded to the Government’s consultation on the extension to permitted development rights just recently. That includes the loss of more than 10,000 affordable homes in the last three years.
We think that the time is long overdue for the Government to get rid of permitted development and ensure proper planning and decent quality homes through the planning determination system and enabling local authorities to charge on a cost-recovery basis. Planners do a difficult and at times a controversial job, and it is time for the Government to resource the system properly.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. I accept the challenge that if we are to hit 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s we need to find a way to get more resources into local planning departments. It will be one of the constraints on volume, and we are looking at what we can do to enhance their ability to deal with planning applications swiftly and in volume. When we bring out the accelerated planning Green Paper later in the year, no doubt that will be included.
I also recognise the hon. Lady’s longstanding opposition to permitted development rights, although I fear she may be wrapping what is generally a domestic extension by a householder—normally in non-contentious situations —into her general opposition to PDR across the piece. The PD rights for domestic extensions have proved to be successful, and of course we made them permanent earlier this year. I note that when we did so—the hon. Lady and I were both present for that SI—she did not divide the Committee and oppose it.
I recognise the issues that the hon. Lady raises, but £96 will help to mitigate some of the impact of PDR on local authorities and we therefore think it judicious to introduce it in line with many other PDR charges that local authorities are interested in. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
Business without Debate
Business of the House
Committees
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I will take motions 5 to 8 together.
Ordered,
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee
That Rebecca Pow be discharged from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Philip Davies be added.
Environmental Audit Committee
That Dan Poulter be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Jeremy Lefroy be added.
Health and Social Care Committee
That Martin Vickers be discharged from the Health and Social Care Committee and Anne Marie Morris be added.
Justice Committee
That Kemi Badenoch be discharged from the Justice Committee and Andrew Griffiths be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Northern Ireland Motorsport Taskforce Report
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I wish to bring to the attention of the House the Northern Ireland motorsport taskforce report. I do so 24 hours after the historic victory by Lewis Hamilton—a wonderful British racer and a wonderful ambassador for motorsport across the United Kingdom and across the world—who achieved his sixth victory at Silverstone. We wish him and his family well as they enjoy the celebration of that event.
Northern Ireland, and indeed Ireland, boasts a rich history of motorsport prowess. It was Ireland in 1903 that gave British racing teams their green colour. Motorised transport was compelled not to exceed 20 mph on British roads, but the then Gordon Bennett cup—held in Ireland, which was part of the Union, and a very happy part of the Union, I might add—had no such restrictions on speed, and British teams painted their motor vehicles green out of respect for the roads they were racing on.
Today, Northern Ireland continues that rich history of motorsport. Jonny Rea, who is the four times world superbike champion, hails from just outside my constituency, and he is on his way to his fifth world championship. He is better than any other racer from these islands in terms of the history he has given us. Indeed, even Carl Fogarty, a wonderful British racer, was not able to exceed the record of Jonny Rea.
The Dunlop family hail from my constituency. There is no better name in motorsport racing than Joey Dunlop. He, his brother Robert Dunlop, and Robert’s sons William and Michael all competed on the roads and on some of the tracks, winning Formula 1 medals for their prowess. Sadly, of course, Joey, Robert and William all lost their lives to the sport they loved.
Brian Reid is a Formula 2 champion from Northern Ireland, although on four wheels, not two. Colin Turkington, from Portadown, is the current British touring car champion, followed quickly behind by Chris Smiley from Carrickfergus. In Formula 1, we have also had the honours of Eddie Irvine, John Watson and many more. It tells us a bit about the history of motorsport that it beats through the veins of many people in Northern Ireland. Indeed, world rally teams have not only co-drivers but engineers from Northern Ireland developing the sport.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Obviously, North Antrim features highly in what my hon. Friend has said. However, my constituency also features highly when it comes to motorsport. At Kirkistown, we have motorbikes, racing cars and other vehicles. That is an important part of our history. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the future, there needs to be an opportunity for a major motorsports event for Northern Ireland—something special that could set the sport off?
Ian Paisley
I really appreciate my hon. Friend intervening when he did. He is absolutely right. There has been some investment in Northern Ireland in local tracks such as Kirkistown in his constituency. Other tracks should be developed and encouraged to be developed, and they should also be resourced. Of course, they enhance the development of motorsport in Northern Ireland. If young kids who are starting off go karting do not have the tracks available, they will not be able to race and to develop their skill. Indeed, many of them have to come across to tracks on the mainland, and their talent is lost to Northern Ireland. I will come on to the point my hon. Friend raises about a major motor event. I think he is on to something important.
The motorsport taskforce was announced in January 2017, after a fatality at a road race on 14 May 2016 where a young man called Malachi Mitchell lost his life. The then Northern Ireland Minister at the Department for Communities, Mr Paul Givan MLA, established a taskforce to examine safety measures in motorsport and the contribution motorsport makes to Northern Ireland’s economy. It was a visionary decision by the then Minister, as no serious research had been carried out into the contribution of motorsport to the Northern Ireland economy up to that point. It also set in place a major contribution to road racing safety. In fact, the Minister’s intervention resulted in the highest spend ever on road racing safety measures in Northern Ireland: the Department for Communities contributed over £500,000 to road safety measures.
Racing on our roads can never be entirely safe. It can never be without challenges. It will always be a high-octane, high-risk sport, but there are measures that can mitigate the risks for both competitors and spectators alike. The Minister’s intervention and his Department’s spend on special safety bales, special lights and other measures, which can be shared around race tracks and other race events, has been critical in ensuring that safety has become a priority on our road circuits. In two weeks’ time the Armoy road race will take place, and it will be able to share with other road race events some of the special safety equipment that is now available. That will improve safety. Out of a tragedy, that major spend has been allowed to take place.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend will of course know that my brother Keith raced motorbikes. Sixteen years ago this August, he had a very serious accident. He came off his bike and was seriously injured both physically and mentally. It will stay with him for the rest of his life. He is still madly keen and interested in motorbikes. It is very important that we make the improvements my hon. Friend refers to, so that racing can continue on the roads of Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I remember watching his brother race. He was a brave rider and he thoroughly enjoyed the sport he participated in. The ability to spend significant money on safety measures is a way to develop the sport and to encourage people to come into the sport in the knowledge that they will be as protected as much as possible.
The taskforce was announced in January 2017. Its terms of reference were to examine the potential contribution of motorsport to Northern Ireland in the context of its being a culturally significant sport; to determine how motorsport can best address sports development, safety, marketing and tourism; and to engage as widely as possible with all those with an interest in the sport to inform its findings and to develop an action plan to ensure that the potential of motorsport is maximised in all its aspects.
I was given the honour of being asked to be the independent chairman of the taskforce. We brought together organisations and various Government Departments to be a part of the taskforce. The Department for Communities, the Department for Infrastructure, which is responsible for our road service in Northern Ireland, Invest Northern Ireland, Tourism Northern Ireland, Sport Northern Ireland and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives all contributed and have been full-time members of the taskforce for the past two years. We also drew on the secretariat from the Department for Communities, and I pay tribute to Government Departments in Northern Ireland. They stepped up to the plate and gave their very best people to the taskforce, allowing me as chairman to have at my fingertips the best people to discuss the development and future of a very important sport in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute in particular to the Department for Communities for the way in which it organised the secretariat for the last two years of the taskforce.
We were able to bring to the taskforce the various governing bodies that organise motorsport in Northern Ireland. The 2 & 4 Wheel Motorsport Steering Group, which is the overall umbrella group, the Motor Cycle Union of Ireland (Ulster Centre) Limited, the North of Ireland Karting Association, the Association of Northern Ireland Car Clubs and the Motorcycle Racing Association Ireland Limited all made major contributions to the taskforce report. They made themselves freely available and allowed us to cross-examine them and go through the evidence of the motorsport organisations.
We also heard from key event organisers. We have some major racing events, none more so than the Ulster grand prix. We also have major motocross events and, of course, the North West 200. The organisers of those privateer events also gave us evidence.
The most compelling evidence that we received was from the men and women behind the visor—the people who champion and participate in the sport. They included Maria Costello MBE, the late William Dunlop, Alastair Seeley, Chris Smiley, Colin Turkington and Graeme Irwin, all of them involved in either motocross, four-wheel racing, road racing or on-track racing. Each of them gave us a contribution that was unparalleled in terms of what they really need as competitors. They demonstrated to us the gaps that exist and how they need total confidence in the people around them, in the marshalling of races and in the many volunteers who contribute to motorsport. Motorsport relies on an army of volunteers to allow it to carry out the very best races. I mentioned William Dunlop, who made a major contribution to us. A few weeks later, unfortunately, he lost his life in the Republic of Ireland participating in the sport that he loved. The entire taskforce was moved by the contribution that he made and by him telling us about what he required as a participant and what he would like to see happening. The first part of the report was dedicated to William and his family as a mark of respect to him.
There are four governing bodies that organise motorsport in Northern Ireland. Together, they have about 80 member clubs and about 6,000 club participants, the vast majority of whom are male. A considerable number of them are in their early 20s and 66% of the membership are involved in four-wheel motorsport, so overwhelmingly it is four-wheel motorsport that Northern Ireland contributes to. We are often considered to be the country of two-wheel motorsport, but four-wheel motorsport is an area where we make a significant contribution.
We decided to carry out an analysis of how much the sport is worth to Northern Ireland, and it was astounding. After about a year and a half of research—the first time that such research was carried out—we found that the gross annual economic impact of motorsport to the Northern Ireland economy is in excess of £100 million. Each year, about £60 million is spent in the supply chain by people participating in the sport. Major motor events raise about £10 million a year for the economy and minor events contribute about £15 million to it. The promotional benefit in how we are able to market our little country is worth about £20 million to our economy.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is gracious and kind in giving way again. When it comes to the army of volunteers and the thousands of participants in motorsport in Northern Ireland, the spin-off is the tourism potential, which he rightly refers to. Does he agree the bed nights for the local economy, along with the clear potential for more, mean that we should insist on more funding? If we can spend and speculate more for the future, we can reap rewards through the report.
Ian Paisley
My hon. Friend has identified that there is a significant opportunity. The volunteers he mentions need to be properly recognised. The report identifies that this army of volunteers is now so well trained that it could be a provider of training for people wanting to learn about the sport, not only in Northern Ireland but across other parts of the UK. The volunteers could also be used at many other events. As the House knows, later this week we are going to have one of the largest ever events in Northern Ireland: the Open. The volunteer expertise that Northern Ireland now has at its fingertips could be utilised for other similar events.
Earlier, in one of my hon. Friend’s interventions, he asked whether there were other events we could be putting on. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that yes, there are. I would love to see a world rally championship round coming to Northern Ireland. We have John McGrillen, the head of Tourism Northern Ireland, saying that getting it in Northern Ireland is a real prospect and, importantly, the head of WRC saying he wants to take the sport to Northern Ireland. That is an opportunity that we should not miss. It would make the Open we are about to have in Northern Ireland look like small fry in terms of world marketing opportunities, world access to television rights and, importantly, spectator opportunities. Moreover, it would not just take place in one corner of Northern Ireland; a WRC event would take place not only in the city of Belfast, but in the north of Northern Ireland, and in the east and west. These major events suck in the entire population. The benefit and enjoyment of the event would be for all.
We need these actions to sustain the existing economic impact by improving the viability of major events, we need to review who is best placed to deliver motorsport events in the future, and we need to see improved promotion of motorsport events. By and large, these events just happen in Northern Ireland; they need to be better promoted. I think the organisers recognise that, but they are so busy, wrapped up in delivering their own sport to their own sector, that they cannot get off the dance floor, if you like, take the overall view and ask what is the best strategic approach.
The Minister will be pleased with the thrust of the report. We are not asking for money—for a change. We are asking for support to put in place a sustainable strategy for the entire sector, and the Government can help with that by capacity building and by pointing in the right direction. If they then come up with a strategy that requires resourcing—from the private sector as well as the public sector—they could help make sure it is done in a sustainable and beneficial way. The safety of competitors, officials and volunteers is the top priority. It is what we spent most of our time discussing on the taskforce. We cannot ever lose sight of the dangers involved in the sport, but those dangers also give a huge thrill to competitors and observers, and we must be able to marshal and galvanise that for the benefit of the Northern Ireland economy.
The governing bodies should work together to maximise their own capacity. Motorsport clubs should be allowed to generate funding to maximise media coverage and attract new followers and new events. They should be permitted a renewed focus on the marketing of motorsports to a broader audience. For example, we would like to see the delivery of a schools programme to encourage young people to come forward. Lewis Hamilton’s story is an amazing one of a young man who contributed everything. His family threw everything at karting and allowed him to come up through the ranks to be probably the world’s greatest racing driver of all time. Can that happen again? That is the challenge we have thrown down. If we allow the proper resourcing and help and identify schoolboy and schoolgirl talent, yes it can, and there is no better place for that to come from than the place where petrol seems to flow through people’s veins, and that is in Northern Ireland.
The governing bodies should work with the Department for Communities, Sport Northern Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland to develop an agreed partnership model for the delivery of the major motorsport events. I have already mentioned the WRC. Northern Ireland would be very keen to see the Government encouraging that. I am not going to talk about what happened in the House last week, but when it suits the Government, and when it suits this place, they can intervene in Northern Ireland and make things happen, and I appeal to them to give a fair wind to the development of the WRC in Northern Ireland next year. It can happen, and it should happen. I urge the Minister—who, I know, has a personal interest in this subject—to consider the opportunities, and to consider his own legacy: he could be the Minister who laid the foundations that allowed a WRC to happen in Northern Ireland.
The Department for Communities and Sport Northern Ireland should be allowed to promote talent and participation in Northern Ireland. The taskforce and I would like to see the establishment of a motorsport academy in Northern Ireland, and we have already had discussions with Ulster University at its sports excellence centre. Many of our sporting gentlemen and ladies pay for all their sports development. There is a lot of skill out there in our universities, and it ought to be possible to capture some of the data. That could happen if we had a proper sports academy, dedicated to motorsport and those who engage in it.
The 2 & 4 Wheel Motorsport Steering Group should be allowed to develop a strategic plan to address issues that are of concern to all motorsports. I believe that that is key to the report: we need a strategy for the future of motorsport. I therefore commend the report to the Minister and the Government, and ask the Government to give it a fair wind so that it does not gather dust on a shelf, but gathers pace and achieves its objective.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on producing the report, with an awful lot of help from the various bodies that were involved in its creation, and also on organising the debate. He has made it clear just how many people and organisations across Northern Ireland, both in the motorsport racing sector and in industry, have contributed. He has managed to harness their energy and interests.
The hon. Gentleman was also good enough to point out that there had already been extensive involvement on the part of Northern Ireland civil service and Government organisations in and around Stormont. That, too bodes well, both for the quality of the report and for the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is urging not just me but, probably, the whole Stormont organisation—and, perhaps, Northern Ireland society as a whole—to progress.
The hon. Gentleman provided us with a couple of rather choice vignettes. I had no idea that British racing green is, in fact, better described as Northern Ireland racing green. That is the true history of it. I am now better equipped for games of “Trivial Pursuit” than I was before I came into the Chamber this evening.
As the hon. Gentleman said, petrol seems to run in the veins of many people of Northern Ireland, and there is a huge depth and breadth of talent there, not just among riders and drivers. He mentioned Jonny Rea, and then gave a huge list of champions who have hailed from Northern Ireland. He also rightly mentioned the large number of people who have been involved in the technical side of the sport. As I am sure we all know, the side benefits of that pool of skills—that pool of technical understanding and ability—are enormous, because they quickly rub off on other related sectors and supply chains. Manufacturing companies are then attracted to that pool of expertise, because they know that they can readily find high-quality skills in a particular area. That is true of Formula 1, for which the M4 corridor in Great Britain is already famous, but it is also true of a variety of other parts of the motorsport sector in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman was clear and helpful in listing all the Northern Ireland Departments, and all the organisations, involved in Northern Ireland motorsport that contributed to the report; I will not repeat the list. I am not sure how long it took to produce the report. It is not just a comprehensive piece of work; it is a labour of love, and perhaps not just for the hon. Gentleman. Whenever we meet people from the sector, we find that they are involved because they have a passion for it. It is not just that they like competing, although most of them do; they love the noise, the smell, the technical mastery of machinery, and the manufacturing involved. There is an entire culture around motorsports that people get hugely immersed in, and which sucks them in. People can spend their entire lives involved with it. It can be an amazingly good career or a fascinating hobby, depending on their level of commitment.
As the hon. Gentleman describes it, a number of organisations in Northern Ireland motorsport have become so engrossed in the culture that, to use his phrase, they have not necessarily had time to get off the dance floor and think about how they might promote what they love to a broader audience. Yesterday’s amazing victory in the cricket world cup has probably brought cricket to a wider audience in this country—to many people who would not necessarily have given it the time of day on Saturday, but are newly enthused because they now understand what other people were on about. I think that is the kind of transformation of interest and attention that he is trying to achieve for Northern Ireland motorsport, if I understood him correctly.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the world rally championship. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to him for being assiduous in this matter. It is not the first time that he has mentioned this topic to me; his constituents and others in the sector in Northern Ireland should know that he has discussed this with me on numerous occasions. To be fair, he is not the only Democratic Unionist party MP to have done so, but he has been one of the leading lights.
It is clear that an enormous amount of thought has gone into the report. There is an enormous amount of opportunity here as well. What comes across most strongly from the report is the kind of commercial and cultural opportunity that could be grasped. The hon. Gentleman will have hugely endeared himself to the Treasury, because he started off by saying that he was not asking for money, and that is a guaranteed way to get the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others on the Treasury Bench. Kudos to him for having understood that, and having grabbed our attention immediately. What he is asking for is capacity building; that is the phrase he used. He is asking for support for the principle, and for strategies for developing ideas. He has got off to a tremendous start, because as I noticed and as he rightly points out, many Departments of the Northern Ireland civil service were involved in producing the report. He has clearly managed to get them engaged, which will be vital to future developments.
My Department and the Northern Ireland Departments will want to remain engaged in the development of any thinking on this issue, because if the opportunities can be developed and grasped, from that will come business cases and investment opportunities—perhaps private instead of public sector, investment opportunities. If we can harness the energy, expertise, and volunteer and commercial involvement that the report makes it manifestly clear are already there, commercial opportunities could very well blossom and develop. I think that is the point that the hon. Gentleman is aiming at.
In summary, we have here an incredibly promising report that shows what might be in Northern Ireland. It shows that we have a very high base and a very high starting point of passion, understanding and involvement, and an opportunity to go further. This could be an opportunity further to expand this part of Northern Ireland’s economy and its skills base. As the hon. Gentleman has asked, I am very happy to be part of encouraging the Northern Ireland civil service Departments to remain involved. They are already involved, and I am sure that he will enthuse them still further. I certainly would not want to do anything to undermine that or slow it down. And he certainly has my interest as well.
I would be very happy to encourage him, as these ideas develop, and to provide him with backing in any way that we can, particularly as he started off by saying that he did not need cash, although he does need broader kinds of support. We will see what comes out of this, once those business cases come about and firmer ideas are developed. There may then be further conversations to be had, but in the meantime this is an excellent start in an incredibly promising area in which Northern Ireland already shines very brightly.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (General Capital Increase) Order 2019
Draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Selective Capital Increase) Order 2019
Draft International Finance Corporation (General Capital Increase) Order 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (General Capital Increase) Order 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Selective Capital Increase) Order 2019 and the draft International Finance Corporation (General Capital Increase) Order 2019.
Dr Murrison
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, particularly given the expert nature of the Committee.
The draft orders seek Parliament’s consent for the UK Government to make payments to two institutions of the World Bank Group: the IBRD, which provides financial and advisory support to middle-income and creditworthy low-income countries, and the IFC, which provides financial and advisory support to the private sector in developing countries. I will briefly set out the rationale and expected benefits of those contributions before dealing with any wider questions the Committee has.
First, on the rationale, the UK contributions are part of a wider package of additional shareholder support. That support is driven by two factors: financial need, and the need to make a shift in shareholding to enhance governance. I will explain that a little, starting with financial need. Historically low interest rates reduced the returns from the IBRD’s loans, reducing its capacity to support development financing. Although the IFC has increased its financing, including in poorer and more fragile countries, it is reaching the limits of what it can do without more support from its shareholders. On the second factor, the World Bank Group is seeking to enhance the participation of developing countries in its decision making by increasing their shareholding and voting power, consistent with their growing economic weight and contributions to development.
In response, the World Bank Group proposed a package of $13 billion of additional capital: $7.5 billion for the IBRD and $5.5 billion for the IFC. That is to be paid in by shareholders through the subscription of additional shares allocated to them through two kinds of capital increases for each institution: general capital increases, in which shares are allocated in line with existing shareholdings, and selective capital increases, in which shares are allocated in proportions that do not match current shareholdings, resulting in a shift in relative shareholding and voting power. The contributions expected from the United Kingdom, which are set out in the draft orders, are consistent with the shares we were allocated in the capital increases.
Secondly, on the benefits, the World Bank Group is expected to play an important role in addressing the estimated $2.5 trillion of investment required every year to meet the sustainable development goals. The financial strength of the IBRD and the IFC allows them to access finance at low interest rates and use that to support clients, in return for interest that can be channelled back as future investment. They have taken the $19 billion of total shareholder contributions and used it to provide $900 billion of development finance.
The World Bank Group shares UK norms and values and helps to promote them globally. The Government’s 2016 multilateral development review rated the IBRD and the IFC as “very good” and “good” respectively for their match with UK priorities and organisational strength. The capital increases include policy and financing commitments that are expected to enhance their impact and support the United Kingdom’s interests.
Specifically, the capital increases will, first, support an increased focus on tackling climate change, with the share of projects with climate benefits increasing to an average of at least 30% by June 2023 for the IBRD and to 35% by June 2030 for the IFC. That compares with previous World Bank Group-wide ambitions of 28% by June 2020. The increases will also assist an increased focus on support for poor and fragile countries where development needs and security benefits are greatest. The IBRD will boost its share of support to its poorer clients to 70% of its total financial support, compared with 63% historically. The IFC will increase its support for the very poorest countries and fragile countries to 40% of its total support by 2030, compared to a baseline of 24%.
The increases will support a greater focus on gender equality. By June 2023, the IBRD will increase the proportion of its projects that support gender equality to 55%, from 42% now. The IFC will quadruple the amount of IFC financing dedicated to women and women-led small and medium-sized enterprises by 2030. Finally, the proposed increases will deliver a range of other enhancements in value for money, including both the IBRD and the IFC committing to deliver further internal efficiencies and ensuring that wealthier countries will pay more to borrow from the IBRD. In addition, the shifts in shareholding in the capital increases will be expected to support the increased legitimacy of the institutions in the eyes of developing countries.
These capital increases will support Britain’s development, prosperity and security objectives. Our participation in them will support us in continuing to stand proud as a leader in backing and improving the multilateral rules-based system and demonstrate value for money for UK taxpayers.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the chance to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and grateful to the Minister for outlining the statutory instruments before us. The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on this matter, but I have a series of points to raise. The Minister is always well briefed and may have the information with him, but if there are some things he does not know, perhaps he will follow up in writing. That would be much appreciated.
We seek reassurance on a number of points of serious concern relating to these two arms of the World Bank. I will talk first about impact. What independent evidence can the Minister give us on both the IBRD’s and the IFC’s impact on reducing poverty? We have concerns about the developmental impact of the World Bank’s work, as raised by its independent evaluation group, which found that the IFC in particular has in recent years experienced a downward trend in the developmental impact of its investments. IFC investments made via private equity funds are of particular concern, given that they can be opaque and difficult to track. How can we be certain that all the IFC’s investments will lead to demonstrable developmental impacts?
I was pleased to hear the Minister’s reference to gender and the positive outlook and direction being taken. I am keen to know what plans are in place to ensure the impact sought. I was also pleased to hear the Minister’s assurances regarding the shift in direction on governance. Hopefully, we will be able to tease out a bit more. The recent leadership selection exercise, which lacked a fair or competitive process, showed that we still have a long way to go in increasing the representation of borrower countries. There is a clear need across the architecture of global financial institutions for serious change in that respect. The governance of the World Bank is skewed towards the wealthiest nations. Developed countries retain the majority of shares and board seats, which means that there is an uneven distribution of voting powers, and of course the United States retains its veto power. I would be interested to hear how we will achieve the changes that the Minister outlined, and on what sort of timeline.
Tying voting powers directly to capital contributions is a problematic way to govern such an important international financial institution, so I welcome the Minister’s saying that we will move away from that, not least because the capital that the UK provides is a relatively small proportion of the bank’s funding, and large chunks of its operations are funded by loan repayments from developing countries. Surely we could go further than the reforms of recent years and de-link capital contributions and voting powers. I would be interested to hear how far we can go on that, so that we take into consideration other factors, such as population or developmental needs. Does he agree that we still have a way to go to ensure more balanced structures? What tangible changes will he be advocating through these orders and beyond?
Thirdly, on domestic resource mobilisation, as law makers we know how important collecting taxes is to a country’s development. A major impediment to raising the resources they need is tax avoidance. How will the Minister make sure the World Bank helps Governments to maximise their domestic revenues by ensuring that no investments go to companies engaging in tax avoidance or operating through non-compliant jurisdictions? Does he agree that we should ensure that all investments made by the IFC are analysed for their impact on domestic revenues?
Fourthly, I was pleased with what the Minister said about aligning the work with the Paris climate agreement, but I want to probe that a bit more. In the recent general debate on climate change and global development—a very good debate indeed, with excellent contributions from across the House and a high degree of consensus—the Government assured the House that the big multilateral banks are aligning their climate finance with the targets of the Paris agreement. However, we are deeply concerned about the bank’s continued funding of fossil fuel projects after the Paris agreement, which the shadow Chancellor raised in his speech at Labour’s International Social Forum this weekend. At that conference, the Leader of the Opposition announced Labour’s plans to stop channelling finance through the World Bank’s climate investment funds, but instead to redirect them to the UN’s green climate funds—a move that would give more direct access to national and local actors, rather than concentrating funding in a handful of multinational development banks. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that idea. In additoin, how will the Government ensure that all climate finance is spent in a way that ensures local ownership? Will he set out the ways in which the World Bank is aligning its investments with the Paris agreement, and how that will be monitored?
Finally, transparency is very important to all right hon. and hon. Members, and the Department for International Development raised that issue in its multilateral spending review. Although the IBRD and the IFC scored “good” overall, both agencies’ scores for transparency were weak. In particular, the IFC has struggled with scandal. Just this month, one of its investment officers was in the press after she allegedly favoured the company in which her husband was a senior executive and which was awarded a significant part of a £2.6 billion contract that she was involved with. According to the New York Times, that conflict of interest has dragged the bank into Latin America’s biggest corruption scandal. We all agree that transparency is critical to tackling corruption, so will the Minister set out how he will ensure that the World Bank urgently improves the transparency of all its institutions?
I will leave it there. I have raised a number of issues, and I would be very grateful for the Minister’s reflections on them. If the answers are not available today, perhaps he will follow up in writing.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the Minister for his very thorough and wide-ranging introduction to the instruments. Like the shadow Minister, I do not intend to divide the Committee and I support the broad thrust of the proposals. The Minister referred to all the expertise that is on this Committee. I certainly do not count myself as being among the experts—I am slightly outside my comfort zone—but I have a couple of slightly geeky, lawyerly questions for the Minister.
The two draft orders that relate to the IBRD make perfect sense to me, because we can track through where those proposals have been approved by members by way of resolution. As far as I can see, however, the order relating to the IFC has not yet been approved by the membership of those institutions. Is it not slightly premature to bring the draft International Finance Corporation (General Capital Increase) Order 2019 before us? Essentially, we have been asked to approve payments of monies that have not yet been formally requested by those institutions. Could the Minister say something about why those IFC resolutions have been delayed? I have heard suggestions that it is related to the US blocking the resolutions until the rules have changed so that it retains a veto over future IFC capital increases. If that is the case, it would be interesting to know the Government’s position on that.
There is a second issue that I want to flag up. We have two instruments that relate to the IBRD, but just one that relates to the IFC; it is a general capital increase order, and there is no selective capital increase order. I understand that is because the UK will not get any additional shares as part of that rebalancing exercise, and therefore no payments of monies would be required. I totally understand that and have no reason to doubt that what is going on is perfectly fair, but it is slightly ironic that the one proposal going to the Royal Bank of Scotland that sees the UK’s share capital and voting influence being diluted does not require an instrument to come before MPs for scrutiny. As I say, I have no reason to suggest that anything untoward is going on, but we should have some alternative means of debating those proposals.
More broadly, I support everything proposed in the instruments, but there must be a question mark over whether the spending of such significant sums of money deserves slightly more interest than an albeit expert Committee on a quiet Monday evening in Parliament. These proposals were made several months ago, and I would suggest that we should have these debates in the Chamber and give the orders slightly more detailed scrutiny than we can give them in this short time span.
Dr Murrison
To deal with that last point, the ministerial position on this was tabled in April 2018, and we have received no questions on this matter at all. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, who defines himself as a geeky lawyer—I do not think he is—I am perhaps disappointed that we have not had more interest in this matter, and I share his concern in that respect. We are dealing with very large sums of public money. As the Minister in the hot seat, I am confident that this money is being disbursed appropriately, in accordance with our legislation and with the intention to get the maximum effect for the taxpayer’s pound; none the less, it is the job of this place to scrutinise such measures closely. It is slightly disappointing that we have had no parliamentary interest following the statement in April 2018.
I will go through the hon. Gentleman’s points. The money will be called down at some point in the future, having been approved by the IFC. That is what we are doing now. We are approving the spend now, but technically that can be signed over at the point at which it is called down by the World Bank Group. He will forgive me if we dispense with this matter—as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, it is largely uncontroversial, given that we have not had any criticism of this since April 2018—together with the order.
I turn now to the points made by the Labour spokesman, and probably one or two of the points made by the spokesman for the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Nottingham North is right to point out that we need to focus on impact, and he knows that DFID is absolutely focused on getting the maximum effect from our spend of 0.7% of GNP. Obviously, all of that is official development assistance, obviously.
The institutions in the World Bank Group feature well in the multilateral agency review that we are required to conduct. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the focus on the poorest, which is why we have ensured in this matter that more money as a proportion of the whole will be spent on fragile states, as I made clear in my opening remarks. The same is true regarding gender. We will continue to review that through the mechanisms available to us and through the International Aid Transparency Initiative, with which he will be familiar. That deals with his final point, on transparency, with which I agree entirely. The IFC joined the International Aid Transparency Initiative in January 2017—so relatively recently—partially as a result of concerns that expressed about that part of the World Bank Group, to which the hon. Member for Nottingham North referred. I take that as a good sign. Since all that stuff is meant to be published, I look forward to him being able to scrutinise that particular piece of public expenditure much more closely than has been the case historically.
The hon. Gentleman would expect, and I would demand, that we use our seats on the boards of both those bodies to scrutinise carefully how money is spent, given the scope, and to ensure as far as we can that the expenditure accords with our own national priorities—I think he agrees with that, which is reassuring—and in particular our sense that more needs to be spent on the world’s poorest, on climate change and on gender equality. Those are clear UK values and norms which, given the scale of our contribution and that of like-minded partners, we expect to be expressed in how the money is disbursed.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention governance, and correct to say that historically it has been heavily weighted towards the wealthier nations—those who are contributing. I suspect that those wealthier nations would say, “Hang on a bit. If we are contributing so much, we need to have a seat at the table.” None the less, we have we have expressed the view that the poorer countries need to have a bigger say in how the money is disbursed. That will be the case, and he is correct to say that that is the intention of the selective capital increases, which dilute the influence that countries such as Britain, France and America have on the decisions.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to comment on tax avoidance. The IFC reviews the tax arrangements of its clients to ensure that any offshore financial centres used by those clients are assessed as compliant or largely compliant with the OECD global forum standards on tax transparency and exchange of information. The UK was assessed as “largely compliant” under that initiative, which I personally found rather disappointing, but there it is. Clearly, tax avoidance is of concern to the World Bank Group, and we will ensure through our seat on the boards of both the bodies in the group that tax avoidance and other forms of strange accounting practices, if I may put it in such terms, are expunged from this international multilateral organisation.
I am running through all my points, but I still have “power stations” written down. I think it is intended to be a response to the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham North on climate change. I thought that he might mention the coal-fired power station in Gujarat, which historically has been funded through the World Bank Group, through those initiatives. My defensive line—which, sadly, I will deploy, although he forgot to mention it—is that that is historical disbursement. I hope he has been reassured that our focus on climate change in the recent process makes that kind of expenditure at that scale far less likely to happen, although I completely understand the often differing imperatives of many of the countries with which we engage in this work. That is a debate for another day, but he who pays the piper calls the tune, and it is important that global public goods are satisfied by this kind of expenditure.
There are those who say, citing in particular China and India, “What are we doing spending all this money on middle-income countries?” Again, that is a debate for another time and place, but global public goods, as the name suggests, are global. We are all in this together, and we need to have some tangible way of persuading our middle-income partners and friends to develop their economies that in a way that protects our imperatives too, which have to do very largely with climate change and the other things I have described.
I think I have covered most of the points made. I will ask my officials to go through the record to see whether I have missed anything, and if I have, I will write to hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (General Capital Increase) Order 2019.
Draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Selective Capital Increase) Order 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Selective Capital Increase) Order 2019.—(Dr Murrison.)
Draft International Finance Corporation (General Capital Increase) Order 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Finance Corporation (General Capital Increase) Order 2019.—(Dr Murrison.)
Ministerial Corrections
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amber Rudd
Our safety net is one of the strongest in the world. We deliver the fourth most generous level of welfare support in the OECD. In this financial year, total welfare spending will be more than £220 billion.
[Official Report, 12 June 2019, Vol. 661, c. 734.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
An error has been identified in my contribution to the debate.
The correct information should have been:
Amber Rudd
Our safety net is one of the strongest in the world. We are the fourth most generous country, according to the UN World Happiness Report. In this financial year, total welfare spending will be more than £220 billion.
Education
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Gibb
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, 4 June 2019, Vol. 661, c. 75WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for School Standards:
Errors have been identified in my response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and others.
The correct response should have been:
Nick Gibb
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. A further 18% 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. The final 9% is made up of school-led funding.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BBC
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 234627, 234797 and 235653 relating to the BBC.
It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. All three petitions relate to the BBC. One calls for a public inquiry on what the signatories perceive as bias in the BBC, another calls for the abolition of the licence fee, and the third is about the restoration of free TV licences for the over-75s.
As we have previously debated the licence fee, and with it a number of accusations of bias, I do not propose to spend much time on it this afternoon, because lots of people want to speak. But let me be clear: as Harold Wilson said, public inquiries take minutes and last for years, and they seldom solve anything—certainly nothing as subjective as perceived bias. Although the BBC sometimes gets things wrong, as any organisation does, I do not believe it is inherently biased in its news and coverage of current affairs. Indeed, we ought to remember that the BBC’s news coverage is looked at around the world as a beacon of straightforward, unbiased news reporting. As a country, we ought to be proud of that. If it has a bias, it is probably towards London, as those of us who have sat through items about London stations on the national news will know. It does not reflect the regions and nations of this country well.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The hon. Lady just said that we ought to be proud of the BBC. Does she acknowledge that, as a country, we are very proud of it? Not only is it one of this country’s most popular institutions, but it is a source of great credit for this country around the world. Whatever mistakes it makes, they should be framed by that overall attitude.
Helen Jones
I agree. The reason for the BBC’s popularity is that we maintain the model of public service broadcasting. People who want to get rid of the licence fee ought to remember that a public service broadcaster is free of commercial and sponsorship influence in its news, and that it provides a far wider range of channels and radio stations than that provided by broadcasters that aim at niche markets. In fact, the BBC’s output has to cater for a whole range of tastes, including minority interests.
There is no doubt that the decision to end free TV licences for the over-75s, and to restrict them to people in receipt of pension credit, has damaged hugely the BBC’s reputation. The decision has been met with almost universal condemnation. In fact, only the Taxpayers Alliance, which seems to get a lot of its funding from people who do not pay British tax, is in favour of it. Nevertheless, the real villain of the piece is not the BBC, but the Government. In 2017 they fought an election on a manifesto that promised to maintain free TV licences for the duration of this Parliament, knowing full well that in 2015 they had entered into an agreement with the BBC that made it impossible.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that people are rightly outraged by that decision? They voted for the Conservative party because it had that promise in its manifesto. More than 4,000 pensioners in Barnsley are due to lose their TV licences, and a huge number of people have got in touch with me about the issue.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. The BBC was very foolish to accept that agreement with the Government, who did what we have seen them do so often: devolve the blame for their cuts. We have seen that time and again, particularly in relation to older people. The Government say they want a good system of adult social care, but they have consistently cut the funding for councils to pay for it, especially in the poorest areas and in those with the longest legacy of industrial diseases and ill health.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Have we not found through this that many people who are eligible for pension credit are not getting it? Those who are exempt will not have to pay for TV licences. Some £2,936,000 of pension credit is not being claimed in my constituency, so should we not write to people about that on the back of TV licences? Is it not time that we fixed both the BBC and the issue of pension credit?
Helen Jones
I will come in a moment to that very good point. Let us consider how else the Government have dealt with these issues. All people of pension age are entitled to a free bus pass, which was brought in by the Labour Government in 2001 and extended to cover the whole of England in 2008. The scheme is currently underfunded to the tune of about £652 million, because the Government keep reimbursing people based on 2005-06 fares. How long before it disappears?
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
A manifesto promise broken by this Government reads:
“We will maintain all other pensioner benefits, including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this parliament.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that this broken promise is letting down not just older people, but trust in politics?
Helen Jones
I absolutely agree. We can see a pattern in the agreement with the BBC. The BBC was to take on the funding of free TV licences as the Government gradually withdrew their contribution, and then it would take on all such funding from 2020-21. In 2017-18, the cost of those licences was about £655 million. Last year the Government paid £468 million from the Department for Work and Pensions, and this year they will pay £247 million. That is an unsustainable funding model, and the Government knew that, or at least they ought to have known that—if they did not, then they are even more incompetent than I thought— when they entered into the agreement with the BBC.
To fund the licences, the BBC would need to close down channels or radio stations. A number of columnists have written about the money paid to the BBC’s top earners. Some are grossly overpaid, and in my view—this is entirely subjective—some of the so-called talent are not very talented. However, restricting the top rate of pay to £100,000 would not meet the cost of the licences. Again, the Government must have known that, but they want to deflect the blame. They knew there would have been an outcry had they tried to amend or abolish the scheme, so they sent it off to the BBC. When the changes were made, they said, “Nothing to do with us, mate.” They are the “not me, guv” Government—the Arthur Daleys of public administration.
It is the Government who made the decision on TV licences, and it will be really damaging to older people in this country. If someone cannot get out and about, and no one visits them, the TV is their companion. If someone cannot afford to go out and socialise, the TV is their entertainment, their window on the world and a way of keeping their mind active. Unfortunately, that is the lot of many older people in this country. We do not respect or value our older people as we should. I declare an interest, because I am heading that way myself.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the hon. Lady will know, people of my generation always used to say, “Well, this is the BBC. It’s gospel. It’s the truth.” Does she share my concern that the BBC is not now as impartial as it should be and that we need to instigate reform in order to alter that perception, so that we can go back to the good old days of unbiased reporting of fact rather than personal perceptions and opinions?
Helen Jones
I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman—the BBC produces very good news coverage. People sometimes see bias when they are being told things that they do not want to hear—we must remember that.
Many older people—half of over-75s, in fact—are disabled. Age UK estimates that three in 10 are living in poverty or just above the poverty line. For those people, TV is a lifeline. Many of them live alone. I have one elderly friend who leaves the TV on almost all the time because it is another voice in the house.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Helen Jones
Not yet. I need to make some progress, as many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
The TV is another voice in a house that was once full of people and very active but is now silent. To remove free TV licences from such people is the most mean-spirited of Government cuts. It will make lonely people lonelier—15% of our older people are lonely—and it will further isolate those who are already isolated.
It has been argued that restricting free TV licences to those in receipt of pension credit is somehow fairer because they are more deserving—the idea of the deserving and the undeserving is very 19th century—but there are several answers to that proposal. First, by the time someone is 75, they have paid their dues to society: they have worked, paid their taxes, and many have brought up children. Giving those people a free TV licence is a way to give something back as a small recognition of their past contribution.
Another argument is that we need a mix of targeted and universal benefits, but the latter—as the Government are discovering—are much harder to cut, because most of the time they are a guarantee of continuance. That argument is based on the myth that there are lots of wealthy pensioners. Recently, a lot of publicity was given to research claiming to show that older people were on average £20 a week better off than those in work, but much of the coverage did not mention that those were the figures after housing costs. If we look at the figures before housing costs, we see that people in work are better off.
Yes, many people in the older age groups own their own homes outright—the figure is about 40% of those born between 1945 and 1965—but that leaves a lot of people paying rent. Some 30% are still paying mortgages, while those who own their homes outright have forgone other spending to pay for them. What do we have now—a Tory Government punishing thrift?
Those who attended the public consultation pointed out very forcibly that in many areas older people have more expenses than younger people. Their heating bills are bigger because they are often at home all day and feel the cold more. Many pay for social care; one lady, whose husband is in a nursing home, is seeing her savings disappear before her eyes because of that expense.
Those figures are for those on median incomes, which means that half of all pensioners are below that level. Age UK states that three in 10 over-75s are in poverty or just above the poverty line—that means 1.9 million people—and 20% cannot afford to go out and socialise even once a month, while 37% cannot afford a holiday away from home.
One reason not to tie TV licences to pension credit is that pension credit uptake has been stuck at 63% for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, that means that a lot of money goes unclaimed, including more than £4 million in my constituency and £3.5 billion nationally. The Government could have done something about that—an uptake campaign, for instance, or a simplification of the application process—but they have not done so because the lack of uptake means that they save not only on pension credit, but on the benefits that come with it.
Another reason not to tie free TV licences to pension credit is that those who will be hit hardest are just above the level for claiming pension credit and will lose far more of their income than wealthier people. Age UK estimates that 40% of over-75s would either not be able to afford a TV licence or could afford it only by cutting back on food or heating, for example. Those to whom we spoke made it clear that their generation were brought up to pay their bills and that they will pay them even if they have to cut back on something else. Letters from the licensing authority are already dropping through people’s letterboxes a year in advance, telling them that they will have to pay and causing real worry to many people. I wonder how long it will be until the scammers appear, ringing people and sending emails to say, “We are just checking your television licence. Give us your bank details.” That will happen—in fact, I am told that it is already happening in some areas.
Do we really want to live in the kind of country where pensioners go without food to pay for a TV licence, or go to jail for not having one? We recently celebrated our D-day veterans and quite rightly reflected on the debt that the country owes that generation. We cannot repay that debt by taking away free television licences. What will happen to those in care? At the moment, people in care homes get a discounted licence, but the regulations refer specifically to those under-75 because the over-75s were already deemed to receive free licences.
The BBC probably did not know that, which brings me to the important question of who should decide social policy. I cannot think of any way to frame that question such that the BBC is the answer. The BBC is not equipped to do it, does not have enough information to do it, and should not have to do it. It is a matter for Government and for Parliament.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She makes some very valid points, but she is letting the BBC off the hook and acting as an apologist for it. Does she recall that at the 2015 charter renewal, the BBC said that it was delighted with the terms of the charter; delighted about getting an inflation-linked increase to the licence fee; and delighted about being let off having to fund the roll-out of superfast broadband? It is now reneging on its commitment to the over-75s.
Helen Jones
It is not the BBC but the Government who are reneging on their promises to the electorate, which were made as recently as 2017—it is as simple as that.
The Government should consider taking back responsibility for funding free licences. That would cost £740 million by 2020-21, which sounds like a lot, but is a drop in the ocean compared with most Government expenditure and with the spending proposals made by the Conservative leadership candidates. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) says that he will cut corporation tax to 12.5%, which would be one of the lowest rates in the developed world and would cost £13 billion. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—I was going to say “for Henley,” but he does move about a lot. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip says that he will raise the threshold for the 40% rate of tax. That would cost £9 billion, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies says most of the benefit will go to the top 10% of earners. I have heard those on the Government Benches say that change would protect those on middle incomes. They need to get real. The median income in this country is not £50,000. It is not even £40,000. Last year it was £28,400, and that is hugely inflated because incomes at the top end include large bonuses. There is a choice. Does anyone in this Chamber need a tax cut? We might like one—
Helen Jones
I am about to wind up, so no.
We might like a tax cut, but we do not need one. There is a choice. Tax is the price we pay for being in a civilised society. Speaking personally, I would rather forgo a tax cut and protect our older people properly. I know what side I am on, and I know what side my hon. Friends are on. In fact, I know what side all the Opposition parties are on. The question is for those on the Government Benches.
If Government Members want to stop this happening—I think some of them genuinely do—they have to pressurise their own Ministers to stop this nonsense, take control of free TV licences, amend the legislation and look after our older people properly. They should do it because that is what they promised to do and because, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) has said, we cannot means-test for loneliness and disability. But most of all, they should do it because it is the right thing to do. They will be judged on whether they keep their promises, and this is one they certainly have not kept. The blame is not with the BBC, which, as I have said, was crass to accept the settlement in the first place. The blame lies firmly with the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Phil Wilson (in the Chair)
Order. A number of people want to take part in the debate. I know we have three hours, but I want the winding-up speeches to begin at about two minutes to 7. I will not impose a time limit, but I say to hon. Members: bear that in mind and consider your colleagues. I call John Howell.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Wilson. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I suppose I should start by declaring an interest. For a number of years I worked as a presenter for BBC World Service television. I presented such well-known programmes as “World Business Report” and “World Business Review”, which I am sure trip off the memory of those who managed to catch them. I was not one of the mega-rich presenters. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) spoke of people in the talent pool who do not have much talent. I like to think that I did have the talent but was not paid enough for it. However, anyone who had that role realised that it was a wonderful role to have, because they could walk down any high street in the UK and nobody would recognise them, but when they got off the plane in Delhi they would be mobbed, because that was the distribution of the programme.
As a presenter at the BBC, I was made very aware of its editorial policies. I like to think that I did not infringe those policies at all during my time as a presenter, so I do not think an accusation of bias on my part would have been either made or appropriate. I fully accept that the BBC is not a perfect organisation. I fully accept that it makes mistakes. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said—he is no longer in his place—it is an enduring British institution that carries much weight and is held in much esteem by people in this country.
When I was a presenter at the BBC, few would have doubted that it was value for money—I cannot recall the issue ever being raised. However, it is raised in the BBC’s annual report for 2018—and it is glossed over somewhat. That report states that, based on the BBC’s survey of people who watch it, its value for money rating was six out of 10. The very next words of the report state that that is “within target”. That is an absurd thing to say. It is absurd to describe getting only six out of 10 as remaining “within target”. Far more needs to be done before the BBC can achieve value for money.
I suspect that the value for money argument is influenced principally by three factors. The first is the news coverage and whether there is an appreciation of bias in that. I suppose that comes down mostly to whether the BBC is biased in one way or the other in its coverage of Brexit. Personally, given the way Brexit has divided the country, I think it would be difficult not to see BBC presenters divided in the same way.
The second factor is the range of content. A constituent contacted me to say that he objected to the way a programme he was watching on one BBC channel suddenly switched to another so something else—I think it was the tennis from Wimbledon—could be run. That is not an acceptable way of behaving.
The third factor is the arguments about salaries and the gender pay gap. Going back a few years, the 2013-14 annual report asked for a reduction in the overall cost of talent. I cannot see that any appreciable change took place between the publication of the 2013-14 report and the current year. I happen to know that the director-general is working on that, but we need to see progress pretty quickly.
Looking at the range of content, which is one of the arguments I suspect people may have used to justify the BBC’s value for money, I shall point out two programmes. The first is “Bodyguard”. I thought that was a fantastic programme, and it will have been of interest to all of us in the Chamber, covering the subjects it did, but it was made by a production company owned by ITV. I will say a little more about that, and about how the nature of the media industry is changing, in a minute.
Secondly, in the field of investigative journalism, I praise the “Panorama” programme that covered the issue of antisemitism. I watched it from end to end and became more and more disturbed as I watched. I noticed that the hon. Member for Warrington North said bias can be seen when we hear what we do not want to hear. That is a prime example of bias being shown, because it is clearly something that people do not want to hear. I thought that was a very good programme, and it is one that I have recommended that people should watch on iPlayer.
I mentioned that “Bodyguard” was produced by an ITV production company. That illustrates in part the changing nature of the media industry. When I was the chief executive of a production company, I went over to New York to see the foreign editor of Fox. I said to him, “I’ve come here to sell you some lovely programmes that I’ve made about foreign and interesting places”—places such as Mongolia. I was the first journalist into Mongolia to interview the new democratically elected president. He looked at me and said, “Foreign—you mean Californian?” That line would not be appropriate today. The world has changed, and the media world has completely changed.
One area in which the BBC competes is online programming. We have seen it compete fully against Netflix, with quite a lot of dissatisfaction in working out the value for money score from Netflix. BritBox is coming online shortly from ITV, so there will be even more competition in this area. Whether in such circumstances the BBC can maintain its position on the licence fee is certainly open to question.
The commercial element in the BBC is not new. We tend to think of the BBC as having no commercial advertising. That is simply wrong. BBC World Service television carried substantial commercial advertising, and I did not find that it interrupted the flow of my presenting in the slightest, and nor did viewers find that it interrupted their enjoyment of the programmes.
Andrew Bridgen
Would my hon. Friend note that Channel 4 is also a public service broadcaster but it is not in receipt of any of the licence fee? It funds itself completely from advertising.
John Howell
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. The idea of keeping out commercial advertising was fine 50 years ago, and even 20 years ago, but in today’s world it needs to be looked at again in the context of how the BBC will function.
I was going to say a few things about free TV licences, but the hon. Member for Warrington North has said many of them already, so I will not comment.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
Do you agree with her? That is what we want to know.
John Howell
I think this is a fault of both the Government and the BBC. I have told the director-general that—he happens to be a constituent of mine—and that is the position I will take. Just before my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) comes in with a witty comment, that is not sitting on the fence; it is a position that I fully hold. The BBC has done itself no good at all in how it is has gone about dealing with the TV licence.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I recently wrote to 10,000 constituents to ask for their thoughts on the free TV licence. I will read out some of their replies:
“I lost my wife in January and now I spent a lot of time alone. Having the TV on in the background is like having someone with me. I do not know what I would do without it.”
“My husband died two years ago. I can’t move well enough to leave the house on my own. TV is the only company I have. Why are they going to take it away from me?”
“Lindsay has dementia and is unable to read or write anymore. TV is vital stimulation, otherwise she sits staring into space. No way could she afford to pay for a licence on a state pension.”
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his remarks. Age UK has said that 850,000 people in the UK have dementia and that by 2025 the figure will be 1 million. Of course, many of them will be over 75. Is not the cruellest thing about this change the idea that people with dementia might be pursued by the BBC for payment for a TV licence?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is right. We must think about the most vulnerable in our society whom this decision will affect. I received a steady stream of correspondence in letters, emails, phone calls and office visits in response to my letter—the figure is in the hundreds. While each person conveyed a heartbreaking account of how they would be affected by this Government U-turn, the collective responses are a powerful testament to how important the free TV licence is.
In Portsmouth South, 300 people got in touch, and nearly 90% of them supported the continuation of the free TV licence. Nearly 70% cited loneliness as their main concern if their licence were to be revoked.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s testimony is really powerful. Some 3,000 households in Blaenau Gwent could lose their free TV licences. Crucially, while TV is a source of entertainment, it is also often a form of companionship. Does he agree that the Government should reconsider their decision and restore this important benefit for older people?
Stephen Morgan
I absolutely agree. I think that Age UK has said that four in 10 people say that TV is their only company. The free licence is therefore a social policy that the Government should retain.
The repercussions of the Government’s decision will not be felt in Whitehall; it is people in my constituency who will suffer—people in Portsea, Fratton and Southsea; Portsmouth people who I grew up living next door to. Actions speak louder than words. The Government have snatched a vital benefit from the demographic group who need it most: the most vulnerable in our society. They are owed it by the Government.
Karen Lee
I have had a busy weekend, with two day-long galas in Lincoln—Boultham Park on Saturday and Lincoln Arboretum on Sunday. We had a petition about TV licences and were mobbed by people wanting to sign it. Everyone cross-party seems to agree, and in Lincoln I think 4,400 households will be affected. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally and utterly morally wrong to withdraw something so important, particularly when maintaining it was an election promise?
Stephen Morgan
I absolutely agree, and I echo the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) about our D-day veterans. I am proud that my grandfather was a D-day veteran from Southsea. I got into politics because towards the end of his life he needed services that, because of austerity, were not there for him. This change will affect so many people in our society.
Offering a free TV licence only to those in receipt of pension credit is an ill thought through plan that leaves the door open to injustice. We know that about 1.3 million over-75s are eligible for pension credit but do not or cannot claim it. When I met Age UK in Parliament to discuss that, it said that many older people struggle to self-validate that they are in receipt of pension credit, however straightforward the process is, because they are living with some loss of cognitive function or chronic illness. Therefore, those who are most vulnerable are set to lose the most.
This policy change means that at least 650,000 of our poorest pensioners face a new annual bill that they cannot afford. What does the Minister have to say about that silent segment of vulnerable pensioners who have fallen through the cracks in our welfare system and now face further financial turmoil because of a poorly thought through Government policy?
In response to my countless letters and numerous written questions, including a joint letter I wrote with the Portsmouth Pensioners Association to the Prime Minister, I have consistently been told that this decision was made by the BBC. Since when did a broadcasting organisation begin administering welfare? Will Marks & Spencer or Tesco be responsible for delivering universal credit? Should we expect National Express to begin dishing out free bus passes for the over-75s? As a colleague said, the BBC is not the Department for Work and Pensions. Any attempt made by the Government to palm off responsibility is cowardly, unconvincing and spineless.
Make no mistake: this is a Government decision. It is up to us to be the voice of our constituents, and my constituents have spoken. The TV licence must remain free for the over-75s.
Andrew Bridgen
May I press the hon. Gentleman further on the BBC and the TV licence? What about over-75s who want to watch ITV or Channel 4 but, because of the licensing system, have to pay for the BBC? Is it not an anachronism that non-payment of the TV tax remains a criminal offence in this country? How can he possibly defend any of that?
Stephen Morgan
My speech is based on what I hear from my constituents, and the people of Portsmouth have not raised that issue.
The arguments could not be more compelling. I urge the Minister to be bold and not to trot out the usual lines blaming the BBC. We have an opportunity to make a real difference to pensioners’ lives, and it must be taken. The universally free TV licence for over-75s must remain free.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is speaking in the main Chamber, so this is a safe haven for the next 45 minutes, I estimate.
I am an unashamed fan of the BBC. We keep talking about the TV licence fee, but it is worth rehearsing the fact that the BBC provides a huge range of services in at least five or six distinct areas. What I would loosely call the social aspect of the BBC is hard to define, but people forget that it funds five classical music orchestras. We could debate whether that is a good use of licence fee payers’ money, but there it is.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last week I hosted an event for the BBC at which it launched a new app called Own It, which is designed to help children to navigate social media. This week, I am hosting an event with the BBC for a scheme it is doing with the Arts and Humanities Research Council to fund doctoral students. Of course, we all celebrate the Proms. The BBC does a lot that no commercial organisation would do, much of which strays into the area of social good or the work of the Arts Council England. Frankly, I do not think it spends enough time telling people like us what it does in that field.
We refer to the TV licence fee, and we have heard a lot of citations from pensioners talking about how much they love television, but let us not forget radio. The BBC accounts for about 70% of radio listening. There are not just the national channels that we all listen to—Radio 4 and 5 Live for this demographic, I suspect, and also Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3 and 6 Music—but local radio, which is absolutely vital. In my constituency we have BBC Radio Oxford and, nationally, 39 local radio stations provide vital local coverage, in particular local news.
It is often BBC News that gets the BBC into trouble—there is always something for Brexiteers, remainers or Corbynistas to get their teeth into and object to. I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell)—I had no idea about his life as top-flight media executive; he was a star of the BBC World Service. There is also the Parliament channel, local radio news and the BBC’s website. However often we disagree at times with how the BBC covers particular aspects of news, we can all agree that in an era of fake and very biased news being disseminated on social media—we see the effect that that has had on politics in the United States—we are lucky to have, broadly speaking, an unbiased and objective news service at the heart of the BBC, which is widely respected in the UK and abroad.
Then there is BBC drama and entertainment, including “Strictly Come Dancing”, “Poldark”, which we all watched last night, and “8 Days”, which I watched this morning with my Cavapoo at home. Quality drama pervades the whole of the drama output of British television. One reason why British television is so respected around the world is because the BBC sets a quality anchor—a quality level—that everyone else aspires to, which would not be there without it.
Then there is the BBC’s foray into the world of commerce. It generates its own revenue to keep the licence fee within reason and sells its programmes all over the world. BBC Studios, which makes programmes, is now in profit. The BBC has made a foray into commercial television with UKTV, to which I shall return.
The BBC does much work to make itself as accessible as possible. The iPlayer is probably the most user-friendly TV platform—I include Netflix in that. The BBC has also supported the roll-out of digital radio, and it has constantly innovated in relation to apps, as more and more people are obviously accessing content on smartphones. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, BritBox, which it launched in the US with other commercial players, is now potentially being launched in the UK.
It is important to remember that there is a lot going on in the BBC. When people criticise it, they should ask themselves what we would do without it. I have to admit that it is a bit like the royal family—it is a bit of an anomaly. I am not sure whether we would invent it if we were starting from scratch, but it permeates our culture and I could not imagine a life without it, even though, as my hon. Friend said, it is not perfect and gets things wrong.
The issues facing the BBC include the licence fee itself, which we looked at when we undertook the charter review. We concluded that, rather like democracy, it is the least-worst option of funding the BBC. It maintains a level of independence from the Government and gives the BBC a secure income. By and large, it still works. It is not destined to last forever. It may be that the BBC eventually moves to a subscription model—we will have to wait and see. Let us not forget that the licence fee has evolved. There used to be a radio licence fee that people took out separately from the TV licence. There may be debates about whether there is a licence fee aspect of funding the BBC and a subscription aspect.
The BBC will continue to look at savings. It has taken about £1 billion in costs out of the organisation over the past 10 years, and it is right that it has done so. It has an existential challenge, in terms of competing with the commercial sector. It is a big elephant in the room, in so far as the UK media scene is concerned. Ten years ago, we could not move without every media organisation, including, funnily enough, The Guardian, complaining about its reach and scope. That has been dwarfed by the advent of Netflix, the resources that Sky will have following its takeover by Comcast, and Disney. The competition to fund content, and for eyeballs—not least given the changing ways that people are consuming content—will present real challenges to the BBC to remain relevant, particularly to a younger demographic. I do not envy it that.
The BBC faces challenges on which it can lead the way. It focuses far too much—this slightly contradicts what I just said—on saying, “How do I compete against ITV or Netflix?” and not enough on saying, “What does the privilege of a secure income from the licence fee allow me to do for the UK as a whole?”
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman is giving very compelling testimony about the value that the BBC adds to this country. I wholeheartedly endorse everything he has said. He is getting into the wider issue of the social value that the BBC adds. Elderly people frequently suffer from isolation and are unable to get out of the house. One of my constituents has said:
“I am disabled. I cannot go outside without my carer or my wheelchair. The television is my friend and companion.”
Does that not back up what the right hon. Gentleman has said? The BBC is about more than just entertainment; it adds social value over and above that.
Mr Vaizey
It certainly is. If I knew about the services that the BBC provides in greater depth, I could probably rattle off five or six others, beyond simply the television, that it provides for the hon. Lady’s constituent.
Perhaps this sounds like navel-gazing—I am coming to my conclusion—but I think the BBC could take a massive lead in supporting much greater diversity, including with disabled people and black and minority ethnic people, not just in front of the camera but behind it. It really could invest in that. That is not to say that, over the past 30 or 40 years, it has not been at the centre of training legions of people who now work across the media.
The issue that concerns MPs at the moment, however, is the BBC’s struggle with having the free TV licence foisted upon it. As I have said already in the main Chamber, that policy was forced on the BBC by the Government, by the Treasury. There was no negotiation—the BBC was going to take the free TV licence, whether it liked it or not, as far as the Treasury was concerned. The only room for negotiation was what the BBC might be able to claw back in order to mitigate the financial impact.
The decision was wrong, and it was made because the then Government had to meet their manifesto commitment—ironically—of making £12 billion in welfare cuts. It was the wrong decision to impose on the BBC, and this Government compounded it. Having forced it on the BBC, they are disgracefully trying to have their cake and eat it, saying, “It’s the BBC’s decision but we disagree with it.” If they are going to force the policy on the BBC, they should support its decision. If we could roll it back, an honest Government would take the policy back from the BBC, engage with the public and decide whether free TV licences are affordable.
My personal view—this is where I will lose the support of Opposition MPs—is that the free TV licences were a gift given by a previous Government without thinking whether it was financially sustainable. Reform of free TV licences is a perfectly sensible position to look at, and it seems to me that the BBC, after careful analysis, has come up with a sensible reform policy. However, the question is whether that should be the BBC’s role, and the answer to that is no.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for opening the debate.
In the UK, 3.6 million older people live alone, of whom more than 2 million are aged 75 and over. A huge proportion of those individuals rely on their television to alleviate the loneliness that often comes when people live by themselves. Taking away free TV licences for the over-75s who are not in receipt of pension credit will detrimentally affect people who have worked hard all their lives. It will affect working-class areas, such as my constituency, the most—more than 3,000 households in Swansea East could lose their free TV licence.
The change will affect people such as my dad, who is in the excellent care of Anglesey ward in Morriston Hospital, no doubt watching television with his fellow patients. My dad worked hard all his life as a bus driver. He is now 89 years of age, with a small pension as well as a state pension to live on. He lives alone, since my mum passed away, and he relies a lot on his television to ease the common loneliness that can occur when older people live by themselves. He will now have to stretch his pension to pay for his TV licence—something that he had not planned for.
My dad is just one story, but one that will be common across the UK among those affected by the change. When the news broke that the free TV licence was ending, my neighbours Merv and Kitty, an elderly couple, immediately called my husband to ask him if it was true that they would now have to pay for a licence. Merv’s reaction was, “Stuff ’em. We won’t bother putting the TV on,” while Kitty’s was, “I can’t get out of the house and I really need my TV.” Immediately, therefore, a domestic started about whether they kept the TV or paid the licence.
Merv and Kitty worked all their lives saving for their pension—a small pension, but one that makes them ineligible for a free licence. Neither my Dad, nor Kitty and Merv are well off, and they are certainly not rich, but they are being treated as such. They now face an extra annual cost that is without doubt unfair and unnecessary. At their age, and with the contribution that they have made to this country over many years, a free TV licence is the least that we can give them.
Linking the over-75s’ free TV licence to pension credit is cruel. Pension credit is widely underclaimed by older people. In Swansea East alone, each year more than £6.5 million in pension credit does not reach the people who are entitled to it. So what about those who will not get their free TV licence because they are unaware that they are entitled to pension credit or, for whatever reason, have been unable to access it?
The decision to end free TV licences for the most vulnerable is shocking. For the sake of people out there such as my dad, Kitty and Merv, and all our elderly population, the least we can do to show them respect is to give them a free TV licence.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I particularly wanted to speak in this debate because I am a fan of the BBC and I value it as a national institution. However, I fear that it is being held back by its outdated funding mechanism. For the BBC’s own good, I want to outline why new avenues of funding need to be explored.
I fear that, by seeking to maintain its outdated funding mechanism, the BBC is handing its critics a big stick with which to beat it increasingly hard, especially following the most recent decision on free TV licences for the over-75s. A television licence designed for the tiny market for TV broadcasting in the 1920s is utterly at odds with the staggering array of live, online and recorded broadcasting market options now available, as well as with the ever-growing and emerging technologies in the sector as we enter the 2020s. The television licence is nearly an antique. It is a punitive tax that belongs in the past if the BBC is to survive and thrive as a public service and as a worldwide entertainment broadcaster into the future.
The BBC has an enviable international reputation for excellence, and one that we must celebrate in this House and not begrudge. In an opinion poll last year, the BBC was rated the most trusted news brand in America, with a staggering 90%, beating Fox, CBS, CNN, Bloomberg and others. I was not surprised to see, in line with that finding from overseas, that while many hundreds of my constituents signed the petition to abolish the TV licence, barely 100 signed the petition for an inquiry into alleged bias—a point that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who introduced the debate, touched on. To have been trained by or gained experienced in the BBC is a world-class addition to any broadcaster or producer’s CV, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) knows only too well.
All that is good about the BBC needs to be preserved and refreshed. We must support the BBC as an institution for the important value—in the widest sense of the word —that it adds to our national life and our international soft power, cultural standing and esteem. In that vein, as a friend of the BBC, I wish it would embrace the possibility of securing alternative funding to the anachronistic and criminalising television licence regime.
In the days when the BBC was the only broadcaster available in the UK, the licence would have seemed an obvious choice of funding, but the world has changed. We can receive a great number of television channels, not only from the UK but from overseas. Now, many people can record, pause and rewind live TV as part of their subscription, and a significant proportion subscribe to a number of pay-TV services in the UK. The figure was 15.1 million in the first quarter of 2018, while online subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon and Now TV combined totalled 15.4 million.
That state of affairs, as the Institute of Economic Affairs has pointed out, acts as a perverse incentive for television makers not to make televisions multifunctional. We do not need a television licence to own a phone that could be used to watch television programmes, but we do need a television licence to own a television that can be used as a phone. As we enter the 2020s, mobile multifunctional devices are ever more ubiquitous, and we cannot uninvent them, any more than we could uninvent the transistor radios that made the old radio licence an unsustainable nonsense, finally leading to the abolition of the radio-only licence in 1971. We need to look at all possible means of financing the BBC that do not involve any kind of archaic household licence to own an everyday consumer good.
Helen Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman outline for us how he proposes that we should fund those channels and programmes that appeal only to minorities and would never attract a commercial sponsor? Also, how would he fund other aspects of the BBC, such as the Proms, its classical orchestras and so on?
Jack Brereton
I am about to get to that point. We need to do away with the inspectors and the prosecutions to enforce the licence. That might mean looking at the potential for paid on-demand digital broadcasting, or some form of subscription package, as we see with Sky, Netflix, Virgin, Amazon Prime and others. that might mean allowing programme sponsorship and advertising, as we see on most channels, such as ITV and, of course, Channel 4. As has been referred to, Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady was wrong when she said that there is only one channel—Channel 4 has a number of channels, including E4 and others.
Jack Brereton
No, I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
I thank Channel 4 for taking on the BBC hit pottery programme, Stoke-on-Trent’s own “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, following the BBC’s unfortunate and, frankly, wrong decision not to commission a new series.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Channel 4 is a public sector broadcaster and receives subsidies, as my hon. Friend mentioned, but Channel 4 outbid the BBC for one of its own programmes, “The Great British Bake Off”. Channel 4 behaves like a commercial organisation, whereas the BBC does not—it grows organically and then, unfortunately, gets taken advantage of.
Jack Brereton
I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, but I suggest that a number of the programmes on Channel 4 add a huge amount of good to the country and beyond, as do many commercial stations. Many of the programmes that I enjoy on Channel 4 are factual and not just entertainment.
For programmes in the arts, crafts and culture sphere, perhaps there could be Arts Council-style grants, particularly for the purest of public good, public service broadcasts, if appropriate safeguards against interest group capture can be devised. They would not necessarily have to be made by the BBC, but could be funded by competitive tender through the BBC as a grant-awarding body. There could be more collaborative work with educational institutions, such as the Open University or others, to finance certain programme output.
It is certainly worth looking at the potential for purchased ticketing for BBC recordings. BBC shows are free to attend, but BBC tours are paid ticketed. There is clearly sufficient demand for those tours to make charges sustainable and to raise revenue. I wonder, too, given the huge waiting list and interest in shows such as “Strictly Come Dancing”, whether the market mechanism of paid ticketing might be an option to manage that demand. I have heard it said that at one point the waiting list for audience tickets to “Top Gear” was measured in decades. What an incentive it would be for the BBC to keep producing compelling programmes if it made audience ticket revenue.
At the moment, tickets to BBC shows are available to anyone with a UK postcode. There is clearly some kind of ticket pricing to be explored, perhaps even differential ticket pricing where a tour is included, or hospitality and so on. There is certainly a chance for some entrepreneurialism. I do not pretend for a moment that ticket sales would ever raise the sums raised by the TV licence, but they could be one of a number of streams that the BBC could pursue for certain programmes.
Andrew Bridgen
My hon. Friend is making some important points. BBC iPlayer is inaccessible outside the UK but it hosts the BBC’s back catalogue, which the licence fee payers have funded over decades. Surely a huge source of income for the BBC would be to allow people in the English-speaking world access, for a cost, to the BBC’s back catalogue through BBC iPlayer.
Jack Brereton
I entirely agree. It has been mentioned that the BBC seeks quite a significant income from international broadcast rights, and it could build on that substantially if it used the BBC iPlayer brand more effectively overseas.
The future of broadcasting, and of the BBC, is exciting. The BBC must not allow itself to stay in the past. I fear that the licence fee has become a comfort blanket that threatens to be a deadweight as other broadcasters move forward in the international market. As an admirer of the BBC, and as someone who values it as a vital institution for our country, I hope that it will enthusiastically embrace the opportunities for alternative funding streams that must be explored now that the television licence is all but antique.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I will speak briefly on behalf of the 570 people in my constituency who signed the petition calling on the Government to continue funding free TV licences for the over-75s. I mentioned in my intervention that at the weekend we were out as a party collecting signatures, and I imagine we got at least another couple of hundred more.
I am proud that we were in the top 50 constituencies to oppose this unjust and mean-spirited policy. It is totally unacceptable that over 4,400 households in Lincoln could lose their free TV licence under the plans. A recent survey found that 40% of older people say the television is their main source of company, and the Government seem determined to means-test loneliness and isolation. Nationally, it is estimated that over 1.6 million pensioners living alone will lose their free licence in a means-tested system. That is symptomatic of the Government’s whole approach. They should not offload responsibility for funding free TV licences on to the BBC. In fact, it seems that whatever question we ask in the Chamber, the responsibility is always pushed to somebody else.
It is particularly worrying that a further 1.3 million poorer over-75s who are eligible for pension credit but do not claim it are projected to lose their TV licence. That is one reason I will launch a campaign in Lincoln to end the pension credit scandal. More than 1 million pensioners in the UK do not get the pension credit they are entitled to. Those people generally have worked all their lives—they should get those benefits. My campaign will seek to raise awareness and offer support to those who are missing out on that crucial support.
I am aware that many hon. Members still want to speak, and we are all speaking along the same lines, so let me end by saying that it is typical of this Government to choose to cut taxes for corporations and the highest earners, while targeting their spending cuts on vulnerable older people who are struggling to make ends meet. That is morally wrong.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate all the petitioners who have made this debate happen. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary BBC group, which seeks to support the BBC but also to be a critical friend when required. I was going to speak about the real positives that the BBC delivers, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) did just that. I am reminded of Lord Patten, who said:
“No-one would invent the BBC today. But thank God our predecessors did.”
In many ways the BBC is an anomaly, but it is much loved. As my right hon. Friend made clear, in an era when we have much to be concerned about—bias, influence, commercialisation and exposure to young audience members—it is fantastic that the BBC still stands for independence, impartiality, entertainment, excellence and education. We would lose that at our peril. Indeed, one need only speak to friends and colleagues who have moved abroad, and they all say that the one thing they miss greatly is watching the BBC.
I want to pick up on a point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) about the BBC’s ability to sell more of its content abroad. BritBox, which is being piloted by the BBC and ITV, is a good example of where the BBC does innovate. It will allow audiences from outside the UK to view its content, at a charge. That is a good example of where the BBC is trying to make money from its own content.
I want to focus my remarks on the decision that the BBC has been required to take. I say “required” because I do not care what anyone says; there is no way that the BBC will be able to use 20% of its budget to carry on with the current position. The BBC did consult widely—I remember back in February inviting all MPs to come and hear about the proposals and what they would mean, and to get involved and get their constituents involved. The options were as follows: it could copy the current scheme, which means that 4.64 million over-75s would continue as is, but that would cost £745 million, rising to £1 billion by the end of 2030 because we are all living longer—that is to be celebrated, but it pushes up the cost. That would be equivalent to the funding for BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, BBC News and all the BBC’s output for children, so it is clearly not sustainable.
Those who say, “Well, what about Gary Lineker’s salary?” should bear in mind that if the BBC axed the pay for all the talent earning above £150,000 it would save £20 million, so there would still be a long way to go to reach the £745 million. By the way, I am a big fan of Gary Lineker and think he gives value for money. [Interruption.] I have lost some hon. Members on that point. I am surprised to hear that from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire, with Gary Lineker being a great Leicester player. Brexit has obviously ended that relationship.
The second option was removing the benefit altogether, which would mean that the poorest over-75s would have no option at all. I know that the Government would say that they funded the BBC to some regard, but to a degree I am surprised that the BBC has not chosen that option. The third option was a 50% discount, so everyone over the age of 75 gets the benefit, but only 50% of it. That would still cost £415 million, which is equivalent to the entire BBC 2 budget. The other option was raising the threshold to the age of 80, which would cost £481 million and be equivalent to BBC 2’s budget or BBC 4.
Of all the options, the one that we have landed on was the one that found most favour. I will not say that it was liked, because I do not think that anyone liked it, but linking the benefit to pension credit means that 900,000 over-75s will still benefit. It will cost £209 million, which the BBC will still have to bear, and that is greater than the funding it was given to take it on. That amount is still the same as the cost of Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4 and Radio 5. That is where the BBC has found itself.
I believe in telling it as it is. The BBC has agreed to this, but I do not think it was given much option—it was either agree to this or to something else. The BBC was not funded for it. Probably due to a copy and paste mechanism, our last manifesto said that we would guarantee free TV licences for the over-75s for the term of this Parliament. I am not confident that that means 2022.
Huw Merriman
I certainly do not know something that the hon. Lady does not know.
We made a manifesto commitment that now puts us in a difficult position, if the BBC is going to take away the licence fee for those outside the means test from 2020 to 2022. It leads to an argument for the Government Benches that the Government would need to carry on funding it, at least for that two-year period.
I take issue with the petitions—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), I will now lose part of the room, or perhaps all of it. Although I understand the cost implication for those who cannot afford the licence fee—I absolutely recognise that pension credit is at its lowest level and that those just outside the pension credit boundary will struggle to meet this cost—I have a fundamental problem, which I am surprised that Opposition Members do not share. If a multi-millionaire happens to be over the age of 75, they receive a free universal benefit that is effectively being subsidised by someone in their early 20s who is renting and cannot afford to buy a property of their own.
I believe that there is a cost to everything and there are choices. The Government spend £800 billion each year on our public services. If we are spending money on people who can afford to pay, ultimately that means either that somebody else has got to pay for it or that somebody else will not receive the same benefit.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting points. Earlier in the debate reference was made to a public good. A public good is defined as a service, such as healthcare or education, that we feel is so important to us as a society that we collectively provide it. The BBC is a public good; it has a value for our democracy, for our community cohesion and for society generally. Therefore, we should pay for it collectively and not leave people who are over 75, and who cannot afford to pay for it themselves because they have no means, to pay for it. We should provide it collectively, as a public good.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman, who I know worked for the BBC, makes a good point. I agree that the BBC is a public good, but there are other public goods that one can think of where we require people to pay or we means-test them.
I have a fundamental issue with it. I am sorry to use these words, but I think it was an election bribe. Once something is given for free, it is difficult to ask people to start paying for it. I recognise that challenge. I ask all right hon. and hon. Members to consider this: if this is always going to be a cost, and we have to make decisions, then should the welfare state be providing something for people who can readily afford it, so that we are unable to spend more on those who really are at the borderline? I say that not to get electoral gain; I represent a constituency that has the second highest proportion of over-75s in the country, so I commit electoral suicide. It is important that we address this; if we do not, we will find that other decisions will be made or will not be reviewed. I am particularly worried about inter-generational fairness; people are missing out because we preserve benefits for people on the basis of age rather than means.
My last point is to the Minister. She is an excellent Minister and she has inherited this package, if I can call it that, from predecessors in the Treasury. I believe that we need to look at this again. It is a big challenge. We made a commitment in our manifesto that we should stick by it. As for the future—and that gives us time to think about the future—I would like us to address whether it is affordable to give people a benefit that they would be able to pay for themselves.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I too will speak in support of the petition for the restoration of TV licences for the over-75s. Like many other hon. Members, I was deeply concerned by the announcement that the TV licence concessions for the over-75s would now be linked to pension credit. As many hon. Members have said, this is a problem of the Government’s own making. Ministers cannot hide behind the BBC, because it was their decision to outsource responsibility for TV licences, despite the manifesto pledge to maintain the benefit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, they have been devolving the blame.
Some 3,770 households in Newport East are set to lose their licences under the changes, and across the wider Gwent region that rises to 23,450 households, with a total annual cost across all households of over £567,000. As other hon. Members have said, TV licences are an important benefit for older people, who suffer disproportionately from isolation and loneliness. As the excellent Age Cymru has said, for millions of over-75s the TV is not just the box in the corner; it is their constant companion, their window on the world and their main form of company.
TV is also an essential source of information for people who are not online, and it plays a crucial role in their ability to be an active citizen in our democracy. Research from Age Cymru shows that only 29% of over-75s in Wales use the internet. The shift to information being online has already made it more difficult for older people to keep informed and to access key services. Removing the entitlement to a free TV licence would add substantially to these difficulties.
Linking the concession to pension credit is also hugely problematic. Estimates by the Department for Work and Pensions suggest that two in every five people eligible for pension credit are not claiming the benefit. In Newport East alone that is almost £5 million of unclaimed pension credit that is not reaching the people who need it each year. Until the Government act to ensure that everyone who is entitled to pension credit receives it, a huge number of older people risk losing out on two benefits at once if the TV licence proposals go ahead. That is the problem with it not being universal.
As Age Cymru has highlighted, there are many reasons why older people do not claim pension credit: they may not know the benefit exists; they may feel they are not entitled to any help; they may be put off by the process of claiming; they may struggle on alone, assuming that others are worse off than them; or they may be living with dementia, as other hon. Members have mentioned. In practical terms, there are serious questions to ask about how the BBC will ensure that people with dementia will be able to pay their licence fee and, if they do not, how non-payment will be enforced. It does not bear thinking about. Age Cymru has said that there may be 850,000 people affected by that.
I want to finish by citing an example from my constituency. In the week that the licence fee proposals were outlined, candidates in the Conservative leadership election began to outline their plans to cut taxes for the wealthiest in society. Days later I was contacted by the neighbour of an 86-year-old armed forces veteran in Newport who is set to lose his TV licence under the new proposal. I know that Defence Ministers are concerned about that. The contrast underlines and amplifies the fact that the Conservative party has a serious question to answer about where its priorities lie and the kind of country it wants us to live in. I echo the calls from campaigners and charities such as Age Cymru for the UK Government to take back the funding and administration fee for the free TV licence scheme and let the BBC focus on its job of being a brilliant national broadcaster. TV licences are a social benefit that should not have been outsourced.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. Like some of my Conservative colleagues, I am, broadly speaking, a supporter of the BBC, but I readily admit that that is weakening somewhat. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) outlined some of the great benefits of the BBC, ranging from support for the Proms and orchestras to, of course, the BBC World Service, where my hon. Friend was an eminent producer, or perhaps director. I would happily pay the licence fee for Radio 4, local radio and “Test Match Special”, to name just three—but, as has been pointed out, we can afford it. I rather wish that Radio 4 would go silent at 6.30 pm, when it broadcasts inane comedies, but that is just a personal opinion.
On the question of celebrity and sports star pay, I am sorry that Gary Lineker and the £1.75 million paid to him keep coming up in the debate, but the BBC, which is a public sector organisation, needs to reflect that that amount of money is out of bounds to most people. Those I represent would not earn that in their lifetime, working over 40 to 50 years. Would I still watch “Match of the Day” if it was presented by some unknown? Yes, because I do not watch it to hear the gossip; I watch it to see the action.
As for the decision about the over-75s, this day was certain to come. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, the policy was foisted on the BBC by the Treasury. It was inevitable that it would opt out at the first possible opportunity and cause embarrassment to the Administration in office at the time. So it has, and it is a great opportunity for Opposition Members to have a go at the Government, when they did little on their own in this respect.
The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) moved on from arguments about the licence fee to discuss the leadership of the Conservative party and reflect on some of the policies put forward by my right hon. Friends the Members for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). She talked about tax cuts and said that we in this Chamber do not need them. Perhaps so, but we do not need free TV licences either. The sustainability of such universal benefits must be looked at, whether they are TV licences, bus passes or whatever. They cannot go on draining the taxpayer when so many essential services are needed. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who is no longer in her place, referred to a survey. If people on the streets of Cleethorpes were asked whether they would rather pay for something or have it for free, just as in Lincoln it would be no surprise if they said, “We would rather have it for nothing.” The reality is of course different.
With regard to news bias, there is no doubt that the BBC is, in effect, The Guardian of the airwaves, rather than the Daily Express. It is perhaps not so much that there is bias; of course the BBC will say that it gets as many complaints from one side as the other, so it must therefore be getting things right. However, there is a rather superior intonation in some of the questions from interviewers, as if to say, “Do you really think that people would vote for Brexit?” That is an insult to the 70% of my electorate who voted for Brexit—and very wise they are too.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that the potential for BBC bias is not only in how it reports what it reports, but in the fact that 70% of the public rely on it for much of their news, and the BBC has the power to decide what is or is not reported in the news?
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no doubt that many important events in this country and around the world go unreported, when items that in the great scheme of things are perhaps more trivial find their way on to the airwaves, and perhaps that is a reflection of the organisation itself.
I am still, broadly speaking, a supporter of the BBC. I should like it to continue in some shape or form, if that is realistic in this multi-channel age when sports rights, for example, cost the earth. Lesser sports, shall we say, are now coming on to the BBC, and I have no problem with that. It is only right that they should get an airing. However, after the success of the Lionesses in the recent women’s World cup, there is no doubt that Sky, BT or someone else will come sniffing around by the time of the next women’s World cup, and it will be lost to the great majority. We saw only yesterday, with the cricket world cup, how free-to-air brings the country together on great sporting occasions.
I suspect that if I am home by 10 o’clock tonight I shall watch the 10 o’clock news on the BBC rather than any of the other offerings, but I think that the BBC needs to reflect. I am content with the present system continuing for at least the foreseeable future. I am not entirely convinced that the majority of my constituents would agree. That should cause the BBC and the Minister to reflect on the present structure and whether it can continue.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, and to take part in the debate opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who gave an outstanding introduction, as usual. She talked about the “not me, guv” Government, and she is right, because their consistent modus operandi with public services is to slash a public authority’s funding and blame it when it is unable to deliver the service. Alternatively, when the public authority has to put up its prices to compensate for the lack of money from central Government, they will attack it politically for doing so. We have seen that happen with failures of local government services, such as the fire service and the police. The epidemic horror of knife crime is apparently nothing to do with the 20,000 fewer police officers, or the cuts to children’s services. Apparently it is all the fault of the Mayor of London. A similar thing can be seen in the debate about the BBC licence fee. The BBC was presented with huge cuts to its budget and was forced to take the blame when it had to charge the licence fee to over-75s. It is part of a consistent practice by the Government that needs to be exposed and resisted.
[Dame Cheryl Gillan in the Chair]
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) talked about some of the services that would be affected were the BBC to have to take on the whole amount. In total that could be £700 million a year. That would be the cost of BBC 2, BBC 4, BBC News, BBC Scotland and BBC Radio 5 Live and, crucially, local radio stations. Given the crisis in local newspapers, the BBC is in some areas often the only real provider of the quality local news that binds communities together. It can do that because of the licence fee.
There is what is known as an ecosystem in broadcaster funding. Each broadcaster in the UK is funded differently. ITV is funded largely through advertising, with some production work. Sky has a subscription and some production work and advertising. It all knits together particularly well. I must say that, if we move away from the current model to one where the BBC or parts of it had to either use subscription or enter into advertising, I am pretty sure not only that existing channels would be unhappy but that it would damage their operations. That is not to mention the question how we take on the influence of the global giants based on the west coast of the United States.
I, too, have a problem with the size of some of the salaries paid to BBC presenters. I have a particular problem with the use of the word “talent” to describe on-air performers and presenters, whether on radio or TV, because it suggests that the whole attraction of a particular broadcast is based on the individual who presents it. Make-up artists, production designers and junior producers are all talented, and the quality of the programming is vested in all of them and not simply in the person who is in front of the microphone or the camera.
Why on earth did the BBC accept this cut to its budget and the enforced taking on of the licence for over-75s? The simple truth, as other hon. Members have already mentioned, is that it was forced to do so. If we speak to senior BBC management, we hear that they were left in no doubt that this was being forced on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who was on the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport with me, called it a “drive-by shooting”. A Treasury Minister—I think this was while George Osborne was Chancellor—told the BBC, “This is the way it’s going to be, so make the best of it.” When BBC management said that they were quite happy with the solution, that was not the case—but what else could they say when they had a gun to their head?
There is also another, more sinister reason. I was on the DCMS Committee when Rona Fairhead, the then chair of the BBC Trust, attended a pre-appointment scrutiny session for the position of chair of the new BBC board. Before she appeared before us, we were informed that after her meeting at Downing Street with the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, she had a private meeting with him without any civil servants present. That was put to her, and she admitted that it was the case. As it happened, the Committee declined to confirm her appointment, but the situation does give rise to the question why the BBC governors at the time did not resist the idea of the over-75s licence fee being deposited on them. Coincidentally, Rona Fairhead was shortly afterwards appointed to the House of Lords and made a member of the Government. I am not suggesting that those two incidents are linked—
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
But of course you should be.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend suggests that I should be. It does not give off a particularly pleasant smell to have a part of the Government giving out favours to get a policy through. It stinks, and it ought not to be allowed. Even the perception that a deal was done—because that is one of the possible perceptions—ought not to be allowed.
The BBC licence fee, as we have heard, represents so much more than simply a broadcasting service for older people in particular. I simply ask: if we do not provide the service and social isolation continues, what is the cost then of having to look after more people with more advanced dementia? What is the cost of having to provide social services elsewhere for older people whose quality of life is deteriorating? There are hidden costs involved, and we find once again that the BBC licence fee gives huge value for money in a much broader context than that of simply listening to the radio or watching television.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Cheryl. As has already been mentioned, I need to declare an interest; unlike the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), I rejected the advice of my father, who said I had a great face for radio, and decided to become a BBC TV reporter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on securing this crucial debate.
What could be more crucial in this period of political instability than the question of BBC bias, which is what I will address in my speech? I think hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will not mention “Panorama”. I do not need to. This is a target-rich environment. When it comes to BBC bias, or impartiality and the BBC, we often find, as in this debate, that there are a lot of contradictory claims and counter-claims. That is partly because the BBC produces a vast amount of content, featuring a range of people and opinions, meaning that everyone will at some point see something to complain about.
Unfortunately, at times that has led representatives and defenders of the BBC to dismiss all criticism of its reporting. “If we are attacked from both sides,” the argument goes, “then we must be doing something right.” However, when faced with conflicting claims, we cannot just dismiss them all and assume that everything is fine; we must assess which are accurate—or which are more accurate.
When it comes to climate change, there is a weight of evidence among the scientific community, and then there are the ideas put about by right-wing think tanks, newspapers and politicians. Similarly, when it comes to debates about the BBC, there are the allegations of bias advanced by many of those same right-wing interests, and then there are the findings of independent academic research. What does the social scientific evidence tell us about BBC impartiality? One consistent finding is that the BBC allows the press and senior politicians to set the agenda for its reporting. In the BBC’s Bridcut report of 2007, it acknowledged that impartiality should mean representing a range of views in society, not just the perceived political centre ground or the balance of opinion in Westminster.
However, research by Cardiff University found that, five years later, BBC News was still dominated by elite sources with—and this is key—an over-representation of Conservative and Eurosceptic views. During the EU referendum, that “impartiality as balance” paradigm, which seems always to lean to the right, was scrupulously applied to the two sides of the referendum campaign, but with the right dominating both. Research by Loughborough University found that Conservative and UK Independence party representatives accounted for 74% of all party political appearances on television news. Cardiff University found an even higher level of prominence, with Conservatives and UKIP together accounting for almost 80% of politicians.
The striking domination of our political debate by the right is exacerbated by the influence of right-wing newspapers. One of the key functions of the BBC should be to act as a bulwark against misinformation and the abuses of private power, but how can it perform that function if its news agenda is set by an often unscrupulous, partisan press, owned by a handful of billionaires, which has spent decades misinforming people on every important issue of the day? Again, we can look at the research: Cardiff University found that more than half of BBC News policy stories during the 2015 general election originated with the press, with The Daily Telegraph and The Times leading the pack, and the right, once again, dominating overall.
Another crucial issue on which this has had an impact, alongside reporting on immigration and the EU, is austerity. There is now a fairly substantive body of work examining the reporting of the 2008 financial crisis, including, for example, Mike Berry’s recent book. Berry shows that the economic debate, at that crucial time for our country, was skewed toward the right, and that even mainstream economic opinion was marginalised in favour of the disinformation emanating from the Conservative party and its allies in the press.
I could go on, but the overall picture is clear: not only is BBC News overwhelmingly orientated towards the political and economic establishment but, in so far as it exhibits any political bias, it tends to be towards the right. The story behind that pattern of reporting is detailed in Tom Mills’s 2016 book on the BBC. The organisation has always been a quasi-state broadcaster, orientated toward officialdom and particularly vulnerable to pressure from the Government of the day, as the last charter renewal process showed.
The situation got much worse from the 1980s onwards, when the BBC became increasingly marketised and politicised. Independent reporting was curtailed as editorial and managerial authority was consolidated, funding was cut and services and programme making were contracted out. In short, the BBC’s public service ethos, which was always far too elitist anyway, was steadily eroded while the BBC was slowly privatised. None of that opened it up to a wider range of voices. The privately educated and Oxbridge graduates still dominate—just as they do the press, as a recent Sutton Trust report shows—but the BBC became an elitist organisation more in step with neoliberal Britain.
I have no doubt that the Brexiteers want a BBC that is even more right wing, even more vulnerable to Government pressure and even less economically literate in its reporting—or, alternatively, no BBC at all. Meanwhile, some on the left are so disillusioned with the BBC that they have given up on it altogether. That is a mistake. There are serious problems with the BBC that cannot be ignored, but they can be resolved by making it genuinely independent of Governments—of the left and the right—and accountable not to a narrow elite but to its own staff and to the communities it should represent. The left has always been a friend to the BBC, and should remain so, but securing a public and democratic media system with the BBC at its heart will require radical change.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, in this important debate for pensioners across the country. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for securing the debate and the 170,000 people who signed the online petition calling on the Government to protect free TV licences for those aged 75 and over. They join the 600,000 people who signed Age UK’s petition calling for the Government to act on this issue.
There is a real sense of public anger at the injustice of the decision to end free TV licences for all those aged 75 and over, with many saying that they will not pay. I have felt that public anger in my constituency. Many of my constituents cannot understand why the Government refuse to stand up for pensioners. I have spoken to constituents who will be directly affected by the Government’s inaction, coming from the more than 3,000 local households set to lose a free TV licence.
The Government have betrayed my constituents, along with the pensioners of this country. There was a clear promise in the 2017 Conservative party manifesto that free TV licences would be protected until the end of this Parliament, yet the Government chose to outsource the responsibility and the financial burden of free TV licences to the BBC. They have successfully shifted the blame on to the BBC for the decision to end free TV licences for all those aged 75 and over. However, the Government must take responsibility. They made a cynical promise to pensioners that they had no intention of keeping. I have repeatedly spoken out in Parliament to highlight the fact that the Government’s promise to our pensioners now lies in tatters. When the Labour party held an Opposition day debate on this issue, the Government Benches were all but empty. The Government did not dare vote against Labour’s motion, because they know that they have betrayed the trust of pensioners across the country.
When I confronted the Prime Minister on the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, her answer could not have been weaker. She told the BBC to “think again”, but it is the Prime Minister, whose days are numbered, who must think again. She was the architect of the 2017 Conservative manifesto, which contained a clear promise to protect free TV licences for those aged 75 and over. In one of her last acts as Prime Minister, she should live up to the pledge she gave when she first entered Downing Street to tackle the burning injustices in our society. She should protect our pensioners by ensuring that free TV licences for all those aged 75 and over are maintained.
As things stand, from June 2020 free TV licences will be restricted to those aged 75 and over who claim pension credit. The BBC claims that this will ensure that the poorest pensioners are protected, but its own analysis suggests that just 11% of the poorest households would keep their free TV licence if it was linked to pension credit, and that the poorest 10th of over-75s would have to spend more than 2% of their total income on the TV licence.
There are also clearly issues with the take-up of pension credit. As has been mentioned, the DWP’s latest estimates highlight the fact that two out of five people aged 75 and over who should be claiming pension credit have not done so. Independent Age found more than £7 million of pension credit going unclaimed in my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill alone. If there is £7 million in my constituency, how much more is out there? However, the Government appear to be doing little to encourage greater take-up of pension credit among those aged 75 and over.
Let us be clear that the decision to restrict free TV licences will increase both poverty and, more importantly, loneliness among our pensioners. One in four over-75s say that the TV is their main source of company, after having brought up their family and then being left alone. I know that. I lost my mother last year, and I know that my dad depends so much on the TV nowadays.
This decision will do nothing to stop the continuing rise of pensioner poverty across the UK. We are often told by the Government that they are on the side of pensioners, yet they still refuse to act to protect pensioners’ interests. It is time for the Government to stop blaming the BBC and start taking responsibility. It is time for them to keep their promise and protect the TV licence for the over-75s.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Dame Cheryl—having recently supported HS2, I am sure.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
I think the hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken on my support for HS2. [Laughter.]
Graham Stringer
Right.
David Plowright was one of the great leaders of commercial television. He was the chief executive of Granada Television for many years, where great documentaries and “World in Action” were produced, as well as groundbreaking drama and excellent regional news, and he went on to become the deputy chair of Channel 4. His criteria for the BBC—one of his main competitors—was that it was there to keep the commercial side of television honest. He wanted to support it, and he wanted it to be as good as it possibly could be. It is interesting that, all around this debate, people have to different degrees supported the BBC. Nobody would create it as it is today if we were starting afresh, but there is enormous support, respect and affection for it.
On bias and other aspects of the BBC, my worry is that there is a certain decadence within the organisation, by which I mean a decaying of standards in all sorts of areas of reporting, which, if it continues, might mean that if this debate took place in five or 10 years, there would not be as much support for what is in effect the state broadcaster, supported by a flat-rate tax. I agree partially with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) that there is one obvious reason for that, although there may well be others: the people who run, report and work for the BBC are primarily drawn from London and Oxbridge, and they have a common view of the world that leads to certain conclusions.
Where I probably disagree with my hon. Friend is my guess that that gives them an almost coherent, homogenous view of the EU and what our relationship with the EU should be. Although this is more difficult to substantiate, I nevertheless think that it also means that, privately, they think they are right and that their view of the world is correct, and that the people who I represent—who are, by and large, not as well educated and do not have the same level of income or educational achievement—are probably wrong.
That is never stated publicly, and I have many friends who are BBC executives and reporters and who do their best. I would never question the integrity of individual BBC reporters. They are doing their best, but it is a fact that there will not be many people working in the BBC who are from the poorest parts of the United Kingdom and would give a different view on the matter. I think that is one reason why we see such high salaries. To someone in the organisation from the background that I have described, having a salary of nearly £2 million might not seem as obscene as it does to most of the people I represent. I do not believe that Gary Lineker was a great footballer; I do not believe that he is—whatever it is—20 or 15 times better at his job than Gabby Logan.
Huw Merriman
The point that I want to make is not so much about Gary Lineker; it is just the fact that the BBC operates in a commercial environment. If it does not pay its talent a commercial wage—many of them actually earn less than the commercial wage—it will lose that talent to other organisations, and then people will switch off the BBC and it will lose viewers.
Graham Stringer
That is a reasonable point as far as it goes. The BBC has not only paid very high salaries in a discriminatory way over the last five years; when it was found to be discriminating, it increased those salaries. It is the case that there are places within the BBC that have to compete commercially, but the fact that it has increased the number of people presenting sports programmes surely shows that there is not a shortage. It could get very high-quality people at a lower rate. Let us say that Gary Lineker goes to BT or Sky; I think that the people at the BBC who are earning a lot less are as good. I understand the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), but I do not think that it stands up in that case or many others.
I think that John Humphrys is one of the best interviewers there has been on the BBC. He has dropped his salary, but I do not think that he was ever worth more than £600,000 or that the private sector was going to pay that amount of money for him. I have no idea what Andrew Neil gets paid at the moment, but it is a great pity that another great interviewer is leaving the BBC. I do not know whether that is down to commercial pressure or just because he is a bit cheeky and teases the BBC management, but it is a great pity. He gives politicians all round the clock a pretty tough and torrid time when he interviews them, and that is a great thing for democracy. But I think that, from that narrow base, we do get a distorted view.
Incidentally, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that £20 million would not pay the licence fees for the over-75s. I accept that; it is just simple arithmetic. But—it is a big but—£20 million is still quite a lot of money, and one of the aspects of the BBC that I appreciate is the quality of regional radio, which is massively underfunded. In regional radio, £20 million would go a long way. Compared with when I started out in politics, which was a long time ago, what is put out by BBC Radio Manchester now—its political coverage and the rest of its coverage—on less resources is not as comprehensive. The quality of the people doing it is excellent, but there simply are not as many of them and there is not as much. That is because of underfunding.
I want to give three or four examples, if I may, of where I think this cohort of south-eastern, Oxbridge-educated people get it wrong. I will say, and the point has already been made, that any organisation with human beings in it is going to make mistakes. The mistakes themselves are mistakes, but they do indicate a larger problem with the BBC.
The BBC procured and presented on BBC Three, when it was a channel, a series of programmes called “People Like Us”. That was based in the ward that I used to represent as a councillor and that is still in the constituency I represent. Frankly, it was poverty porn. It gave the most distorted view of one of the poorest wards in the country. Depending on how we count these things—it is not a competition that any ward or constituency wants to win—Harpurhey is the poorest or the third poorest ward in the country. Cameras went along and the people making the programme pretended—it was a pretence—that they were following how people in Harpurhey lived. They were not; they were distorting it. They paid girls to fight each other. They opened a pub and created a most peculiar party of transvestites. I have nothing against transvestites, but that kind of situation had never happened in that particular public house, which had been closed for a couple of years. They got a pretend landlord in to talk about how he was very happy for his tenants to take drugs. It was clearly a put-up job. And some of the people who said outrageous things were taken on holiday by the company doing this. It was a shocking and terrible thing, and I do not believe that if people from that kind of background had been part of the BBC, that programme would ever have been made. Fortunately, there was not a second series. The head of BBC Three was good enough to see me and Councillor Karney, who represented the ward. I do not know whether it was down to our lobbying, but there was not a second series.
I want to talk about two other matters. One is bias on the EU. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South made a speech that I half completely agreed with and half completely disagreed with. There is quite a lot of evidence, in terms of the numbers of people interviewed about the European Union, that there are more pro-EU people. In the run-up to the referendum, virtually every business person who was interviewed on the “Today” programme was asked how Brexit was going to damage their business. In fact, it became a standard form of question or statement that “in spite of Brexit”, this benefit or that increase in jobs had happened.
A number of independent research groups have shown the bias in the run-up to the European elections. They have counted the number of people who were pro-EU compared with the number who were anti-EU, and the pros win by about three to one. In fact, one of the senior political journalists said, “We have no need to be balanced in this matter,” which I think is at odds with the BBC’s constitution.
The difference, during the run-up to the referendum campaign, was striking. The BBC did what it does in general elections: it was perfectly well balanced. That was in contrast with what happened afterwards and what happened before the period of the referendum. I think that that is partly because the people who run the BBC in London are essentially all pro-EU and think that there is something peculiar about people who are not.
My background is as a scientist. I believe in the scientific method and I practised for 10 years, running an analytical laboratory, so I am not, in the way some people mean it, a climate sceptic. However, some of the science from the likes of the University of East Anglia and in the leaked emails is a bit dodgy—very dodgy in that case. Some of the policies proposed to deal with climate change are expensive and one needs to be sceptical about the cost of those policies.
Not only is the cohort running the BBC from Oxbridge, but it is happier speaking about the subjunctive than the second law of thermodynamics. They have clear views on what the perception of science and climate change is. I will give an example, which I think is quite extraordinary. I appeared on a programme with Lord Lilley—with whom I disagree with about almost everything—about the Met Office, with Quentin Letts conducting the interview. Lord Lilley has a scientific background. He has a degree from Cambridge in physics. We agreed that climate change is happening and the planet is warming up a bit, but that the response is probably overblown. I said that the Met Office was very good at short-term forecasting, but hopeless at medium and long-term forecasts.
It is now impossible to get a recording of that programme, because it is banned, like the Catholic Church in the 16th century. We are on a banned list, because we agreed that the discussion was unbalanced. On the EU, there is no balance, but on a relatively trivial matter, the scientifically illiterate people at the BBC have decided to ban us. There will be real problems in the future if the BBC does not sort these things out.
I have spoken slightly longer than I intended. Finally, I will speak about the issue of free licences. It is not really worth a great deal of further thought. It is quite obvious that the Government—not the BBC—should be responsible for a benefit such as free television licences for the over-75s. The licence fee, however, is worth further consideration—not next week, but in the near future. I find it strange that on my side of the House there is enthusiasm and support for—I could name many such issues, but I will not—flat-rate taxes, which are regressive. If there is a public good and a public benefit from television, which I think there is, it should be funded by progressive taxation coming out of income tax.
The argument against that often put by BBC executives is that it damages the independence of the BBC. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) knocked that argument on the head on a very specific case. The people running the BBC are part of the informal ruling class in London, and they scratch each other’s backs, so there is not complete independence there. Further, Governments have always set the level of the licence fee, so every five years the Government have a say. I do not see why we should not have progressive rather than regressive taxation for what is undoubtedly a public good.
The BBC has had a lot of support, but it has to look at how it funds its regional organisations and how it stops being a cosmopolitan elite, with all the narrow views that that implies.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
I remind colleagues that there is a possibility of votes in the main Chamber during our proceedings, in which case I will suspend and we will have to return. This will be the last speech from hon. Members on the Back Benches, after which we will move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who spoke about science, which is an area in which the BBC has improved in recent years. It gives me even greater joy to participate in a debate started by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who always speaks with such style and panache, which we can only envy, whatever the subject.
Given that it is a summers’ evening and we have hardly mentioned the great triumph in the cricket world cup yesterday, which was broadcast by “Test Match Special”, I want to find reasons to be cheerful, cherish the BBC and suggest some interventions to help not only the BBC but other public service broadcasters. I will refer to some ideas mentioned by other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)—by far the best town on the east coast, so I hear—mentioned the loss of sports broadcasting rights for the BBC. We have just had a tremendous weekend for sport. The cricket world cup was watched by a peak audience of 7.9 million on Channel 4 and Sky, but it was beaten by Wimbledon, which was broadcast on the BBC to a peak audience of 9.6 million. That happened not by accident, but because the Wimbledon tennis finals are part of the listed events that must be offered to free-to-air television.
In future, we should not have to rely on the public relations of Comcast or Sky to ensure that we can see those events. The women’s world cup attracted more than 11 million viewers. It is no good showing one event every 15 years; the story of a tournament has to be told over a number of months, possibly years. There is a growing call for events such as the women’s world cup, and the men’s and women’s T20 and 50-overs cricket world cups—particularly games involving England, the other home nations and the final—to be broadcast on free-to-air TV. The deputy leader of the Labour party made an interesting but underreported speech on this subject the other day. We should make that intervention.
Ofcom has been looking at the prominence of BBC channels and other public service broadcasting channels. It has made some rather good recommendations, including for public service channels to be prominent not only on traditional TVs, but on set-top boxes, streaming services and smart TV. I hope the Government will find time to put those recommendations into legislation quickly, so that the licence fee payer always finds it easy to see the BBC and other public service broadcaster channels.
Ofcom has said it is minded to allow the BBC to keep programmes on the iPlayer for up to a year. That would be a good thing. It is reflected among some of the BBC’s commercial competitors. Equally, I am hopeful that Ofcom will agree to the proposals for BritBox. Such services exist in the United States. It would entail the BBC and ITV, and hopefully other public service broadcasters, after a period, providing streaming packages for their big-hit programmes, providing an additional revenue stream. A similar project, Project Kangaroo, was rejected by Ofcom 10 years ago. I hope that Ofcom will recognise that the BBC is now operating in a completely different market. Netflix spends £8 billion a year on programming. There is also Amazon and Facebook to compete with. The BBC must be allowed to compete with those global media giants.
I have one or two other points to make. We heard about people being jailed for not paying the licence fee. The number of people who have gone to prison has gone down dramatically, from 50 in 2012 to 17 in 2017. They were sent to jail not by the TV licensing authority but by magistrates, often for multiple debts in addition to non-payment of the licence fee. It is wise to keep the issue in context.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) made it clear that he does not like programmes being switched for the tennis, but when it comes to advertising he is rather more pro. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said, allowing widespread advertising on the BBC would totally destabilise the traditional market. ITV and Channel 4 would lobby very hard against it, because it would destroy a large part of their income stream.
The question of bias was raised. Some hon. Members did not deal with the “Panorama” programme, but I am quite happy to mention it, and indeed the whole series. Recent and forthcoming “Panorama” episodes include one on relationships education, one on abortion in the United States, one on exiting the EU and on what a no-deal Brexit might mean, and one dealing with antisemitism in the Labour party. They are all perfectly legitimate programmes.
There is a gentleman who I think goes by the name of Seumas Milne, who I think works in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and who I think might fit the public school-educated, south-eastern, Oxbridge profile that some of my hon. Friends are very agitated about. No doubt in all those institutions, as he was growing up, he was advised using a cricket analogy: play the ball, not the man. That is very sensible advice—attacking the credibility of a very distinguished journalist was not my party’s finest moment. I think of another Milne: Alasdair Milne, whose record Seumas should perhaps look back on. He was a man who defended the BBC against the Government, and probably paid for it with his job. That is a far better example to follow.
We have heard a lot about the voice of the BBC and about how its people come from the same background. That may have been true some time ago, but I think it has changed over the past couple of decades. Partly because of the move to Manchester, there is now a range of northern voices across 5 Live and BBC News. It is always a great pleasure to show BBC apprentices around Parliament; they reflect the diversity of our nation.
There is no point in repeating what other hon. Members have said about the substance of the petitions. I certainly think that George Osborne was to blame, but he was not the only Chancellor of the Exchequer who approached TV licence fee negotiations in the same way. I do not think that Gordon Brown, in his time, was particularly more forthcoming with consultation. It is up to this House to put greater rules in place for how the licence fee is determined. There should be more consultation, and everyone should know the time period; it should not just be the Chancellor or the director-general coming out of a meeting and an announcement being made.
The future of the licence fee and of the BBC is a big decision for the country. The BBC belongs to us all, not just to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. That should be reflected in how we award the royal charter to the BBC and in how we set the licence fee.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As always, Dame Cheryl, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank and congratulate all 15 Members who have made speeches in this important debate. In the confessional spirit that has been prevalent this afternoon, I put it on the record that I, too, am a former employee of the BBC—I was there for about a decade. However, I have already spoken extensively about my time at the BBC, so in the time available I will concentrate on the issue that has dominated our debate: the decision to means-test the licence fee for those aged 75 and above.
In the SNP’s opinion, it is absolutely outrageous that the UK Government have sought to shift a welfare policy decision to the BBC, thereby not only shirking their responsibility to support our older citizens, but shamefully breaking their manifesto commitment on TV licences for the over-75s, as we have heard so many times this afternoon. Their 2017 manifesto made an explicit promise—on page 66, to be exact—that they would
“maintain…pensioner benefits, including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this parliament.”
I am glad that so many Conservative Members recognise that, particularly the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
I urge the Minister to explain why the Government are breaking their promise, and to commit to ensuring that our elderly population will not suffer because of such a damaging and ill-thought-out proposal. SNP Members add our voices to the ever-growing numbers, in all parts of the House and the length and breadth of these islands, who are calling for the UK Government to reverse their decision and stop abdicating responsibility by putting it on the BBC, particularly at this time of rising pensioner poverty. I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) that the Government were completely wrong to impose such a deal on the BBC in the first place—but then to criticise the BBC for doing what it was instructed to do simply beggars belief.
At a time when more and more of our older people are struggling to make ends meet, in many cases as a direct result of Tory austerity cuts, it would be a grave injustice to remove the free TV licence and expect older people to conjure up another £150 from somewhere. Scotland’s First Minister recently signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging the UK Government to guarantee that free TV licences for the over-75s would be protected. That letter was signed by every leader of Scotland’s major political parties, with the exception of Ruth Davidson of the Scottish Conservatives. Scotland’s First Minister and the other party leaders signed the letter because they know that the UK Government already provide one of the lowest state pensions in the developed world. Our older people need more financial support, not less, particularly at a time of rising costs.
Following its consultation process, the BBC announced that from June 2020 only those people who are aged 75 or above and in receipt of pension credit will continue to receive free TV licences. However, I argue strongly that means-testing on the basis of pension credit has been shown to be fundamentally flawed. I take issue with the assertion of the corporation’s director-general, Tony Hall, and its chairman, Sir David Clementi, that using pension credit means that the pensioners in most need will be protected. That is simply not the case.
It is currently estimated that four in 10 pensioner households eligible for pension credit do not receive it, for one reason or another. Just last month, the charity Independent Age found that more than 1 million pensioner households across the UK are living in poverty because the Government failed to act on unpaid pension credit, and that since 2017 the Government have benefited from £7 billion in unclaimed pension credit. As a result, there will be hundreds of thousands of poor pensioners who should qualify but do not, and who will now have to find an extra £150 to pay for a TV licence.
What about those pensioners who just miss out on qualifying for pension credit? They are hardly living the life of Riley, and by no stretch of the imagination could they be considered wealthy, yet they will be hurt most by the decision. Perhaps Lord Hall and Sir David Clementi would care to reflect on the fairness and protection that they argue is being afforded to this group of people. After years of Tory austerity, and the deep financial uncertainty caused by Brexit, the last thing that our older people need is the extra burden of finding the money for a TV licence.
I commend the words of the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and for Lincoln (Karen Lee). The testimonies of their constituents could have come from any one of the 650 constituencies across these islands, because that is the reality. They display the depth of feeling among our constituents.
It is estimated that in Scotland this Tory TV licence fee will cost £40 million, with a quarter of a million over-75s set to lose out. Age Scotland also estimates that around 76,000 pensioners in Scotland do not receive pension credit, even though they are eligible for it. We in the SNP wholeheartedly agree with the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which has said that the over-75s’ licence is a welfare benefit and that it is the Government’s responsibility to pay it, and nobody else’s. Like BECTU and others, SNP Members will continue to call out this Government and the shameful subcontracting of their welfare responsibility to the BBC.
Stripping pensioners of their free TV licences is unacceptable. It will add pressure to already stretched pensioner budgets, and it will cause worry and angst among our poorest and most vulnerable people, who will be forced to make difficult choices about what they can and cannot afford. The responsibility for the TV licence lies with the UK Government. As we have heard so many times today, welfare policy should not be decided by the BBC and we strongly urge the Government to recognise that it is their responsibility to our older population to fully fund these licences.
I will finish by going right back to the beginning of the debate and the speech by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). The words she used really resonate and the Government should reflect on them: she said that what the Government are doing to the over-75s really is the most mean-spirited of Government cuts.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate and I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on her speech. Once again, she gave an object lesson in how to open a debate and how to deliver a parliamentary speech, with her customary lucidity and gusto backing up the powerful facts she cited. She is a wonderful Chair of the Petitions Committee and long may she be able to introduce these debates on our behalf, setting the tone so well.
However, there was something that my hon. Friend said that I disagreed with. She said that she thought that this Government were the Arthur Daley of public administration. That is very unfair on Arthur Daley, Del Boy and others, because I cannot imagine for one moment that they would have tried to pull off a scam such as the over-75s scam that the Government have tried to pull off by outsourcing social policy in this way.
My hon. Friend also pointed out the extra costs that older people face, in relation to extra heating and so on, which I thought was a new and original point in the debate, although it is not often taken into account when discussing the importance of free TV licences for the over-75s. Also—I think people should take note of this—she quite rightly predicted that the scammers, conmen and fraudsters will soon move in on vulnerable older people when free TV licences for the over-75s are ended if the Government do not reverse this very poor decision.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) revealed a new and interesting fact, because we had not known that in years gone by he was part of the BBC’s talent, and that he had even been big in India, which I had not anticipated. As for the substance of his speech, he seemed to suggest that advertising should perhaps be more widely used in the BBC as a funding model. I am afraid that is something that Labour Members disagree with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) quite rightly pointed out that free TV licences for the over-75s is a social policy, and that if the Government want to change a social policy they should have the guts and commitment to make the argument themselves and put it in their manifesto. They should argue the case in Parliament themselves, take it to a vote here, have a consultation with the public—all the things that every Government should do when changing social policy. They should do that themselves, rather than taking BBC executives into a darkened room with a rubber hose and duffing them up until they agree to do this, under the threat of future Treasury cuts to BBC funding.
Even having done that, which was wrong in itself, for the Government subsequently to put into their 2017 general election manifesto the proposition that the free concession would be retained, when they had already outsourced it to the BBC, really was an example of the most egregious misuse of a general election manifesto—no wonder the manifesto went down like a lead balloon.
The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)—unfortunately, he is no longer in his place—who is a distinguished former Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, rightly referred to the wider work that the BBC does in our cultural and social life. To the many things he listed, I would add podcasts, which are becoming more and more important. I have just listened to “Shreds”, a brilliant podcast about the so-called Cardiff Three and the murder of Lynette White. I recommend it to right hon. and hon. Members as a fine example of public service broadcasting, as we used to call it, although I suppose in this case it is public service streaming or downloading. Brilliant content is being made available to licence fee payers by the BBC in a way that is new and innovative.
The right hon. Member for Wantage also asked, quite clearly and straightforwardly, whether reforming free TV licences for the over-75s should be the BBC’s role, and he said that the answer is no. I therefore say to the Minister who is here today—the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James)—that the right hon. Gentleman, a former Minister, made that absolutely clear. He was even a Minister in the Department when this decision was made, but he is absolutely clear that this is not a role that the BBC should play. That is her own right hon. Friend making that statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who unfortunately is also no longer in her place, mentioned her own 89-year-old mother—indeed, I have an 89-year-old mother who also relies on her television licence. My hon. Friend pointed out the amount of pension credit that remained unclaimed just in her own constituency of Swansea East, which is one of the more deprived parts of the country. She said that there was £6.5 million of unclaimed pension credit for her constituency alone, which prompts a question: what will happen if pension credit is claimed by a greater proportion of the population, as we all hope it will be, than is the case currently?
If that happens, the Government might find that, as a result of this policy, more people are claiming pension credit, which would be a good thing, but the Government would have to pay it. However, the increase would also mean an extra burden on the BBC, because of the greater number of free TV licences. I put down a written question to the Government to ask what estimate they had made of that effect and the answer was, “None whatsoever”. It is as if they are making all this up on the back of a fag packet as they go along.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) described the TV licence as “archaic”. I simply say to him, because he has obviously read and even swallowed some books on market economics along the way, that there are some things in life that are the opposite to the usual rule: they work in practice but not in theory. That is the case with the TV licence, which works in practice and has broad public support, as is clearly evidenced in the statistics that have been cited. It does not work in any economic theory textbook, but so what? It actually works very well and very effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who unfortunately is also not here for the wind-ups, told us about the positive response that there had been to the petition in her constituency. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who does a lot of work in this place on issues affecting the BBC, described it as “much-loved” but an “anomaly”. In some ways, he is echoing some of the sentiments that I would like to express from the Opposition Front Bench. However, he also admitted that the BBC had not really been funded to pay for the free TV licence concession and that the commitment in the Government’s manifesto up until 2022 should be honoured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned, very importantly, the impact that this change could have on people with dementia, and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that it was “inevitable”—I think I am quoting him directly here—that the BBC
“would opt out at the first possible opportunity.”
The Government are trying to maintain the fiction that they did not need to opt out at the first opportunity, and that the BBC should continue to run this concession despite the fact that the funding has not been supplied.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) pointed out that the outsourcing of blame is a speciality of this Government, and that this is a fine example. He also made the very important point that “talent” should not be used to refer just to on-air employees of the BBC. As we in the Opposition like to say, talent is everywhere; opportunity is not. We are here to try to extend opportunity much more widely than it currently is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) quoted research from Cardiff University, and being from Cardiff, I have to accept it at face value as a very good piece of research. He made some points about BBC bias and so on, but I would say to him that the BBC is still the most trusted source of news among the public, and is also subject to Ofcom regulation and has to meet standards. He is right that we should hold the BBC to account but, imperfect as it is—I know that he accepts this point—it still plays a role in maintaining the gravitational pull of standards in this country’s broadcasting that is rarely matched in other parts of the western world.
We all give my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) our sympathies for the loss of his mother. He appealed to the Prime Minister, even at this late stage, to act on this matter. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) that he should not put everybody from Oxbridge in the same category. There are working-class Oxbridge graduates—I include myself in that category, as well as the final speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan). He was at Oxford at the same time as me, and also came from a working-class background, breaking through the typical mould that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton described. As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley talked a lot of sense about the future of the BBC.
At the moment, the BBC is under attack from a number of different directions, and it is very sad that on the issue of the over-75s licence fee, the Government are joining that attack. It is sad that they are joining in the predictable attacks that come from some sections of the tabloid press, often owned—as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South said—by a small number of individuals. The Government should do more to stand up for the BBC and support it, not try to outsource their responsibilities to our national broadcaster. As Joni Mitchell once said,
“you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
We should cherish the BBC as a uniquely British institution that works very effectively. Yes, let us hold it to account and try to improve it, but let us not use it as a whipping boy because of the Government’s own failure in their social policies. Finally, the Government’s handling of the over-75s licence fee is a disgrace. With the change of leadership, perhaps now is an opportunity for a change of mind.
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on securing this important debate on these three petitions. I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), that the hon. Lady’s opening speech was an excellent account of so many of the issues that drove those petitions, and her own response to them.
Before I address some of the issues that have been raised, I will echo the huge positivity from across the Chamber about the role, importance and value of the BBC. We in this country are extremely fortunate to have the BBC, for all the reasons that right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned; it delivers an enormous public service, with hugely successful productions such as “Bodyguard”, “Strictly Come Dancing” and the “Today” programme. I would add a recent one, “Gentleman Jack”, which is absolutely fantastic.
Margot James
I am glad my right hon. Friend loved it. It was a series that illustrated the importance of diversity in the BBC: a regional series set in Halifax, written by a BAFTA-winning director and playwright, Sally Wainwright—also from Yorkshire—and co-produced by BBC Studios and Lookout Point. I wish that such a series had been aired when I was growing up in the 1970s.
Of course, it is the licence fee that delivers that public value and allows the BBC to reach UK audiences everywhere, from the TVs in our homes to all the gadgets and devices that we carry around with us. The BBC is also required to represent and cater for all sorts of niche interests that may well not attract the attention of a channel that depends on advertising, or even broad-based subscription revenues, for its identity and position. The BBC received close to £3.7 billion in licence fee income last year, and its unique position of providing distinctive content in under-served genres to under-served audiences is vital.
Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we carefully considered the question of the licence fee as part of the BBC charter review process in 2015 and 2016. We found that independent research demonstrated a great deal of public interest in the licence fee. Some 60% of people surveyed backed it as the least worst option, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) mentioned. For 60%, the licence fee was the mode of payment that they most supported, with fewer than 3% backing either an advertising model or a subscription-based model. Those figures are quite powerful, which is why we have committed to maintaining the licence fee funding model for at least the duration of this new 11-year charter period, which will bring us to the end of 2027. That provides the BBC with the funding certainty that it needs to thrive and deliver its mission and public purposes.
The media landscape is changing all the time, and citizens and consumers have more choice than ever before, particularly in the form of subscription-based services. However, the BBC’s content remains hugely popular. Some 91% of adults in the UK use its services each week, spending an average of 18 hours watching, listening to or using those services. Such figures demonstrate the continuing importance of the BBC in the fast-changing and increasingly competitive media landscape. In addition, the BBC directly invests over £2 billion in the UK’s creative industries each year, and invests billions of pounds in the digital and high-tech industries that support content creation and distribution. It is therefore a very important contributor not only to our shared experiences and public life but to the economy.
I now turn to the over-75s’ licence fee concession. Of course, the Government recognise the importance of television to people of all ages, particularly older people. We have heard a lot today from Members who, having talked to their constituents, have recounted what we all know: that the television can provide a lifeline to older people, particularly those who are recently bereaved or live alone, as a way of staying connected with the world. Right hon. and hon. Members have made that point clear, and I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments.
However, if we cast our minds back four or five years to the time of the 2015 funding settlement, the Government had an expectation that all public services and public institutions had to find some economies and play their part in reducing the budget deficit overall and bringing some stability and sense to the public finances. Older people, like everybody else, mostly agreed with the need to do so, although they did not necessarily agree with all the means that were identified as routes towards restoring that stability and sense. However, it was agreed with the BBC that the responsibility for that concession would transfer to the BBC by June 2020.
In return, the Government closed the iPlayer loophole so that more people paid the licence fee. Many more people now pay the licence fee, leading to an uptick in the BBC’s revenues. The Government also committed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation during the charter period, which for the first time gave the BBC a more sustainable income for the future. At the time, the Government and the BBC agreed it was a fair deal. Indeed, the director-general said:
“The Government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC.”
Parliament debated the issue extensively in passing the Digital Economy Act 2017 and approving the transfer of the legal responsibility for the concession to the BBC. I was a Whip in that Government, and I can tell Members—I am sure you will remember this too, Dame Cheryl—that we had to compromise greatly on a number of very contentious issues, but this was not one of them.
Margot James
I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he likes.
Kevin Brennan
I will not let the Minister get away with that absolute rubbish. We tabled extensive amendments in Committee and on Report and opposed the proposal throughout. It was a highly contentious matter.
Margot James
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has a fair point—that the matter was contentious—but the proposal got through without the Government having to make compromises, unlike other things. For example, Members might remember the proposals to change Sunday trading laws. That is one of several examples of legislation that the Government had to change because opposition was so great. This transfer of responsibility did not attract the same level of opposition. Enough Members voted it through and Parliament therefore approved it, which is something we have to bear in mind. The responsibility was therefore passed to the BBC with parliamentary approval, and it was accepted by BBC governors and the director-general, no less.
I am willing to take more interventions on the other points that I have addressed, but I will turn to perceived bias and the BBC. Under its royal charter, the BBC has a duty to deliver high-quality, impartial and accurate news coverage and content. Members have already mentioned that 90% of the public value the news coverage of the BBC and believe in its impartiality. As with all other broadcasters, the BBC is subject to the Ofcom broadcasting code, which includes requirements on accuracy and impartiality. Ofcom is now firmly established as the new external regulator for the BBC. It will act to safeguard the high standards of impartiality that already exist at the BBC.
The Government are clear that the licence fee is the right funding model. It is clear that Ofcom’s robust approach to regulation will safeguard the impartiality that the BBC has a duty to observe. The licence fee concession was passed over, so I do not criticise the BBC for making the decision that it did. The BBC accepted the responsibility, and we should now let it get on and deliver at least a free licence to those over-75s who qualify for pension credit. As the shadow Minister said, the BBC will now write to all people in receipt of a free television licence with the new rules, setting out how they can apply, and I am hopeful that the decision will to a certain extent rectify the underclaiming of pension credit. Those 37% of people over the age of 75 who are entitled to pension credit will now have another incentive to claim it.
Helen Jones
This has been an interesting debate. I thank all Members who have spoken on the various petitions that we are discussing. Some extremely interesting points have been made, but time does not allow me to go through them now. I thank the Minister for her sterling defence of the licence fee. In particular, I point out to her that I doubt whether that excellent programme “Gentleman Jack” would ever have been made by a commercial broadcaster. A pitch to a commercial broadcaster for a programme about gay women in early 19th-century Yorkshire would never have got beyond first base. It is an excellent programme.
However, I am sorry that the Minister did not respond—in fact, she probably cannot respond—to the real concern expressed about pensioners who will lose their free TV licence. That matter must be taken up higher up in Government by the Treasury. We need to ensure that our pensioners are protected. We certainly opposed that change at the time, and I know that other Members did too. We must admit that the current situation does not work and that the BBC should not be deciding social policy at all, and we must change the system to protect our pensioners.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 234627, 234797 and 235653 relating to the BBC.
Written Statements
Public Service Pensions
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
The Government are committed to providing public service pensions that are fair for public sector workers and for taxpayers. This is why we brought forward reforms in 2015, based on the recommendations of the Hutton report, to ensure that these pensions are sustainable in the future.
The courts have considered cases regarding the implementation of the 2015 reforms. On 27 June 2019 the Supreme Court denied the Government permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment that transitional provisions introduced to the reformed judges and firefighters pension schemes in 2015 gave rise to unlawful age discrimination. The Government respects the Court’s decision and will engage fully with the employment tribunal to agree how the discrimination will be remedied.
The ruling relates to the “transitional protection” offered to some members when the reformed schemes were introduced. In order to ensure people close to retirement age were treated fairly, the Government agreed to “transitional protection”, which broadly permitted those members who were closest to retirement at the time new pension schemes were introduced to remain members of their respective old schemes. The court has found that those too far away from retirement age to qualify for “transitional protection” have been unfairly discriminated against. As “transitional protection” was offered to members of all the main public service pension schemes, the Government believe that the difference in treatment will need to be remedied across all those schemes. This includes schemes for the NHS, civil service, local government, teachers, police, armed forces, judiciary and fire and rescue workers. Continuing to resist the full implications of the judgment in court would only add to the uncertainty experienced by members.
The matter will be remitted to the employment tribunal in respect of the litigants in the firefighters and judicial pension schemes. It will be for the tribunal to determine a remedy. Alongside this process, Government will be engaging with employer and member representatives, as well as the devolved Administrations, to help inform our proposals to the tribunal and in respect of the other public service pension schemes.
Initial estimates suggest remedying the discrimination will add around £4 billion per annum to scheme liabilities from 2015.
The reasons for the 2015 reforms remain: that public service pensions are a significant cost for the taxpayer, now and in the future. The judgment does not alter the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the cost of public service pensions are affordable for taxpayers and sustainable for the long term.
[HCWS1725]
Chemical Weapons Convention: Declaration of Protective Programme
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence in the House of Lords (The Earl Howe) has made the following written ministerial statement.
The UK’s chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons. In accordance with the Government’s commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the summary that has been provided to the organisation outlining the UK’s chemical protection programme in 2018.
[HCWS1718]
Inappropriate Behaviour in the Armed Forces: Review
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Penny Mordaunt)
In April of this year a report was commissioned to look into inappropriate behaviour in the armed forces. Our armed forces are the pride of our nation, and have a hard-won reputation here, and across the world.
The report which was undertaken by Air Chief Marshal Mike Wigston, concluded that while the vast majority of military personnel serve with great honour and distinction, some unacceptable behaviour does occur. I am publishing the report today.
I am accepting the recommendations of the report in full, including creating a defence authority to provide centralised oversight of their implementation. Detailed work on the design of this body and its responsibilities is now under way.
We are examining the recommendations and ascertaining how we can prevent inappropriate behaviour in the first place, and where it does occur, deal with the perpetrators more effectively. Leadership is key to this approach at all levels of the services from the most senior to the most junior. Everyone has a role to play in setting and maintaining standards. Non-Commissioned Officers in particular are key in holding people to these standards and the values of their service. I am therefore, in addition to the findings of this report, looking to ensure all Non-Commissioned Officers have what they need to address poor behaviour when they see it.
This will clearly take time, and I see today as the start of this work, not the end.
[HCWS1720]
School Sport and Activity
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
A positive experience of sport and physical activity at a young age can build a lifetime habit of participation. It is central to meeting the Government’s ambitions for a world-class education system which promotes character, good physical health and mental wellbeing. We face a significant challenge to increase and maintain activity levels among children and young people, particularly given the levels of childhood obesity. Data from Sport England’s Active Lives Children and Young People survey show that a third of children are currently doing less than 30 minutes of physical activity a day, less than half the amount recommended by the Chief Medical Officer.
The Department for Education, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Department of Health and Social Care are today publishing a joint school sport and activity action plan which will set out the following ambitions:
All children and young people take part in at least 60 minutes of physical activity every day.
All children and young people have the opportunity to realise developmental, character- building experiences through sport, competition and active pursuits.
All sport and physical activity provision for children and young people is designed around building basic skills as well as confidence, enjoyment, knowledge and understanding (known as physical literacy) with a focus on fun and enjoyment, and reaching the least active young people.
The action plan will set out a number of immediate actions that feed into realising these ambitions, including a strong commitment to joint working between schools and the sport sector. The plan also sets out areas of activity for the future with action to be confirmed in a further updated plan later in the year, following the spending review.
The immediate actions include a commitment to an additional £2.5 million from the Department for Education in 2019-20 to support schools through further work on teacher training, more help and advice to enable schools to open up their facilities and make links with providers, as well as providing more opportunities for young people to volunteer in sport. The plan also sets out over £4 million of Sport England investment in new after-school clubs, strengthening the school games competition and building girls’ confidence through a programme linked to ‘This Girl Can’.
The Government are also committing to develop regional pilots to trial new and innovative approaches to getting young people active, jointly funded by Sport England and the Department for Education from 2020. The pilots will involve collaborative working from the school and community sector to offer a co-ordinated sport and physical activity experience for young people.
We will be working with sporting organisations like the Youth Sport Trust, RFU, England Netball and the Premier League to ensure that sports clubs and programmes can reach even more children, encouraging them to get active by focusing on fun, enjoyment and increasing confidence.
[HCWS1724]
Compliance Improvement Review
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
On 9 May 2019 I made a written ministerial statement to notify Parliament of compliance risks that MI5 had identified and reported within certain technology environments used to store and analyse data. In the statement I confirmed that I had established an independent review to consider and report back to me on what lessons could be learned for the future. My statement today notifies Parliament that this review, the Compliance Improvement Review (CIR), is now complete and that the Government are publishing the summary section of the report and its recommendations, gisted where necessary for national security reasons.
The CIR was led by Sir Martin Donnelly, a former Permanent Secretary, and examined how the issue arose and considered MI5’s governance and risk management procedures in light of this. The review team had access to all relevant documentation and met key individuals from Government, MI5 and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office to discuss the background to the risks being identified. I would like to place on record my thanks to Sir Martin and the review team, who have worked diligently to complete a thorough and well-evidenced review.
I was provided with a copy of the review report in late June and have since had the opportunity to discuss it with Sir Martin. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament have both received copies of the full report.
The CIR identified three areas where improvements can be made. These are: improvements to support an effective compliance culture across MI5; improvements to ensure more effective sharing of information between MI5 and the Home Office to identify emerging issues; and improvements to ensure increased legal input to the MI5 Management Board and ensuring closer joint working between MI5 and Home Office legal advisors. The review makes a total of 14 recommendations to address these issues, which are set out in the document that has been published today.
I can confirm that DG MI5 and I agree with the CIR’s conclusions and my Department will now work closely with MI5 to deliver the recommendations.
It should be noted that the CIR found that there was no attempt by MI5 to hide the compliance risk they were managing. The CIR describes MI5 as “a consistently high-performing organisation, with a growing number of committed and professional staff working under sustained pressure to keep this country safe”, a view I share from my experience as Home Secretary. Copies of the CIR summary document will be made available on www.gov.uk and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1722]
Serious Violence
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
On 1 April 2019 the Government published a consultation paper on a new legal duty to support a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence.
The consultation sought views on three options to support a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence including: a new duty on specific organisations to have due regard to the prevention and tackling of serious violence; a new duty through legislating to revise community safety partnerships; and, a voluntary non-legislative approach.
The consultation closed on 28 May and I am today publishing the Government response to the consultation which includes a summary of the responses that the consultation received. A copy of the Government response and related impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS1721]
Personal Injury Compensation
(4 years, 9 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)
Earlier today, I notified the market via the London Stock Exchange group that I would today lay a statutory instrument to change the discount rate applicable to personal injury lump sum compensation payments in England and Wales, to -0.25%. The new rate will come into force on 5 August 2019, in line with the statutory timetable set out by the Civil Liability Act 2018 (“the Act”).
Under the Damages Act 1996,I, as Lord Chancellor, have the power to set a discount rate which courts must consider when awarding compensation for future financial losses in the form of a lump sum in personal injury cases. The legal framework was changed by the Civil Liability Act 2018.
The new framework makes clear that claimants must be treated as “low risk” investors. Under the Act I, as Lord Chancellor, must conduct a review and determine whether the rate should be changed or kept unchanged within 140 days of beginning the review and including the day on which the review starts. I started the review on 19 March 2019, and in conducting this review, I consulted the Government Actuary and HM Treasury.
The Government Actuary provided an analysis of dual rates—this would involve a lower short-term rate and then a higher long-term rate after a “switchover” period. Although I consider their analysis interesting with some promising indications, I do not consider it appropriate, noting the lack of quantity and depth of evidence required, to adopt a dual rate for this review. The potential of the dual rate to be appropriate for future reviews is one that I will consider in more detail.
A full statement of reasons, explaining how I have decided upon this rate, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1717]
Office for Tackling Injustices
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Penny Mordaunt)
On Friday 12 July, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Office for Tackling Injustices. This is a new organisation that will hold the Government and wider society to account for tackling key social injustices.
Despite the great progress we have made in promoting fair treatment for all in the UK, we know that too many of our citizens are still held back by the injustice of unequal treatment on the grounds of their socio-economic background, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability.
The Prime Minister has spoken of her determination to tackle these “burning injustices”. But all Governments should work to end the injustices that continue to characterise our country for too many. The Office for Tackling Injustices (OfTI) will focus minds on how to create a fairer country in the decades to come.
By shining a light on data on injustices and monitoring change, the OfTI will provide evidence-based challenge to future Governments and wider society to tackle disparities in social and economic outcomes. Data is a hard, sometimes uncomfortable fact, but publishing it and communicating it clearly forces Government and others to hold a mirror up to their own performance and challenge themselves to do better.
The OfTI will have a remit covering social injustices relating to ethnicity, gender, disability, socioeconomic background and LGBT. As well as annually delivering a data-driven report on progress to Parliament, the OfTI will also publish thematic studies into issues relevant to its mandate. It will make use of relevant published data from various public authorities, monitoring trends and considering the underlying causes and drivers for them.
[HCWS1723]
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council took place on 8 July 2019 in Brussels. The deputy permanent representative to the European Union, Katrina Williams, represented the UK.
The Council approved the non-binding 2019 country specific recommendations (CSRs) to member states, and endorsed the joint opinion of the Employment and Social Protection Committees, assessing the 2019 CSRs and the implementation of those from 2018. The Council also adopted guidelines for the employment policies of the member states 2019.
The Council debated the “economy of wellbeing” and “employment aspects of the strategic long term vision for a climate neutral economy”.
The Council closed with employment and social policy updates by the Commission on the International Labour Organisation, G7 and G20.
[HCWS1716]
Health-related Job Loss
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I would like to make the following statement on behalf of myself and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price).
Today, my Department, in partnership with the Department of Health and Social Care, will publish a consultation on proposals to reduce health-related job loss.
As people live and work for longer, more employees are disabled or have long-term health conditions. There are significant and well evidenced benefits for employers, individuals and Government if health-related job loss can be reduced.
For employers, offering flexibility, early support and occupational health advice are the key to successful retention. Employers are best placed to take the early preventative measures that are most effective. There are large variations in employers’ capability and capacity to act with large firms five times more likely to provide occupational health when compared to small firms.
Each year more than 100,000 people leave their job following a period of sickness absence lasting at least four weeks. Survey evidence shows that 44% of people who had been off sick for a year then left employment altogether.
The proposals set out in this consultation include:
Amending the legal framework to encourage workplace modifications and early action to support individuals on sickness absence leave;
Reforming statutory sick pay so that it is better enforced, more flexible and covers the lowest paid and potentially, rewards effective action with a new rebate;
Improving access to occupational health services with additional support for small employers including a potential subsidy;
Government to provide best practice advice and support for employers on managing health and disability in the workplace.
The evidence and views gathered during this consultation will be used to develop our proposals further and understand the impact of the changes on both employers and employees.
[HCWS1719]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it is now 3.30 pm. I must advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 10 June, be considered. The regulations will remove a sunset clause in the existing 2012 fees regulations, thereby ensuring that local planning authorities can continue to charge fees for planning applications. They will also introduce a fee of £96 for prior approval applications for a larger single-storey rear extension to a house. If approved by this House, this new charge will come into effect 28 days after the regulations are made. Planning fees are an important source of income which supports local authorities to have the resources and capacity to make effective planning decisions. It is therefore vital that the fee regulations remain in force.
It is vital that we have well-resourced, efficient and effective planning departments, capable of providing a planning service that local people and applicants expect. Planning application fees provide essential income to enable local authorities to deliver this service, and to consider and determine planning applications. In January 2018, we raised planning application fees by 20%. This was the first uplift since 2012 and it has increased income for the planning system and enabled local planning authorities to improve their performance. We estimate that in England, the total income raised through planning application fees is £450 million per annum. If there were no application fee, this cost would have to be funded by the taxpayer.
I turn to the details of the draft regulations. In Regulation 2, we are removing the sunset clause of 21 November 2019 contained in the existing 2012 fees regulations: namely, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. The sunset clause and a post-implementation review condition were included in the 2012 fees regulations to ensure that the regulations were kept under review and removed from statute if they were no longer necessary. A post-implementation review was undertaken in 2017 and the outcome report laid before Parliament in December 2017. I am pleased to confirm that the review concluded that the objectives of the regulations remain appropriate in providing for the proper consideration of planning applications; therefore, the national planning fees regime should remain in place.
To ensure that the fee regulations remain in place, it is necessary to remove the 21 November sunset clause. This will ensure that applicants continue to pay a fair and consistent fee, and that local authorities will be able to continue to charge planning application fees and have the resource and capacity to make high-quality and timely planning decisions. If the sunset clause was not removed, the fees regulations would cease to have effect after 21 November of this year. This would mean that local planning authorities would no longer be able to charge any fees for planning applications.
Regulations 3(1) and 3(2) introduce a £96 fee for applications for “prior approval” for existing permitted development rights for a larger single-storey rear extension to a house. Perhaps I may summarise the position as it will be if the regulations proceed. This permitted development right allows householders to build larger single-storey rear extensions that are between 4 metres and 8 metres for detached houses, and between 3 metres and 6 metres for all other houses. Extensions smaller than this do not require prior approval and therefore do not attract a fee. Extensions that are larger than 8 metres for detached houses and 6 metres for all other houses would require planning permission in the normal way, so would attract a full planning application fee of £206.
The prior approval process means that a developer has to seek approval from the local planning authority that specified elements of the development are acceptable before work can proceed. The matters for prior approval vary depending on the type of development, and those are set out in the relevant part of the general permitted development order. A local authority cannot consider any other matters when determining a prior approval application.
The permitted development right for a larger single-storey rear extension to a house was made permanent by way of amendments to the general permitted development order on 25 May, but the associated application for prior approval required to exercise that development right attracts no fee. Now the right is permanent, it is appropriate that we should enable local planning authorities to charge and receive a fee for the work that they undertake to process and determine the applications they receive.
A £96 fee will be an additional cost to those home owners wanting to extend their homes in that way. However, that fee is the same as the fee for other applications for prior approval, as the cost to the local authority of handling these types of application is similar—for example, demolition of a building, agricultural buildings and certain solar developments. It is not fair that this cost should continue to be subsidised by the taxpayer generally. The fee is less than the £206 fee that would be required for a full planning application to carry out these works to a house were it not for the permitted development rights. It will provide local planning authorities with resources that may otherwise have been diverted from other planning applications.
In line with existing fees for planning applications to alter or extend a home, the regulations continue to provide for existing exemptions in the 2012 fee regulations, such as when an extension provides facilities or means of access for disabled persons; those would continue in just the same way.
We continue to keep the resourcing of local authority planning departments and where fees can be charged under review. Noble Lords will be aware that we announced in the Spring Statement that the accelerated planning Green Paper, to be published later this year, will look at new approaches for local authorities to meet the costs of their planning service through possible additional fees and to deliver improved performance. In the meantime, these regulations ensure that local authorities can continue to charge planning fees, including the new prior approval fee, after 21 November, thus providing them with the resources they need to consider such applications. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for that concise and informative introduction. We understand the technical purpose of the SI, and particularly appreciate the need for local authorities to be able to recoup their costs. The uplift of 20% that he mentioned was certainly welcomed, although he is probably as aware as I am that there is still a gap.
Evidence shows that more and more people extend their homes rather than move, so an increasing number of prior approvals are being sought. Therefore, the ability to charge for that will be welcomed. I know from personal experience that there is a reasonable amount of work involved, the more so in larger extensions. Those usually involve conflict with the next-door neighbour, who of course has no means of stopping the development because these are permitted developments. Despite that, councillors and officers get drawn in and it all takes time. I am curious about how the nationally set cost of £96 has been arrived at, alongside other fees. Perhaps the Minister could point me in the right direction for an explanation.
As the Minister said, councils need well-resourced planning departments to deliver the Government’s ambitious housing agenda; on that we agree. There is also a national shortage of planning officers, and the cost of living in different parts of the country differs considerably and means that councils struggle to recruit or have to pay higher salaries if they are to function. Yet these fees are nationally set, so from Land’s End to John O’Groats they are the same. Are there any plans to allow a fair and transparent scheme to give councils flexibility to set appropriate fees that might reflect local circumstances?
Permitted development rights in general are being extended, the latest being, as the Minister said, in May this year, despite some serious opposition from organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Town and Country Planning Association and others that have genuinely well-documented concern that in the Government’s legitimate desire to increase the number of homes, which we would absolutely agree with, issues such as quality and sustainability are being totally neglected, and that the most recent liberalisation of permitted development on the high street could be a blessing or a curse depending on local circumstances. Councils’ only recourse is to apply for an Article 4 direction to remove that automatic right. I know from personal experience of how difficult it was to get an Article 4 direction placed on our premier office headquarters area that this is neither speedy nor simple. We succeeded, but it was an expensive, tough battle. Do the Government keep records of the number of councils that apply for an Article 4 direction and how many are actually granted? The Minister mentioned other reviews; are there any plans to review the impact, good or bad, of the extended permitted development rights, particularly on quality and sustainability?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As noble Lords have heard, these regulations will remove the sunset clause to enable fees to be charged beyond the date the noble Lord referred to and introduce an additional £96 fee for prior approval applications for larger new extensions.
As far as they go, I am very happy to support the regulations. The increases in fees in recent times have generally been welcome, but it is still fair to say that planning departments are still being subsidised by the local council tax payer. We should try to eliminate that over a period of time. I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who asked how the £96 fee was arrived at. It would be good to hear that from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, because it is a fair point that there are different associated costs across the country. How was this one figure reached? I look forward to hearing that.
I have mentioned many times during these debates that the Government often want to try new things out, such as new pilot schemes. I have asked many times: why can we not find just one volunteer authority to look at full cost recovery of planning fees? Surely we can find just one council in England to do that for us to see whether full cost recovery would work. It might not, and the pilot might show that that is the case, but I cannot see why we cannot find just one council somewhere in England to pilot full cost recovery on planning fees for the Government to see what effect it has. We hear lots of stuff about planning, most of it a load of old nonsense about how planning committees and planning departments are holding up all this housebuilding. It is absolutely rubbish. Was it 300,000 applications without a brick being laid? I know that the noble Lord did not say that, but we read this rubbish all over the place. I do not see why we cannot look at full cost recovery and at how it is not the planning regime, the council or the planning committees holding up housebuilding.
Having said that, I have no objection at all to the regulations. I am very happy to approve them and I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to the few points that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, have raised.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their contributions on the issue of planning fees. I seek to deal with their points in the order they were raised.
I thank the noble Baroness for her general welcome of the 20% increase, which has certainly made a difference to the running of planning departments up and down the country. She rightly referred to the use of prior approval for larger, single-storey, rear-of-house extensions. In the two years up to March 2019 there were just over 52,900 prior approval applications for such extensions of which 81% proceeded. That indicates the importance of the £96 cost.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked how that cost was arrived at. I referred to the fact that some applications already attracted it. I will not go through the whole list as it is quite long, but I will give a sample and ensure that I send the full list to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Here are some examples: the erection of an agricultural building; the method of demolition of a building; development consisting of the erection or construction of a click-and-collect facility within the curtilage of a shop; the temporary use of buildings or land and the associated temporary structures for the purpose of commercial filmmaking; the installation, alteration or replacement of solar photovoltaic equipment on the roofs of non-domestic buildings; the change in use of buildings or land from offices in class B1(a)—the list goes on. I accept that the question of how the figure of £96 was arrived at remains but I hope that the fact that it is the consistent amount charged for so many different applications is helpful for the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I will ensure that it is assessed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked about the quality of developments. As I indicated, permitted development rights are delivering additional, much-needed new homes. Of course, all homes are required to meet building regulations right across the board, including in respect of fire safety. We expect all homes to be of good quality, but we are aware of concerns raised about certain developments. That is why we announced in the Spring Statement that we will review permitted development rights for the conversion of buildings to residential use in respect of the quality standards for homes delivered. I think that the noble Baroness made that point relating to Article 4, but I will pick up on it in more detail in a letter; I thank her for what she said.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord both raised the issue of additional fees. The accelerated planning Green Paper will be issued later this year and will look at some of the issues that were touched on. For example, it could cover the point made quite fairly by the noble Lord about a pilot for full cost recovery, although let us wait to see to what extent; there will certainly be an opportunity to look at that matter.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support. I agree that it is important that we get this right and fund planning departments appropriately; they should be funded by planning applications fees, not cross-subsidy, unless that is what councils want, perhaps in addition to putting in extra staff. That remains a possibility but, in principle, we expect the fees to pay for planning departments. I anticipate that the accelerated planning Green Paper, which will be out later this year, will look at that issue.
Once again, I would be grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord if they would allow me to pick up on their points of detail in correspondence.
Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument transfers a series of limited, technical legislative functions that are currently conferred by EU environmental directives upon the EU Commission so that after exit day they can be exercised by the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations. The regulations relate to a number of environmental policy areas: air quality, environmental noise, infrastructure for spatial information, marine, and water quality.
The powers relate to minor elements of the relevant directives. They do not allow for a general change in their implementation. One example of the type of functions being transferred is the power that the Commission currently has under the directive on environmental noise. This is a power to adopt directly applicable tertiary legislation to amend assessment methods for noise indicators in the light of scientific and technical progress. Under this instrument, the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations will be able to update the corresponding domestic legislation to reflect the latest scientific and technical noise assessment methods.
While this instrument covers a number of directives and policy areas, it does no more than replicate the provisions in the directives so that UK authorities can exercise the powers member states considered were appropriate to delegate to the Commission. These powers will ensure that our domestic legislation continues to function properly. They are limited in nature and are not the kind of functions for which we would generally in the domestic context require primary legislation. They concern technical detail that would normally be dealt with by secondary legislation. If we had to use primary legislation to make the types of changes that will be possible under this instrument, it would take a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time and make it increasingly difficult for the law to keep pace with scientific and technical change. The powers will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by way of the negative resolution procedure, which, for the reasons I have just mentioned, I believe is suitable due to the limited technical nature of the powers.
Part 2—Regulations 3 to 15—confers functions relating to five EU directives relating to air quality. These are the directives on emissions of volatile organic compounds—known as VOCs—ambient air quality and cleaner air, industrial emissions, medium combustion plants, and national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. These functions include, for example, a power to specify a common format of monitoring data for VOCs, and to specify rules for determining start-up and shut-down periods for the purpose of certain plants covered by the industrial emissions directive.
The powers in Part 2 that relate to VOCs and national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants are conferred on the Secretary of State. VOCs are a reserved matter. Powers relating to national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, on the other hand, are devolved, but in this specific case the devolved Administrations have already agreed to their being transferred to the Secretary of State alone to exercise on behalf of the whole UK, because they concern national, UK-wide obligations. In each case, the Secretary of State can act only after the devolved Administrations give their consent, and the Secretary of State must also have regard to requests from devolved Administrations to make regulations.
For all other devolved matters in Part 2, powers are conferred on the “appropriate authority”. The “appropriate authority” is defined for this part by Regulation 4 and means for England, the Secretary of State; for Wales, the Welsh Ministers; for Scotland, the Scottish Ministers; and for Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
Regulation 14 provides that it is possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations on behalf of one or more devolved Administrations, but only with their agreement. This allows for a common approach and legislation across the UK, providing more certainty for industry and other stakeholders. Regulation 15 provides that the appropriate authority may make regulations under Part 2 only after consulting anyone whose interests appear likely to be substantially affected and any other appropriate persons.
In Part 3 on environmental noise, Regulation 16 transfers limited functions relating only to supplementary noise indicators and assessment methods for noise indicators, which are contained in the EU environmental noise directive. This directive aims to avoid, prevent or reduce the harmful effects of exposure to noise pollution. These functions are conferred on the appropriate authority, defined in the same way as for Part 2.
Part 4 relates to infrastructure of spatial information. Regulations 17 to 22 confer functions under the EU directive, establishing an infrastructure for spatial information, known as the INSPIRE directive. Spatial information refers to specific locations and much environmental information falls into this category. Regulation 18 provides that the Secretary of State is the appropriate authority for England, Wales and Northern Ireland because INSPIRE is devolved only to Scotland, where Scottish Ministers are the appropriate authority. The Secretary of State may also legislate for Scotland if Scottish Ministers consent.
The functions in Regulations 19 to 22 include powers to make provision relating to metadata for spatial data sets and services, and interoperability and harmonisation of spatial data sets and services. These are the technical details of the INSPIRE framework, which the Commission was given power to set out in decisions, rather than in the directive itself.
Part 5 deals with marine strategy. Regulation 23 transfers functions contained in the EU marine strategy framework directive, which aims to protect the marine environment. Part 5 contains powers to lay down specifications and standardised methods to monitor and assess the marine environment, to reflect scientific and technical progress; to specify indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts relevant to marine waters, of,
“characteristics to be taken into account for setting environmental targets”,
and of “requirements for monitoring programmes”; and to specify standardised methods for the application of,
“qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status”,
of, characteristics, pressures and impacts relevant to marine waters, of
“characteristics to be taken into account for setting environmental targets”,
and of “monitoring programmes”.
Despite covering a mixture of reserved and devolved matters, the devolved Administrations have already agreed that these functions will be conferred on the Secretary of State alone to exercise for the whole of the marine strategy area, as defined in Regulation 3 of the Marine Strategy Regulations. This includes the UK territorial seas, including coastal waters, offshore waters out to the limits of the UK’s renewable energy zone and the sea bed in areas of the UK continental shelf beyond the renewable energy zone.
As with national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants in Part 2, before making regulations under this part relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or relating to devolved functions, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of relevant devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State must also consult interested parties including, where appropriate, the Ospar Commission and other international organisations to which we will retain obligations after we leave the EU. The Secretary of State must publish a report on his decision following a consultation. This mirrors the existing approach to consultation relating to the UK’s marine strategy, which is set out in the regulations.
Part 6 covers water quality. Regulations 24 to 46 confer functions contained in eight EU water directives. These directives relate to protection of waters in general—the water framework directive—and the groundwater environmental quality standards, bathing water, drinking water, urban wastewater treatment, nitrates and sewage sludge directives. The functions include powers to set out technical specifications for economic analysis and water-quality monitoring; to specify the procedures for establishing groundwater threshold values, assessing groundwater chemical status and identifying upward trends in groundwater pollutants; to specify the symbols to be used for information on bathing water prohibition and for making provision about the handling of bathing water samples; and to specify reference methods for measuring nitrate levels in water.
The functions are clearly defined and are exercisable in most cases only to adapt the legislation to scientific and technical progress. They are conferred in each case on the appropriate authority, defined by Regulation 25 in the same way as for Part 2. Regulation 25 also provides for the Secretary of State to legislate for devolved Administrations with their consent.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a very old interest as a former chief executive of the Environment Agency and as former chairman of English Nature.
I am very concerned about this set of regulations. The Minister described them as limited but I do not think that they are. The Secretary of State is being given rather broad powers to make amendments by regulation to a wide range of significant legislation, which has really important impacts for the environment. That is made worse by the fact that these regulations have the appearance of having been prepared by different civil servants and glued together at the last minute, because they are rather a mess of inconsistency.
For example, some powers are limited to the extent that the competent authority can make changes only,
“if appropriate to do so as a result of scientific and technical progress”.
However, that requirement does not apply to all the powers—for example, it does not apply to the air-quality regulation or the regulation applying to medium combustion plants. It would be interesting to know why the Minister is happy—if indeed he is—with this range of inconsistency. I will come on to talk more about inconsistencies in other areas. With regard to making changes only as a result of the advance of scientific and technical knowledge, does that mean that the Minister can simply change the regulations that do not have that provision on a whim rather than according to science? I am sure that is not what is intended but one might read that into the regulations.
Of course, the regulations do not define appropriate change as a result of scientific and technical knowledge. If the environment is to be safeguarded, I believe that that has to be not just clarified but interpreted as requiring that powers can be exercised only where the new provisions ensure an equivalent or higher level of environmental protection. That needs to be reflected in the wording of the statutory instrument. There is another flourish of inconsistency that is useful: Regulation 45(2) on the sewage sludge regulation—we get all the good jobs in this House—has a useful additional level of protection, which might be made to refer to all the regulations in this statutory instrument.
Perhaps I may also ask the Minister about the relationship between this set of regulations, with its scientific and technical knowledge requirement, and some of the requirements about advances in scientific and technical knowledge that are already included in the directives. For example, under the industrial emissions directive there is BAT, which means best available technique; and under the urban wastewater treatment directive, there is BATNEEC, which means best available technique not entailing excessive costs. Those are useful ratchet mechanisms, because they go in only one direction—the direction of improvement. However, the regulations do not mention how BAT and BATNEEC will be dealt with under those two directives.
Of course, all the forthcoming changes will be subject to negative scrutiny. It is not a question of more scrutiny taking disproportionate time, but it is inadequate to say that they will go through on the negative procedure because that does not give adequate credence to their importance. There is always a risk of weakening existing environmental protection by cock-up rather than conspiracy, if the Committee will pardon that technical term. I vividly remember the day when the Government announced that there were one-third fewer breaches of the air quality directive in London, before we quietly pointed out to them behind the scenes that that was because the budget had been cut and there were one-third fewer monitoring stations, especially in areas of high pollution, so inevitably there were one-third fewer exceedances. Even with the best of intentions, there needs to be a higher level of scrutiny to make sure that there is no inadvertent, even if not deliberate, weakening of existing environmental protection.
There is also inconsistency in the duty to consult. For example, some of the regulations talk about consulting, as the Minister mentioned, but there is a very good consultative body—the UK technical advisory group—for the water framework directive, the groundwater directive and the priority substances directive, yet no mention of those directives needing consultation despite the standard and regular consultation process that already goes on with it.
At the end of the day, there is the vexed question of compliance. You could say that it is Parliament’s job to scrutinise secondary legislation and make sure that it is okay, but the reality is that we will have a new environmental regulator. Prior due diligence on the sorts of changes that would go through in secondary legislation is not currently in that regulator’s role, and it ought to be.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, our Benches certainly accept that, if we are to leave the European Union, the Secretary of State or the devolved authorities need these powers to ensure that the legislation, such as it is, does not remain static but moves forward in the light of scientific knowledge and understanding. The number of areas that we are talking about in environmental legislation is reflected in this jumbo statutory instrument, so we also accept that the only way to provide them is probably through the secondary legislation route, given the chances of us being able to get primary legislation slots for all the changes that might be necessary.
However, following what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, we are disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken in this jumbo SI to ensure maximum protection for the environment. That is particularly so when we are having these discussions in advance of an environment Bill that sets the framework for future UK legislation outside Europe; and in advance of creating the office for environmental protection, which, in addition to statutory authorities such as the environment agencies, will be able to hold people to account.
In a slightly different way, I want to pick up a point that the noble Baroness made about changes being made only in response to scientific and technical advances. In some areas—she alluded to one, and I have another on water quality—the regulations pin down how the Secretary of State or devolved authorities can use these powers. Regulation 32(3) alludes to the fact that the devolved authorities can use the powers on water quality by looking to scientific evidence only where there will be possible harm to the aquatic environment. So, this instrument contains provisions on how the devolved authorities or the Secretary of State can use those powers to protect the environment. If it is good enough in the case of water quality to limit the powers that the Secretary of State can use in response to scientific and technical changes—and to do so only to advance environmental protection—why is that not the case in all areas? The phrase about it being in response to scientific and technical changes does not have a rider; it says that it ensures the equivalent or a higher level of protection for the environment. I think we are both making the same point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also mentioned consultation but I want to pick up on a slightly different point. Given the nature of these changes, it is critical that all relevant stakeholders are consulted. However, there is an omission on the issue of environmental noise, which the statutory instrument covers. In his summing up, can the Minister say specifically why environmental noise does not merit consultation? He referred to it in general terms but not specifically. Of course, we can change negative statutory instruments to affirmative ones, but it would reassure us parliamentarians and bring us a degree of comfort if we knew that all the changes had been subjected to scrutiny by all the relevant bodies.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the SI and for the helpful briefing that he arranged beforehand.
As he explained, this is another of the many SIs that we have considered to transfer legislative functions from the EU and the European Commission to the UK. In this case, the functions are transferred overwhelmingly to the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers. We have debated the limitations of this process many times before; I do not intend to go into all the arguments again but there is an undoubted democratic deficit in transferring powers from a complex European process, with all its checks and balances, to one person, however well intentioned that person may be.
With that in mind, I want to raise some issues and ask some questions. First, the department’s written response to stakeholders on the issue of environmental law governance drew attention to the proposals for the office for environmental protection contained in the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill, which is intended to provide continued scrutiny and oversight. That Bill, which is not before us yet, now plays a particularly significant role. Because of where we are politically, the withdrawal Bill, which we spent many happy hours arguing over and which had a large number of environmental protections built into it, will not be taken forward; we seem to be losing it. All we have now to underpin environment guarantees is the office for environmental protection, which does not exist yet. What role will that body play in scrutinising the sort of regulations that are before us today and the Secretary of State’s powers in them? For example, is it envisaged that the OEP will collect data and monitor the effectiveness of the regulations? That includes points of detail; as the Minister said, this is about annexes and so on. Will its role go into that sort of detail? Will it also be responsible for scrutinising the Secretary of State’s performance and delivery in carrying out the functions that we are about to give him or her?
Can the Minister clarify what role this new body will play and whether it will have that oversight? While we are on the subject, can he also bring us up to date about when we will see the OEP? It seems the timetable is slipping, yet an awful lot is riding on the future of that organisation. It would be helpful if he could update us on that because, once that body is in place and we have had the assurances about what we hope will be its all-embracing role, some of these other issues will fall into place and we will not be so anxious about them.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses for their comments on these regulations. I repeat that they create powers that will enable us to adapt our environmental legislation to reflect scientific and technical developments. We believe that they do this in a practical and proportionate way that provides for greater public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny than now occurs in the manner in which the Commission exercises the powers. I therefore say, in great friendship, to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that whatever our views on the matter, we should all be pleased that in this area and in this particular place we will enable, with consultation and scrutiny—I will elaborate on that—something that is not currently available to us. Candidly, that is because, as regards the decisions that the Commission is taking, member states took the view, practically and proportionally, that these matters did not require the sort of approach that the noble Baronesses are perhaps suggesting would have been more desirable.
None of this work this afternoon is about a regression. I put it on record that it is not. I do not want the noble Baroness to be worried because this work is designed so that she is not. The whole purpose of this instrument is that it does not of itself change substantive policy, which is about having rigour on the environment. It does not change operational delivery, which we all want. It does not impose additional costs on individuals, public organisations or businesses. It is not intended to result in additional environmental impacts compared with the way in which the legislation previously operated. As I say, it is all about keeping within the rigour of what there was before while providing us with a further opportunity.
I should say straightaway that I have a note here on the office for environmental protection, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred. We are planning for the office for environmental protection to be operational by 1 January 2021. It will be an independent statutory organisation, established by the environment Bill, to provide environmental scrutiny and advice, respond to complaints and take enforcement action. If necessary, we are ready with interim arrangements—all those are in place—which will provide an initial assessment of complaints, scrutiny of the 25-year environment plan and ad hoc advice until the OEP is established.
The environment Bill plots a course to establish a pioneering new system of green governance, improve air quality, restore and enhance nature, improve waste management and resource efficiency, and improve surface water, groundwater and wastewater management. A full list of the remits is still to be finalised but that was a taster of what is a work of great ambition. The Bill will be introduced in the second Session; I am afraid that noble Lords will not find me saying when that might be. There might be quite a lot of noble Lords in the same position, so I cannot say any more about when. However, it is important work and, whoever is looking after these matters, it will be a very interesting time for scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.
I was quite rightly pressed on scientific and technical progress. The Explanatory Memorandum for this instrument explains that the powers will usually be used as a result of scientific and technical progress. This is because, in some cases—for example, in relation to monitoring and reporting standards—changes might be necessary for other reasons, such as having better regulatory measures. We also seek to replicate the provisions in directives, which take different approaches as the EU has considered it appropriate. Where the Commission’s power can be used only to reflect scientific and technical progress, we have carried over that restriction. Pressure for changes as a result of scientific and technical progress most frequently occurs, I understand, on a bottom-up basis: that is, it comes from the scientific and technical community, or the business community. In other words, it tends to come from the very experts who government would need to consult before making legislation. More generally, and where appropriate, we would normally consult experts before making regulations on such technical matters.
All of your Lordships referred to the exercise of powers by negative statutory instruments. As I have tried to explain, these powers essentially relate to technical matters that EU member states have considered it appropriate to delegate to the Commission. These are the kinds of matters of detail for which, in domestic contexts, we would normally use secondary legislation—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, alluded to this at the beginning of her remarks—and, generally, the negative resolution procedure. We consider this approach proportionate with the powers that this instrument transfers.
The real point is that we have been desperately keen not to be in a position where we would cause environmental legislation to ossify; I think that everyone would agree with that. When we are furnished with ways in which we can, through technical changes, enhance the environment and do things better, we clearly need to attend to those changes—and do so pretty smartish. Negative statutory instruments go through the JCSI and the SLSC for scrutiny; of course, if alarm bells ring or there is an issue, parliamentarians have ways of drawing matters to Parliament’s attention. I do not see demons in this but one did appear under some future arrangements. There are all sorts of ways in which tenacious Members of both Houses would deal with this.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2019.
Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this draft order differs from recent amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in that it is based on changes to scientific and technical detail in existing legislation and does not introduce further controls on compounds under the 1971 Act. I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—the ACMD—for its expert advice on this technical matter, which has informed the draft order before the Committee.
The order was first laid before Parliament on 4 June. Its purpose is to amend Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act by reducing the scope of the generic definition of the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids. I assure noble Lords that this amendment does not repeal the generic definition of synthetic cannabinoids under the Act, and compounds commonly known as Spice and Mamba will continue to be subject to controls under that legislation. The measure is brought forward as a result of the recommendation from the ACMD published on 22 December 2017.
It may be helpful if I explain to the Committee the history of the control of synthetic cannabinoids under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as it helps to frame the context of this amendment. The ACMD, the independent experts who provide advice to the Government on the misuse and harms of drugs, first published guidance in 2014 on the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids. This is a group of compounds that mimic the effects of cannabis and are commonly referred to by brand names such as Spice and Mamba. The ACMD recommended that synthetic cannabinoids should be captured under a generic definition— as class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act—due to their associated harms and widespread availability, and it followed the control of the first generation of synthetic cannabinoids in 2009 and the second generation in 2013.
The ACMD advice also recommended that these compounds be placed under Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, as it could not determine any known medicinal or therapeutic benefits from these drugs. Any drugs listed under Schedule 1 are deemed to have little or no known medicinal or therapeutic benefits and can be legally accessed only with a Home Office licence, which is generally issued for research or industrial purposes.
Shortly after these changes came into effect on 14 December 2016, representatives from the research community contacted the Home Office and the ACMD, informing them that a large number of research compounds not suspected as being synthetic cannabinoids were inadvertently captured under the generic definition. As a result of the controls placed on these compounds, institutions had to obtain Schedule 1 licences to conduct certain aspects of their research. The licensing process ensures that there is a minimised risk of misuse and diversion of, and harm from, controlled drugs. However, the Government have no desire to unnecessarily impose licensing requirements where compounds do not pose risks of harm. Accordingly, it is important that we amend the generic definition to remove a regulatory burden on the research industry relating to compounds that were never intended to be controlled. On that basis, the ACMD recommended in December 2017 that the scope of the generic definition be reduced.
The order amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to reduce the breadth of compounds controlled as third-generation synthetic cannabinoids. The ACMD’s amended definition will ensure that compounds which have been found to cause harm will continue to be caught by the generic definition. I assure the Committee that the Government are acutely aware of the continued harms posed by the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids, and I want to make it clear that the order does not revoke the generic definition. Harmful synthetic cannabinoids such as Spice and Mamba will continue to be controlled through the generic definition.
The order, if accepted and made, will come into force on 15 November. To complement it, a further statutory instrument will be introduced to make parallel amendments to the generic definition under Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and in the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015. As a result, the compounds currently captured unintentionally will no longer require a Home Office licence for the conduct of research as they will no longer be controlled.
I hope that I have made the case to amend the generic definition of the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids to remove the compounds that were unintentionally controlled from the generic definition. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft statutory instrument.
It is regrettable that, in 2016, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised the Government to include such a wide definition of third generation synthetic cannabinoids. Between 40,000 and 90,000 compounds captured by this wide definition were not synthetic cannabinoids and therefore were not intended to be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In addition, it inhibited research by requiring researchers to obtain a Schedule 1 licence.
That highlights a series of issues with the Government’s approach to drug misuse. First, the ill-thought-through Psychoactive Substances Act, while making previously so-called legal highs illegal, did not make the possession of such substances an offence—only their manufacture, sale and supply, even though some of the substances are more dangerous than the substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act that they were designed to replace.
Secondly, as a result, the ACMD still has to play catch-up with synthetic alternatives to controlled drugs, such as synthetic cannabinoids, which need to be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act because they are so dangerous. To get ahead of the game, on the basis of what the Minister said and what is contained in the material published by the Home Office on the SI, the ACMD appears to have gone to the other extreme and banned swathes of innocuous substances.
Thirdly, these synthetic alternatives to controlled drugs were created only because the controlled drugs that they were designed to replace were illegal. For example, I know a doctor who has had to deal with a number of patients with serious psychiatric problems caused by these synthetic alternatives; they took the synthetic alternatives because they were legal at the time, but they would not have had psychiatric problems if they had stuck to the controlled drugs that the synthetic alternatives were designed to replace. My understanding is that the synthetic cannabinoid Spice, which the Minister mentioned, induces far more psychosis and is far more addictive than even the strongest form of cannabis, for example. Can the Minister confirm that?
Fourthly, this sort of mistake further undermines the credibility of the system of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Drugs are being classified primarily on the basis of politics rather than scientific evidence. For example, the previous Labour Government downgraded cannabis from class B to class C on the basis of scientific evidence only for the same Labour Government, under a new Prime Minister, to reclassify it back to class B for political reasons. Some drugs, such as GHB or GBL, that cause a large number of deaths—particularly among gay men, including a former partner of mine—are in class C while MDMA or ecstasy, which cause far fewer deaths, are in class A. We do not oppose the correction of this mistake by means of this SI but we clearly state it again: drug misuse should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue; all the efforts of government and law enforcement should be focused on harm reduction, not criminalisation; and the Government need to expand their review of drug misuse to include law changes, including potentially legalising and regulating controlled drugs.
The Liberal Democrats are not the only ones saying this. Last week, a survey showed that twice as many people were in favour of the legalisation of cannabis than against it. Research published last week showed that fewer teenagers used cannabis when it was legalised in the United States. The debate on drug misuse is changing. We believe that it is time that the Government paid attention to that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of the draft order, which we do not oppose. It amends the Misuse of Drugs Act by narrowing the previous definition of synthetic cannabinoids, as the previous definition has had the effect of requiring compounds that are not of concern to be licensed as class B drugs.
Following the control of the first generation of synthetic cannabinoids in 2009 and of the second generation in 2013, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs first published advice in 2014 on the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids—a group of compounds commonly referred to, as the Minister said, as Spice and Mamba, which mimic the effects of cannabis. The ACMD recommended that these compounds be captured by way of a generic definition as class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It also recommended that the compounds be placed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, meaning that they can be legally accessed only with a Home Office licence, which is generally issued for research or industrial purposes.
Following the ACMD’s recommendations, the changes came into effect on 14 December 2016 but, as has already been said, shortly after their implementation the ACMD and the Home Office were told by research bodies that the breadth of the definition meant that it captured a large number of research compounds, many of which were not synthetic cannabinoids. The effect of this was that research institutions had to obtain Schedule 1 licences when they should not have needed to do so.
The ACMD recognised that its advice that led to the 2016 changes had unintended consequences. As a result, it made a further recommendation in December 2017 to the effect that the scope of the generic definition be reduced. Accordingly, this order amends the generic definition of third-generation synthetic cannabinoids by replacing the term “univalent” with a defined number of substituents. This will apparently reduce the number of compounds unintentionally captured by the generic definition, estimated by industry at more than 40,000 substances, while retaining those that have not been found to cause harm. As the Minister said, the revised definition does not alter the position for class A drugs or the licensed medicines previously excluded.
When this order was discussed in the Commons, the Minister said,
“so that while those compounds that have been found to cause harm are captured by it, fewer compounds are unintentionally captured”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/19; col. 1263.]
In view of the Commons Minister’s words, how many compounds will still be unintentionally captured by the amended order that we are discussing now, and what level of inconvenience or difficulty will that continue to cause the research community in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sector in respect of having to continue, where necessary, to apply for Schedule 1 licences? How cumbersome, time-consuming and time-delaying is the process of applying for Schedule 1 licences, the need for which this order is designed to reduce but apparently not eliminate, in respect of compounds “unintentionally captured” by the 2016 changes? Bearing in mind that the ACMD made its recommendation, which led to the Government making this draft order some 18 months ago, why has it taken as long as it has to reach this stage?
The ACMD’s 2014 recommendations did not come into effect until mid-December 2016. Again, what was the reason for the apparent delay of at least two years? If consultation took place during that lengthy period, did any individuals or organisations raise the problem about the breadth of the definition that the research community raised shortly after mid-December 2016? If not, why did the ACMD—or anyone else—not realise the problem that this order seeks to address before its recommendations were implemented? Did the changes that were brought into effect in mid-December 2016 properly reflect the ACMD’s recommendations of two years or more previously? If not, is that one reason why the problem of the breadth of the definition came to light only after the mid-December 2016 changes came into effect?
This draft order does not seek to address the issue of the use, or rather misuse, of drugs. The UK now has, I believe, the highest recorded level of mortality from drug misuse since records began. I hope that we will soon hear from the Government the different approaches, based on what would most effectively reduce harm, that they intend to consider and adopt in response to a drug situation that appears to be getting worse.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for their points. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the point that this is regrettable—I agree. It is never a good place to be in, having to amend legislation for this reason. He is right that research was taking far longer because of the application process. That is why we have the order today. He also made the point that psychiatric problems would not be as problematic as they are with synthetic versions. However, I have thought back to several examples that I am aware of, for example, skunk weed, which has caused psychiatric problems. He asked whether I could confirm that Spice is more addictive than non-synthetic cannabis. It is indeed stronger than some other drugs. That is why it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, in line with the expert advice. The SI does not change the control of Spice.
He also made the point that drugs policy should be aimed at reduction. Of course, reduction of the use of drugs is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve, particularly—
Lord Paddick
I said the aim of policy should be harm reduction, not reduction in use.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The two probably go hand in hand—the harm of drugs and the use of them are quite parallel to each other—but I take the noble Lord’s point. He made a slightly different point and maybe I just took licence because I could respond in the way that I did. He also talked about the legalisation of cannabis. He knows that the Government do not intend at this point to legalise cannabis. In fact, the statutory instrument is not about the legalisation or otherwise of cannabis but, again, he took the opportunity to bring the issue up.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why it has taken so long to get here, given that the recommendation was made back in December 2017. The initial recommendation from the ACMD in December 2017 acted as interim advice, covering a range of proposed solutions for the Home Office to consider. Officials then liaised with the ACMD on the feasibility of the proposals and the ACMD made short-term recommendations amending the generic definition and longer-term recommendations. Following those recommendations, from spring 2018 the Home Office engaged in a targeted consultation with the research community on the proposals, which confirmed at the end of 2018 that it supported the short-term solution of amending the generic definition. Steps were then taken to make this legislative amendment. The unintentional capture did not come to light until after the introduction of the legislative changes in 2016. After receiving representations from the research community, the Home Office and the ACMD then acted.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how many compounds will still be unintentionally caught by the MDA. The nature of a generic definition is such that it is not possible to specify an exact number of compounds. I will write to him with further detail once I have confirmed that point. We are continuing to work with the ACMD on longer-term solutions. With that—
Lord Rosser
I raised another issue. I am not suggesting that we should not pass this order, but how cumbersome and time-consuming is the process of applying for the Schedule 1 licences? Is it some great bureaucratic procedure or not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think I made that point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is quite a procedural undertaking; hence it is good that this SI is before us today. My note from the Box just says that it varies from case to case depending on the complexity of the activity being licensed, and that clear guidance is given on the Home Office website on how to make licensing applications. However, there is a broader point: that to get a Schedule 1 licence is quite a serious matter.
Lord Rosser
There is one other point—I say this as a complete lay man. It is fairly sobering to find that the ACMD made a recommendation—I understand that it consists of people who know what they are talking about—but we were apparently not able to appreciate that this difficulty would arise, and, because presumably there was some discussion and consultation, nobody outside the ACMD realised that it would arise. Is it not quite a sobering thought that such a mistake could have been made by not only the experienced body that is meant to advise on this but by those who were going to be affected by it? To me, as a lay person, that is quite worrying. Are the Government not worried that a mistake will be made again in some other sphere?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord that any such amendment that we have to make based on SIs that we have put before this House, without the full information before us, is always a concern. However, we are talking about new compounds that need research. We are at the forefront of research and controls but that does not take away from the fact that the noble Lord is right—it is unfortunate when we have to amend secondary legislation like this.
Lord Rosser
I am not quite sure from what the Minister says whether the answer to the point I raised is that the problem could not have been envisaged at the time—that it came to light that new substances or compounds suddenly were affected. However, if I am not right in saying that, did the Government inquire of the ACMD why it had not realised that this would be a difficult? Did they get an explanation from it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will have to write to the noble Lord on that, but I thank him for raising that valid point.
House of Lords
Free Television Licences
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they had with the BBC on possible sources of funding before the BBC announced their plans to cease providing free television licences for those age 75 or older.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am over 75. Why have Her Majesty’s Government allowed—
Lord Naseby
Sorry—old age. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the Government discussed funding with the BBC in 2015. We agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the concession would transfer to it in June 2020. To help with financial planning, we agreed to provide phased transitional funding over two years so as gradually to introduce the cost to the BBC. The Government and the BBC agreed that this was a fair deal for the BBC. The future of the concession is therefore the responsibility of the BBC. The Government are clear that they are disappointed with its decision.
Lord Naseby
Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that, in effect, the BBC is victimising 5.5 million pensioners whose sole real leisure pursuit, unless they are really active, is to watch television and listen to radio? It is no source of help to them to be told that the poorest will be means-tested. Does my noble friend recollect in 1986 the Peacock report recommending that the BBC accept some advertising and sponsorship? Have the Government brought to the BBC’s attention the fact that £140 million of BBC income worldwide now comes from advertising and sponsorship? If that is good enough worldwide, why is it not good enough to be implemented at least to some extent in the United Kingdom?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, under the 2015 funding settlement it was agreed that responsibility would go to the BBC in return for an increase in its licence fee that was guaranteed and index-linked for five years. The director-general promoted that agreement and that is why we are disappointed with the BBC’s decision. As for the Peacock report, which as my noble friend said was 33 years ago, the funding model was considered then, but it was also considered again as part of the charter review. I am afraid to say to my noble friend that only 1.5% of those consulted agreed that having advertising on the BBC was a good idea.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, is not the real issue here whether we can believe the party opposite when it made a manifesto commitment to provide free television licences for those over 75 for the whole of the Parliament? The Minister has previously responded on this issue at great length and shared with the House his concern at being beaten up by this, but we are talking about the integrity and truthfulness of his party. What will he do about it? It is not a question of the figures; it is about what action can be taken. Last time, the excuse was that there was no legislation and it would take too long. We have a DCMS Bill in the House at the moment. What is wrong with tabling an amendment to that?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The DCMS Bill the noble Lord refers to deals with the operational delivery of the Commonwealth Games and has really nothing to do with the BBC at all. As for his question, I have replied to it: I said that everyone knew, when the manifesto was written, that the responsibility had been given to the BBC by Parliament. That is where it rests, because that is where Parliament put it, and that is why we are disappointed with its decision.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches agree that we must support our older citizens. However, does the Minister accept that the introduction of free TV licences for the over 25s; sorry, for the over 75s—that would be expensive—was government policy and should be paid for by the Government? The licence fee is not the Government’s to spend: it is not public money but the public’s money and should be used to invest in BBC programmes and BBC content. There is no point in a free licence if the BBC is so pared to the bone that there is nothing of quality to watch.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do not agree that the BBC is pared to the bone. The BBC is a £5 billion organisation; it gets £3.7 billion from the taxpayer, so I do not agree that it is a pared-down organisation.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the BBC and, once upon a time, an executive there—in the good old days. However we got to where we are today on the issue of pensioners, we are where we are. Does my noble friend agree with me in praising the diligence with which the BBC has set about trying to solve the problem of meeting the expectation of help for pensioners while at the same time not impoverishing everyone else’s viewing by making swingeing cuts in programme budgets? The BBC has behaved impeccably and been meticulous in trying to respond to the problem.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My noble friend makes the point that we are where we are. This was debated by Parliament and agreed. I know that some people, some noble Lords included, did not agree with the decision to pass responsibility to the BBC in the Digital Economy Act; nevertheless, that was done and the BBC is living up to the responsibility it was given. Dealing with the change in the structure of fees is a very difficult job, and television is changing dramatically, so I sympathise with the BBC; it has a difficult job to do. Nevertheless, we gave it a lot of warning—this was agreed in 2015—and that is why we are disappointed with what it has decided.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Age Scotland. This is not a matter for the BBC: it is a government responsibility. The Minister says that the Bill that my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to is not appropriate, but there is an appropriate Bill: I have a Private Member’s Bill, which has had its First Reading and will transfer responsibility back from the BBC to the Government. It will enable the Government to implement the promise that they made in their election manifesto. Will the Government support that Bill? If not, why not?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord repeats his mantra that it is not the BBC’s responsibility. We decided in 2015, and the BBC agreed, that it would be its responsibility. After that, Parliament agreed in the Digital Economy Act that it would be the BBC’s responsibility.
NHS: Automation
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Seccombe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the use of automation in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, the Topol review, published earlier this year, outlines recommendations for preparing the health and care workforce, through education and training, to adopt new technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. It is clear that the use of AI will not replace clinical staff but instead allow them to be more human. The use of new technologies will ensure that patients receive safer, more productive, more effective and more personalised care. The recommendations of the Topol review have informed the interim NHS people plan, which sets out how we prepare the workforce to build an NHS that is fit for the future.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, the success of any organisation is dependent on the people within it. I believe that the most precious asset that the NHS has is its human resource of dedicated staff, but in these days of sophisticated IT, and now artificial intelligence, can my noble friend tell the House what developments can be safely and securely harnessed by the NHS?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
Tremendous innovations are being introduced, including in robotics and AI-based automation, particularly in diagnostics, which have the potential to transform how healthcare is delivered in the NHS, but the role of automation to carry out basic administrative and repetitive functions, and of robotics in surgical operations in particular, is due to increase over the next decade. The main purpose of this automation in health is not to replace staff with machines or to reduce the role played by humans in providing care but, rather, to enable staff to spend more time delivering personalised care. But it is also to improve the productivity of health services and systems so that we can ensure that the NHS becomes more sustainable in future.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, made a valid point about the need for human beings to be involved in the delivery of healthcare, but the use of AI and other technology is also very exciting, as is the fact that it features so largely in the long-term plan. Are the experiments in automation taking place across the country, where are they taking place, when will we see the results and who is delivering automated healthcare and AI? Is it the NHS or are private contractors being commissioned to do this work? I accept that the Minister may not be able to answer all those questions in detail, but if she cannot, I would appreciate a letter being placed in the Library.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: this is a very exciting area of ongoing work and a key part of the grand challenges which we put in place as part of the life sciences strategy, part of which is the AI and early diagnosis initiative, which aims to transform the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic diseases. NHSX’s work across government is to deliver that mission, creating an ecosystem of safe and effective development of AI and the regulatory infrastructure so patients and clinicians can be reassured that where it is introduced, it will be safe. There will be lots of research and development of those innovations. We are at an early stage of implementing them, but there are five centres of excellence across the country. I will be very happy to place a letter in the Library updating the House on progress with the AI mission and these exciting developments.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, while the delivery of automation and AI has much to commend it to the NHS, CyberMDX reported last week that anaesthetic machines can be hacked and controlled from afar, including silencing alarms that would alert anaesthetists to danger. Four months ago in Israel, a cybersecurity firm demonstrated that computer virus malware could add tumours to images of scans. What protections, such as digital signatures and encryption, does the NHS now put in place, following the malware alarm two years ago, to ensure that automation and digital services cannot be attacked by malevolent forces?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is correct to say that patients and clinicians have a right to expect their data to be held securely. Since the WannaCry attack in May 2017, we have taken steps to ensure that NHS security measures are of the highest standard. This includes £60 million to improve cyber resilience in local infrastructure, support for NHS organisations to update their Windows operating systems, procuring a new cybersecurity operations centre, and boosting the national capability to prevent, detect and respond to cyberattacks. We are also committed to achieving much greater operational visibility across all NHS digital systems. This is one of the ways in which we can respond to attacks. Lastly, we expect the highest ethical standards from all data-driven systems and that is why we have introduced the code of conduct for data-driven health and care technology. That is how we will ensure that we have some of the best AI and data-driven technologies.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with one of the key points made by Professor Topol that one of the benefits of artificial intelligence is the “gift of time”, as he has put it? In other words, patients can spend more time with their doctor if certain more routine things are automated. Will my noble friend make sure that that is one of the key aims of bringing automation into healthcare?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend is right. One of the key recommendations is that by automating routine analyses such as radiology, diagnoses and pathology and routinely bringing in AI to sequence bed management, we will reduce the burden on clinicians so that they are able to see more patients. The review makes specific recommendations to help the workforce become more digital ready, which means increasing capacity and capability, and building the right environment. That is exactly what we have embedded into the NHS people plan and all that we are working on through NHSX.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Robotic process automation—RPA—is an emerging software technology that can undertake repetitive tasks in place of human workers. Many industries are seeing the benefits of using this technology and thus releasing people to do more value-added work. I believe that it has been used in a small number of NHS trusts. Can the Minister say whether there are any plans to deploy this technology more widely across the health service?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is right to say that technologies such as this offer the most potential to reduce repetitive work and transform how our healthcare is delivered. This is what we are focusing on to ensure that we can give health and care staff the ability to spend more time delivering personalised care in medicine while also ensuring that we improve systems to make them more efficient and productive.
Childhood Obesity
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to combat childhood obesity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, we are delivering a world-leading plan to tackle childhood obesity. Later this summer, we will set out further action through a prevention Green Paper. In addition, the Chief Medical Officer is reviewing what more can be done to help us meet our ambition of halving childhood obesity by 2030. The review, due to report in September, will consider the approaches taken internationally, regionally and across the country, and will make a series of recommendations.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My noble friend will have seen coverage in the weekend’s press of food companies which are continuing to breach the government advice that a child should not be weaned until six months of age. They are also still failing to reformulate infant foods. For example, one portion of baby porridge contains 9.4 grams of sugar in a 24 gram portion. That of course leads to further childhood obesity, dental decay and addiction to sugar. Can my noble friend tell us what conversations and discussions the Government are having with food companies, in particular Heinz, Danone and Nestlé about reformulation and the age at which infants should be weaned?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend is a great champion on this subject and has been an expert in it for a long period. Through the prevention Green Paper, which is due to be published this summer, we are determined to look at a range of further options to tackle obesity. We have publicly committed to taking action on infant and baby food. She will know that we are making progress on the reformulation section of the obesity strategy. However, we have further to go, and I am grateful to her for her Question on this issue.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is it possible to consider something very clever? Rather than accepting that the poorest among us are the ones who deal with obesity, why do we not give them a Waitrose lunch and dinner and subsidise it, and stop having to pay further upline in the NHS? Why do we not start thinking globally rather than just a bit at a time?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Lord for his question; I hope that we can occasionally think cleverly in government. He is absolutely right that obesity is strongly correlated with socioeconomic deprivation, and that is why chapter 2 of our plan tries to target those areas that are most affected by delivering a childhood obesity trailblazer programme, working with local authorities to address this. They have been provided with £100,000 in the first instance to try to improve the impact of the childhood obesity plan. We shall see how that goes, but I am very happy to pass on his suggestion.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will no doubt be aware that the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly some time ago produced a report on childhood obesity. Does the Minister agree, dipping into that report, that we need not only a national strategy but—as demonstrated to the committee in Amsterdam—a local strategy, where the local authority can take the initiative, and there can be education and pregnant mothers can be helped to see their way through their own diets and therefore to help their children? Does she agree that we need a local strategy as well, and can the Government initiate that with local authorities?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is quite right that the national plan must be implemented locally. Public Health England works with local authorities to do that and has set up a number of tools, such as the Change4Life plan, which includes food scanners that have been downloaded several million times to help parents and families make better food choices. We have more to do on this, and we very much welcome proposals to do it. I know that the Amsterdam model has been particularly effective; indeed, my noble friend raised this with the previous Public Health Minister, and I am sure she will continue to raise the issue.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that activity is an important part of tackling obesity? We have had some wonderful examples of sporting success in women’s football, cricket, netball and other activities at the moment. What are we going to do to make sure that these examples of sporting success are fed down to children and made available on free-to-air when possible?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We should all be incredibly proud of the sporting achievements over this weekend; we should not hesitate to do whatever we can to promote them throughout our schools and make the most of the moment. The noble Lord is absolutely right that regular physical activity has been linked not only to improved physical health but to improved mental health and academic achievement. That is why the Chief Medical Officer has recommended 60 minutes of physical activity every day. We know that only one in five achieve this; that is why the money from the sugar levy is going into schools activity. But we have more to do. We have announced the national plan and now need to implement that effectively, and I hope that the noble Lord will hold us up to the mark in delivering it.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, notwithstanding the importance of anti-obesity guidance in supporting the long-term health of the general population, is the Minister aware of the concerns of eating disorder specialists about its unintended consequences on those for whom “Eat less, exercise more” is not an appropriate message? Clinicians are reporting an increasing number of young people citing anti-obesity guidance to justify excessive behaviours in exercise and diet restriction. Does she agree that, while anti-obesity policy is vital, it needs to be sufficiently nuanced that it does not cause unintended collateral damage to these vulnerable groups?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness presents a sensitive and sophisticated point: the whole point of the obesity message is that children should be eating a healthy, balanced diet and exercising in an appropriate way.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that obesity will break the NHS model if we do not do something about it?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. Obesity is a crisis that will not only create misery for those who will then experience increased risk of tooth decay and of diseases such as cancers, diabetes and other severe illnesses, but it will also create significant unsustainability within our health service, which we are able to prevent. Since we know the tools that we have to prevent it, we should all be working together to make sure we do.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we know—and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made this point—that it is the poorest children who are obese. This is largely because their parents buy food which is high in fat, sugar and salt, because it is cheaper than fresh food. It may or may not be from Waitrose, but the noble Lord makes an important point there. I have two questions for the Minister. First, is it true that two-thirds of the deadlines of the plans that have been put forward for the obesity strategy have been missed? Secondly, what is the Government’s strategy for dealing with summer hunger—those children who will not get proper meals during the summer break?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is quite right to raise inequalities. This is exactly why chapter 2 of our plan is focused on childhood obesity trailblazer programmes, where we have identified areas of highest deprivation to provide specific support to local authorities in those areas. We have also recognised this issue around school holidays: around 50,000 disadvantaged children will be offered free meals and activities over the upcoming summer holidays, funded by £9.1 million from the Department for Education. That follows a successful programme last summer, which saw improvement, with football play sessions and cooking classes for more than 18,000 children across the country. However, the noble Baroness is right to recognise that this is a real challenge that we need to address.
Litter Strategy
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made on implementing their Litter Strategy for England, published on 10 April 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, progress includes improved enforcement powers for councils, with a near doubling of the maximum on-the-spot penalty, the launch of our ambitious Keep it, Bin it anti-litter campaign and continued delivery of the litter innovation fund. We were also pleased to support this year’s Great British Spring Clean, which mobilised over half a million people and involved over 175,000 young people. The litter strategy brings together communities, businesses, charities and schools to deliver real change.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it is a somewhat strange paradox that, at a time of growing and wide concern—quite rightly—about safeguarding the environment, there seems to be an increasing problem with litter all over the place? Without the fantastic work of street cleaners, we would realise how big a problem this really is. Will my noble friend say what more can be done to educate our schoolchildren about the problems of litter; the danger it causes to the environment, disfiguring it, and the health hazards it can cause?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why education and awareness are key elements of the litter strategy; we want every child to learn about the impacts of litter. Citizenship education is part of the statutory national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4. There are also 19,200 schools in England which are registered eco-schools—that is around 79%, and this number is growing daily. The Great Big School Clean was central to the Great British Spring Clean. There is very much more to do, but we certainly need to work with the next generation to have a better environment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have been waiting for the introduction of a bottle deposit scheme, which would play a significant part in reducing litter from plastic bottles and tin cans, for some time now. Given that the Government’s latest consultation on this issue was completed a couple of months ago, what is now stopping them from introducing this measure, which would have widespread popular support and do a great deal to tackle the litter problem?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the deposit return scheme is a very important part of what we need to do. There clearly needs to be further work with business to ensure that the scheme runs satisfactorily when we implement it. The first consultation closed on 13 May. This is very important in terms of littering and of increasing recycling. These two things go together. I am as impatient as the noble Baroness to get this done as soon as possible.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, glass is a major problem when it litters our countryside—for humans, for fire risks and for wildlife. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the deposit return scheme. Scotland has recently introduced a 20p deposit return scheme which includes glass. Will the Minister confirm that any scheme introduced in England would include all sizes and materials, including glass?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I had better check on that precisely for the noble Baroness. I will put a letter in the Library. The whole purpose of the deposit return scheme is to ensure that, in our ever more circular economy we need to recycle and reuse more, whether it is glass, plastic or aluminium. I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a much cleaner Britain ought to be a relatively easy political objective to achieve? Will he agree that one thing that is needed is more people picking up litter? As we are trying to keep people out of prison, a great deal more use could be made of community service orders to ensure that litter is picked up.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we have a great dilemma. We can do all that we need to do and want to do, with many more people picking up litter—over half a million were doing so in the Great British Spring Clean—but roughly one in five people admits to dropping litter. The whole purpose of the education and awareness campaign is precisely to bear down on the fact that a lot of our fellow citizens do not think it is socially unacceptable to drop litter. For all sorts of reasons, we must tackle that because it is damaging to the environment and wildlife, and it looks dreadful.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given that we have so many local authorities with different recycling schemes, we should have a national standard and a national plan for recycling? That way, maybe we will begin to drive up recycling rates, which are appallingly low in most local authority districts.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That is precisely why we are working on it. The noble Lord is right: we want to have a consistent, clear and easy to understand range of products—the widest range of products—that are recyclable. It all goes back to the need to enhance our environment, and that is part of that work.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the state of the verges on our major roads and motorways and on railway embankments is something that we should all be ashamed of, particularly when a lot of tourists use these routes? When I asked previously, I was told that health and safety stopped people from picking up litter on major roads. Is there any way that we can overcome this and ensure that our roadsides are kept clean?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I agree with the noble Countess that our roads are not a good advertisement. That is why we have been working with Highways England. Highways England has been working on 25 particular hot spots that are really bad—indeed, nearly 20,000 bags of litter were picked up in the Great British Spring Clean. We need to do more on that and more on working with the highways network and the railways. That is why I am pleased with the Keep it, Bin it campaign. It is all to do with working with many different bodies to ensure that the message gets about that it is not acceptable to drop litter.
Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Monday 15th July 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 190-I(Rev)(a)(Manuscript) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the revised marshalled list (PDF) - (15 Jul 2019)
Lord Cormack
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all stand in my name but I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Trimble and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for adding their names to all but one of them. These are very simple amendments, which I trailed last week at Second Reading. All they do is alter dates in the Bill. They do not cause any impediment whatever if, miraculously—I think it would be miraculous—a Northern Ireland Executive were set up in the very near future. I think there is common agreement among those who follow the affairs of Northern Ireland closely that it is, sadly, very unlikely that any significant change will take place by the August date in the Bill. I regret that, just as I regret that for more than two and a half years now we have had no Northern Ireland Executive and no Assembly.
My noble friend who will respond to this debate knows full well my views on the desirability of summoning the Assembly, having its committees working and, above all, having an Executive, the absence of which has deprived the people of Northern Ireland of proper devolved government for more than two and a half years, but we must be realistic. Your Lordships’ House will be going into recess, as will the other place, at the end of next week. We come back briefly in September. By then a new Prime Minister will have been in office for some weeks, but nobody in this House or the other place imagines, much as we might regret it, that the new Prime Minister will have anything at the top of his agenda other than Brexit. All eyes will increasingly be focused not on a date in the middle of October but on a date at the end of October—31 October.
In these circumstances it seems sensible to avoid the constant coming back for a renewal, effectively, of a mandate. We have done this too often now. Therefore, in these amendments I am suggesting that we delete the October date, insert a fallback date of 13 January in its place, and that for a fallback date we have not 13 January but 10 April. I have put that date for a very deliberate reason. That will be the 22nd anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. I hope that might focus minds, particularly in Northern Ireland. It will also take off what some people might consider undue pressure.
I intervened on my noble friend’s wind-up speech last week and indicated that I was minded to table amendments to this effect. He responded very graciously. The amendments are now before us and I very much hope that the Committee will see them as non-controversial, giving more time to the parties and people of Northern Ireland to restore proper devolved government and taking away the ever-increasing threat of direct rule, which no one who cares about Northern Ireland and who was excited by what happened nearly 22 years ago wants to see happen. I trust that my noble friend will be able to give me a very satisfactory answer to these amendments. I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble Baroness for supporting them and I beg to move.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cormack for the reasons that he gave in moving it. It is very wise to give more time for this. I notice that he is suggesting 13 January instead of 31 October, which gives a couple of extra months, but I rather like the idea of putting down 10 April and reminding people that it is the anniversary of the making of that agreement, which, when it was mooted, was agreed to by referenda with substantial majorities. The effect of that has not gone away. It is generally assumed in Northern Ireland that that agreement provides the basis for the local Administration.
Unfortunately, others are trying to undermine the agreement. Indeed, the worst of those trying to undermine the agreement—thankfully, at the moment it looks as though they will be unsuccessful—are the European Union, the Irish Government and our own Government. That is precisely what they are doing. I shall not go into great detail, although I can do so. I have been scribbling on this subject and something might emerge shortly, so I shall not start at this stage. We are not into a filibuster yet but, if the need comes, I am prepared to engage at some length on what I have just said. Putting in the date that reminds people of the agreement might, I hope, be an incentive to those who should be working to restore the Administration so that we have no further need of this legislation. We know that, because of the length of the hiatus in the institutions, the hope is not all that great, but it is worth reminding people of this and perhaps giving somebody’s conscience a prick ever so slightly on the subject.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who, as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is one of the architects of the Good Friday agreement. I pay tribute to him for his tireless work for peace in Northern Ireland over so many years.
I am pleased to support the amendment to the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The final, real purpose of the Bill is to prevent an election to enable more time for the talks to take place. All these dates will do is to make further accommodation. The amendment is not inconsistent with the main purpose of the Bill.
I spoke at Second Reading, and since then thousands have told me of their concern. I will speak more of that later. If the Bill could pass to give effect to its original purpose, it would be better to extend the period because, apart from anything else, at present Northern Ireland is on holiday. For example, I was trying to call the Minister through the Northern Ireland Office this morning, but all the numbers seemed not to work. I could not get anyone, and my suspicion is that this is a public holiday in Northern Ireland and that is why I was unable to get him. That tells you something about rushing a Bill that will make such a profound constitutional change through your Lordships’ House this week. The talks seem to have been very difficult, but they are being conducted by the Government. They have been facilitated and enabled by the Government, and the Minister has told us how committed they are to these talks and the future creation of a Northern Ireland Executive, which would allow the Assembly to go back and give us a functioning Government. They are vital to our future. They are, in the context of Brexit, critical to the peace process and to the peace, stability and economic prosperity of the United Kingdom. I am very pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I regret to tell the Committee that the Liberal Democrats cannot support these amendments. Northern Ireland has already been without an Assembly, a devolved Executive and effective decision-making for far too long. We are only reluctantly supporting 21 October, as I have said, and our hope is very much that the Bill will not be needed at all.
As we have heard, there have already been nine weeks of constructive talks. Now is not the time to take that pressure off Northern Ireland’s political parties—in fact, we must keep the pressure on. We want devolved government restored to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible, and these amendments are not the right way to go about things.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has just said—in contradiction to what Lord Cormack said. I would support his amendment if I believed there would be a benefit in going beyond 31 October to a date some time after Brexit. However, there is serious advantage in having a target date before the Brexit date. Many of us in this House think all sorts of complications may arise from 31 October, whatever format we leave the European Union in. A target date before then is therefore sensible.
As I said at Second Reading last week, it has been just over 1,000 days since the Dissolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly in early 2017. It has been a lot longer since the last vote on same-sex marriage, in which a majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly voted in favour of introducing it. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, I oppose this amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
As indeed does the Labour Party. I understand the rationale behind the amendments. We are in the holiday season—marching season. There is no Prime Minister, there could well be a new Secretary of State and Brexit looms over everything. It is not exactly the best time to try to come to an agreement. I understand the logic, but my fear—expressed by other Members of the Committee—is that there is a problem of drift.
The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, referred to the Good Friday agreement; he will remember when Senator Mitchell said that he was going home on 10 April. He had had enough and put down a deadline. It was ultimately because of that deadline that the political parties and Governments in Northern Ireland eventually came to a conclusion. If we take away a deadline, we take the pressure off the parties and the Government.
The parties obviously have a huge responsibility in trying to ensure a resolution. As I said at Second Reading, the issues that they have to resolve in Belfast at the moment pale into insignificance compared to those that had to be decided 22 years ago. There is nothing preventing this happening other than basic mistrust. I worry that the whole thing will inevitably drift towards direct rule if we keep on extending.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I can see the logic—and, indeed, the power—of the noble Lord’s argument about a deadline leading to a resolution. But can he explain why he is not taking exactly the same view on Brexit?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
That is because we are not dealing with Brexit at the moment, but with Northern Ireland. Had we resolved the Northern Ireland situation over the past two years, we would possibly have resolved the backstop issue. Had we done that, Brexit could have been much easier. However, the Government have not been negotiating well on either issue.
I do not hold huge confidence in our new Prime Minister—assuming it will be Mr Johnson—or his interest in Northern Ireland. However, I hope that the Secretary of State, whoever that might be, will be able to concentrate on the issues in front of us. The Irish and British Governments are joint guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. They must therefore do an awful lot more over the coming weeks to ensure that these dates are met.
We have suggested, for example, that there should be an independent adjudicator or chairman such as George Mitchell, and all-party meetings—not just meetings of the two parties—to resolve these issues. Above all, there must be constant pressure on the two Governments, who must constantly be present, at the highest levels in Belfast to resolve this situation. There is always a reason why we cannot come to a conclusion in Northern Ireland—there always has been: elections for this, elections for that, marching season or whatever it might be. We cannot go on like this. Of course, the Bill as it stands means that we can go on to January, though I hope we will not have to do so. But Parliament is losing patience in all this.
Decisions must be made in Northern Ireland by Ministers of one sort or another. I would be utterly opposed to the reintroduction of direct rule. As a former direct rule Minister, I always felt that I should not be taking those decisions. But we cannot go on like this. That is why the Opposition will support the Government on this issue and not, I fear, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and his noble friends.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said that Parliament is losing patience. It is more serious than that. The people of Northern Ireland are losing patience with this process. In our Bill today, we seek to give a little more time—to extend the deadline that falls in August to October, with the potential for an extension onward to January. In so doing, we recognise the value of a deadline; it is required to ensure a consequence for those at the table if there is a failure. The first step, if there is indeed a failure, will necessarily be an election in Northern Ireland and thereafter, that step that none of us here would wish to take: towards direct rule.
My noble friend Lord Cormack puts forward his amendment in the correct spirit, as he always does in these matters. In many ways, I welcome what he is trying to do: he is exactly trying, as we have tried for some time, to give space for the parties in Northern Ireland to reach the necessary steps and conclusions to form an Executive. But there comes a point when you cannot keep kicking that can down the road. The parties in Northern Ireland must recognise that there can no longer be an absent Government, or a situation in which we here are called upon to do the bare minimum to keep ticking over the Government and governance of Northern Ireland.
I believe these deadlines give enough time for those parties to come together—and they are close together—and to reach the resolution they require. If they fail to do that, we will have to act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today travelled back to Northern Ireland to try to move these matters forward. There can be no let-up in the pressure or, indeed, the presence. I welcome the contributions of all noble Lords in this debate and previous debates to try to move these matters forward. Ultimately, this is a matter for Northern Ireland. While I understand the sentiment behind the amendment —to give that little bit more time and that safety valve, should it still be required—unfortunately, I do not on this occasion believe that that will deliver. Only a deadline will deliver, and I believe that deadline should be sooner rather than later. I recognise the landscape in which these deadlines fall; it is not where we wish to be.
Baroness O'Loan
Is the Minister aware of what has happened with deadlines in the past in Northern Ireland, and that they quite simply do not work? Is he aware that the former chair of the talks, George Mitchell, said that there must be talking until they are ready to reach an agreement? That was the advice he gave to me when I was heading off as a peace envoy. We cannot set deadlines and expect peace to be made and talks and the Assembly to continue. Is the Minister aware of that?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am fully aware of that, but I am also aware of how long there has been no government in Northern Ireland, and that that cannot continue. It cannot continue because there are things that need to be done: not the issues being dealt with inside those rooms, but issues such as health, education, schools and agriculture—the list recited by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, during our last discussion on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said the same thing. We cannot allow this to continue. What we need now is good governance in Northern Ireland. This is an opportunity for those parties, within the extension foreseen in the Bill, to deliver on that. If they cannot do so in that time there will be consequences, and we must address those sooner rather than later.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I very much sympathise with the Minister’s sentiments and the logic of his arguments but, on the subject of focusing minds, may I ask him to consider that the Government have already docked Assembly Members’ salaries a bit? To be honest, I think that was water off a duck’s back. He should be willing to consider the funding that goes to parties in Stormont for their Assembly operations, together with their staffing allowances, which amounts to millions of pounds, and to say that if this continues, their staff will need to be given proper notice of the end of their service—and that that will be the consequence of failing to agree. That was something I did in 2006-07, and it did focus minds.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord again brings his experience to the debate. We cannot keep funding futility, however that manages to manifest itself. There will be consequences if we cannot move these matters forward, and they need to be felt by those who are affected directly inside those rooms. I will take away the noble Lord’s point and think it over.
Lord Trimble
My apologies for interrupting the Minister, but following on from what has just been said about salaries for people who are not doing what they should be doing, could that principle not be extended to the other end of the building? It would have a significant effect if it were, because for a certain party that does not send its Members to carry out their tasks in this building, that money is then diffused into the funding of that organisation as a whole. It would bring significant pressure to bear if we were to apply that principle to the other end of the building, and we would see quite significant movement as a result.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord takes me into even deeper waters—and we are only in the first half hour of what may well be a long day. I understand the point he makes, of course; I appreciate exactly what he is saying. But that may be a discussion for another time. If he will allow me, I shall return to the amendment in hand.
With some regret, I say to my noble friend Lord Cormack that I hope he will understand that I am asking him to withdraw the amendment, not because it is not necessary to have time, but because we need to balance out that time—the carrot—with the stick of a deadline. We need to make sure that we are making progress to allow for the necessary secondary steps—an election to take place and so forth—in good time. Otherwise we will reach ever more frequent deadlines and anniversaries relating to the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland, which the people of Northern Ireland can, unfortunately, little bear.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I always listen carefully to what my noble friend says, but on this occasion I have to say that I believe he is making a mistake. The calendar is such that, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, pointed out, we are in the holiday season already in Northern Ireland, and we are about to enter a period of recess in this Parliament. We also have the looming Brexit date. Most importantly, elements have been injected into the Bill in the other place—we will be dealing with them later today—which create a much more difficult Bill and a much more difficult situation in Northern Ireland. These are highly sensitive and difficult issues. The very future of devolution as a concept is at stake. I believe that the dates that I suggest in my amendments would create a much more realistic timetable.
I am one of those who believe in the convention—it is certainly not a rule—that one does not normally vote in Committee in this House. In moving amendments I have always honoured that convention, and I will do so again today. However, I cannot promise that I will not return to this issue on Report in 48 hours’ time, when colleagues will have had the chance perhaps to reflect on the totality of today’s debate. I think they will then realise that a part of the United Kingdom that needs handling with acute sensitivity and that does not willingly respond to the deadline philosophy perhaps ought to be given a little more time. For the moment, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, Clause 3 already provides for the publication of regular reports on progress towards the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland, and for those reports to be laid before Parliament—one by 4 September and another by 9 October, with further reports at intervals of no more than 14 days. Amendments 6 and 7, which have support from all parts of the House, require those reports to be debated in both Houses, pursuant to Motions to be moved within five calendar days of each report being laid. I hope that there will be as few of those reports as possible, because when they stop it will be because the Executive have finally been formed. I hope also that the debates that these amendments provide will help to keep up the pressure for that long-overdue development.
However, let there be no doubt about the main purpose of the amendments. They are defensive fortifications against the possibility—unlikely, no doubt, but pointedly not disavowed by the leading candidate—that the next Prime Minister will advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for the express purpose of achieving a no-deal Brexit to which Parliament is opposed. I am no enthusiast for procedural gambits—today of all days, we should be wary of anything that is not cricket—but to my mind these amendments are abundantly justified by the extraordinary gravity of what is apparently being contemplated.
This would not be a standard prorogation of Parliament. The purpose of the prorogation extending beyond 31 October would be to bring about an irreversible change not just to our trade relations but to our central political and economic alliance, without putting anything in its place. If the House of Commons were to give its democratic approval to such a momentous step, of course it must happen—nothing in these amendments would impede, or is intended to impede, that—but for Parliament to have its voice removed precisely because of its anticipated opposition would be astonishing, unconstitutional and without precedent in recent times.
I accept of course that prorogation has attracted controversy in the past. A technical use of it was made in 1948 to fulfil the requirement in the Parliament Act 1911 that a Parliament Bill be approved by the Commons in three successive Sessions. In that case, though, a clear majority of MPs desired the legislation to pass and were in favour of prorogation for that purpose. That episode pales into insignificance when compared to what it seems is now so casually contemplated: a direct assault on the sovereignty of Parliament itself, aimed at circumventing its will irrevocably on one of the central questions of our time.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, is the noble Lord right to describe what happened in 1948 as a technical matter? It was moved by a Labour Government to impose their nationalisation of British steel, which was opposed by this House, and to remove the ability of this House to delay the legislation. How can that be described as a technical matter?
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
What happened in 1948 was a prorogation to give effect to the provision of the Parliament Act 1911 that approval of the Commons was needed in three successive Sessions. The key distinction between that situation and what is proposed now is that it was a course that the House of Commons desired and was prepared to see go through.
Lord Cormack
Would the noble Lord also remind the Committee that in 1948 there was, relatively speaking, a handful of Members in this House sitting on the Government Benches, and several hundred on the Conservative Benches as the Opposition?
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the point he makes. However, getting hung up on an entirely different precedent from 1948 and suggesting that it might be in some way determinative of the position which we are now asked to contemplate is, I would suggest, too ludicrous to bear.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It may help to remind the Committee that the position to which the 1948 prorogation gave effect was the commitment of the Government’s 1945 election manifesto, which had overwhelming support from the House of Commons.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
The noble Baroness makes another very good point. I refer to 1948 simply to say, first, that prorogation has been controversial in the past, and, secondly, that it pales into insignificance compared with what we are now asked to contemplate.
Those who contemplate prorogation not only are heedless of the sovereignty of Parliament but risk plunging the monarchy into the heart of an intense political dispute. We saw how this could happen in Canada in 2008, when the Governor General, as the representative of the Crown, was required to adjudicate on a request for prorogation that was widely seen to be politically motivated, and only granted it subject to an undertaking given by the Prime Minister. I appreciated the dry understatement of Catherine Haddon of the Institute for Government when she said last week:
“A constitutional showdown between Parliament and the executive of the order of the Civil War is definitely something that the palace would prefer not to be dragged into”—
but she made a serious point.
If agreed, these amendments will serve two purposes: the sending of a political message and the sharpening of a legal challenge such as that already mooted by Sir John Major, should it be needed as a last resort. My noble friend Lord Pannick made a powerful case in the Times last month for the proposition that the courts, if invited, would come to the rescue of parliamentary sovereignty, as they did on the basis of the noble Lord’s submissions in the Miller case. Over 30 years, I have learned to bet against the noble Lord only rarely and I would not do so on this occasion. One who has done so is the legal academic Robert Craig, who recently suggested that the courts would decline to intervene because,
“there is no particular statutory provision that would be frustrated by prorogation”.
To the extent that there may be merit in that view—and I accept that absolute certainty in this area is difficult to achieve—that is all the more reason for supporting these amendments.
I regret that it has been necessary to table them in the context of this Bill, but they will put beyond doubt the resistance of Parliament to an undemocratic and profoundly discreditable device. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has argued for so eloquently. This amendment, to which I set my name, has only one purpose: namely, to make it more difficult—
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I tabled an amendment to this amendment, which I believe under procedure should be taken at the earliest opportunity.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, we are speaking to Amendment 6 at the moment. The amendment is to Amendment 7.
Viscount Hailsham
I am very grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her intervention. Perhaps I might revert to where I started.
I rise very briefly to support the amendment to which I was very happy to put my name, which was so clearly advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. As he said, its only purpose is to make it more difficult—impossible, I would like to think—for a Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament for an improper purpose: namely, to prevent the House of Commons from challenging, and perhaps overriding, the decisions of Ministers with regard to Brexit. The fact that in a parliamentary democracy we have to contemplate such a possibility is truly lamentable, especially when the party in office is the Conservative Party, which I have supported in and out of Parliament for 40 years, and my family has for much longer. But that is where Brexit and the personality of Mr Johnson have brought us.
Most Members of this House, not least those of us who have served in the House of Commons, know that such an action would subvert the foundations of parliamentary government. As the noble Lord reminded us, it would also involve the Monarchy in an intensely partisan controversy. We must take every proper and available step to frustrate that possibility. This amendment addresses that purpose, and it is in that spirit, and for that reason, that I commend it to your Lordships’ Committee.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I invite the noble Lord, Lord True, to speak. All amendments are in the same group, and although the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said that the Amendment 7 had not been moved, it has been spoken to. If the noble Lord, Lord True, wishes to speak now, that would be appropriate.
Lord True
I thank the noble Lord. I think it would be helpful for the House to hear the other side of the river speak, as it were—the minority that we are. I was not minded to take part in this Bill, though I am troubled by the high-handed intervention in Ulster affairs and other parts of the Bill by MPs in another place, and will be listening carefully to what my noble friends say later.
I tabled my amendment because I am concerned by the attempt to hijack a Northern Ireland Bill to—let us be blunt—stop the UK leaving the EU on 31 October or to weaken our negotiating position. It was a move instigated by my right honourable friends Mr Grieve and Sir Oliver Letwin. They were supported by the usual galère of referendum-deniers and pushed towards the line by the votes of more than 220 Labour MPs. Yes, Labour again: with 76% of the votes for Mr Grieve, Labour has been, since 2017, the single greatest political force obstructing Brexit.
This amendment does not touch the call for progress reports, but it prevents exaggerated machinery being added for repeated debates, which some have admitted is to stop Brexit on 31 October. Sir Oliver Letwin declared that these amendments would “prevent Prorogation”, and we have heard that argument today. But Mr Grieve freely admitted that his aim was to prevent Brexit on 31 October. Both rather arrogantly took it for granted that if they were defeated—as they were—your Lordships’ House would act as they instructed, and hey presto, here we are with Amendment 7. Your Lordships’ House is again invited to be the doormat for a defeated party in the other place.
The motive for all this is clear, whatever the pretence. One of the two men likely, though not certain, to become our next Prime Minister has said that he would honour the verdict of the referendum and take Britain out of the European Union on 31 October. The tablers of this amendment want to stop him. Some will tell us today, as we have heard already, “Oh, it is nothing to do with Brexit. It is all about protecting Parliament”—the very Parliament they wish to remain subjected to the superiority of EU law. Is it nothing to do with Brexit? I really do wonder.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who spoke eloquently, states on his website that he is an EU law nerd and veteran of more than 150 cases before the ECJ. He argued that, even if Brexit were delayed, the British people did not need to be given the chance to vote in EU elections—“Do not let the people speak”. The noble Lord described as moving my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s words, which were that Brexit was an act of national self-harm that moved him to anger, shame and distress. We may safely conclude that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is not an enthusiast for Brexit.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham has always been open. From the outset, he declared his wish to frustrate Brexit, as did the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I have never seen the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on an amendment to do with the EU and concluded that it might be about advancing our exit. This amendment is designed to do one thing: to make it harder to leave the EU on 31 October. If, in the light of 17.4 million votes in a referendum and the result of the European elections, your Lordships’ House wishes to align itself with that objective, so be it. Our names will all be counted in the Division lists. Perhaps the days of this House will then also be counted.
The smokescreen of this amendment, as we have heard, is all about stopping Parliament being prorogued, so Parliament can have a say. Make no mistake that my right honourable friend Boris Johnson—as has been made clear by my noble friend Lord Hailsham—is the target of this, as he is the target of a relentless campaign of personal vilification. Mr Johnson, it is said, wants to prorogue Parliament to “force” Britain out of the EU. Mr Johnson, of course, has said no such thing, but we have since had the spectacle of a former Prime Minister, himself responsible for the longest political Prorogation in modern times, threatening legal action against one of his successors to prevent him giving considered advice to the sovereign. Is it not extraordinary for a former Prime Minister to argue that the duty to advise the Crown should be taken away from the elected Prime Minister and given to unelected judges?
We are now told that, seven days before seeing the sovereign, a Prime Minister must send a letter to Mishcon de Reya, which I gather is a law firm. I count myself fortunate to have had no dealings with it and, after this, I intend none. Who elected it? We were told that what a Prime Minister advises a sovereign must be subject to judicial review. What next? Will the Supreme Court require and subpoena transcripts of the weekly Audience to find out the purport of the advice the Prime Minister is giving? Will the Prime Minister’s advice have to be accompanied by an explanatory note from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick?
Viscount Hailsham
Will my noble friend tell your Lordships whether he favours suspending Parliament to prevent the House of Commons discussing, challenging and overriding the decision of Ministers? Where does he stand on this matter?
Lord True
I will come to Prorogation latter. It is reasonable to deploy an argument; it is also reasonable not to accept an imputed wish. Who can impute the purpose of a Prime Minister in advising on a Prorogation? I ask: will the Prime Minister’s advice have to be accompanied by an explanatory note from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—who we understand has been retained in this matter—telling Her Majesty what she may lawfully hear and what is subject to JR by Mishcon de Reya?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said she is all for this procedure. Has she, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—who will be speaking on the matter from the Front Bench—told her leader that? Can you imagine the hail of judicial reviews that would rain down on the Government, led by Mr Corbyn, and the advice he might tender Her Majesty about the use of the prerogative? “Ma’am, you must invite comrade President Maduro on a state visit, grant an honorary knighthood to Raúl Castro or appoint an ambassador to Hamas”. Will Mishcon de Reya ask for a letter about that advice?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
As—I feel I should state—the husband of a former partner in Mishcon de Reya, can I ask the noble Lord, with his distinguished record of parliamentary and public service, how he would like to limit the ambit of judicial review, which is the way in which citizens challenge administrative action that has been called into doubt?
Lord True
Whether judicial review should be limited will be a matter for whichever judge the case is put before. My submission is that this is an inappropriate use. The irony when it comes to judicial review is that most JRs of Jeremy Corbyn would come from the Labour Party itself.
Amendment 7 is not a question of allowing Parliament to decide on Brexit. Parliament asked the people to decide the question; the people decided. Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. This Parliament, in this very Session, voted by overwhelming majorities to leave the EU. Parliament has set the law of the land that we should leave on 31 October. It is not a question of anyone stopping Parliament deciding; Parliament has already decided.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am trying to follow my noble friend’s thoughts. Is he arguing in favour of an elected judiciary, or does he uphold the rule of law that we currently enjoy in this country? Does he not accept that, while a majority voted to leave the European Union, we have yet to decide by a majority the process by which we do so?
Lord True
My Lords, I construe the statute law that lies before us and have expounded it to the Committee just now.
Amendment 7 is a final clutching at straws by hard-line remainers to obstruct, delay and prevent this country doing on 31 October what its people have asked. I submit that this House should have none of it.
On Prorogation, which Sir Oliver Letwin—and, it now seems, others—want to prevent, we have already endured in this pestilential, shameful Session, which has so damaged the image of Parliament and trust in politics, the longest parliamentary Session since the 1640s. What judge will now dictate when or why a Prime Minister may be permitted to advise Her Majesty to bring this wearisome Session to an end? I looked at the record. Until the change of the parliamentary year in 2010, and leaving out election years, Parliament was prorogued in October or November in 24 out of 24 years since 1979. There is nothing unusual about an autumn Prorogation; what is unusual is not having an autumn Prorogation. The prerogative power to end the Session was left untouched by the Prorogation Act 1867 and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Parliament could have limited or removed the power; it did not do so. It did not do so, because, until this desperate ploy by hard-line remainers, an October Prorogation was a normal part of parliamentary life. Allowing a new Government to have a new Session with a new gracious Speech and new legislation necessary for the times was a normal and healthy part of parliamentary life. Everyone, wherever they stand on Brexit, is surely agreed that, when it comes, there will have to be new legislation and time to consider it, which means a full and fresh parliamentary Session.
It would be a serious mistake for your Lordships’ House to be a party to continuing games in the House of Commons. Seven days’ notice to Mishcon de Reya before any advice is tendered to the sovereign so that lawyers may wrangle over it is not a wise form of government to implement in the 21st century; nor is trying to prevent the calling of a new parliamentary Session. I submit that this farrago should not be tacked on to a Northern Ireland Bill. The other place rejected it and this House should reject it, too.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I very much look forward to serving with the noble Lord, Lord True, on your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which he has recently been appointed. He will bring, I think it is fair to say, a fresh perspective to our deliberations.
I am very sorry that the noble Lord does not appear to understand the constitutional impropriety of a Prime Minister advising Her Majesty that Parliament should be prorogued for the express purpose of preventing Parliament expressing its views and taking action to prevent a no-deal Brexit. It is the motive for which such advice would be given that distinguishes such advice, and such Prorogation, from the examples he gave. The point is a very simple one.
I also much regret that the noble Lord sees fit to deprecate citizens of this country taking legal action to challenge the legality of conduct of the Prime Minister—
Lord Pannick
Can I just finish the sentence? The noble Lord referred as a matter of criticism, as he sees it, to unelected judges deciding matters. Judges are deciding the law of the land: that is their job and their responsibility. I think it is shameful, if I may say so, that a Member of this House should deprecate that process and the rule of law on which we pride ourselves.
Lord Pannick
I am not referring to particular citizens; I am referring to the very clearly expressed statement, which I heard and I think other noble Lords heard, that it is inappropriate and wrong for “unelected judges”—those were his words—to decide on the law of the land. That is their job. We pride ourselves on the rule of law in this country, and that is a fundamental element of the rule of law. I say that not just because I have an interest in this matter: my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich referred to the fact that I have given advice to one particular citizen, Mrs Gina Miller, and I have given the legal advice that for a Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for the express purpose of preventing Parliament performing its constitutional responsibilities would be unlawful.
However, we are not here today to debate the law; we are here to address, as my noble friend Lord Anderson rightly said, what would be a constitutional outrage. I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, which is a means by which this House can prevent such an appalling eventuality.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for taking up my invitation to speak before I did. Apart from enlivening proceedings, it has given me the chance to respond to some of the things he said. I congratulate him on having a very acute and astute understanding of the policies of the Liberal Democrats when it comes to Brexit. These are not exactly secret, but he got them to a T.
One thing, however, that I think the noble Lord was wrong about was the suggestion that because we want the people to decide on Brexit, and we would prefer it if they decided they did not want Brexit, we are saying—far from it—that there should be no vote in September in the Commons about a no-deal Brexit. I would welcome such a vote. This amendment, this procedural gambit, is necessary only because we believe it is reasonable to take precautions against the new Prime Minister preventing the Commons having a vote. The only reason for it is that everybody in your Lordships’ House knows that, if the Commons votes on a no-deal Brexit, it will vote it down. The only way you get that outcome is by some kind of chicanery: the chicanery of proroguing Parliament purely for that political purpose. We believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the other signatories to the amendment, that that would be an improper use of Prorogation.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said that this Session has gone on far too long. Perhaps it has. I should be delighted to have Prorogation on 1 November, but Prorogation requires a Prime Minister with a plan and a Queen’s Speech with some substance. If the incoming Prime Minister has such a plan and such a speech by 1 November, the entire country will be delighted. We fear that there is nothing but vacuity where there should be a programme and that Prorogation will continue far beyond 31 October or 1 November because the Government do not know what to put in a Queen’s Speech.
It is extraordinary that your Lordships’ House is having to resort to a procedural gambit in order to try to prevent a Prime Minister subverting the constitution. That sort of thing happens in tinpot dictatorships. We go around the world saying, “Of course, it does not happen here because we are so much more grounded in constitutional principle. No, it could not happen here”. The truth is that the incoming Prime Minister has not ruled out such a thing. It would have been very easy for him to have said, “Of course, I would never contemplate such a step because I know that it would be a constitutional impropriety and shameful for our democracy”, but he has refused to say that. What are we expected to do? Just sit on our hands and trust in the good sense of the incoming Prime Minister? There may be some people in the Conservative Party prepared to do that, but it does not extend much beyond that.
That is why we have an amendment which is a procedural gambit in a Bill about Northern Ireland: because it is all we have. We have seen no other way to put something on the statute book to prevent the constitutional principles of this country being ripped up. It is of course unsatisfactory to do that, but it is because we are in an extremely unsatisfactory position. That is why we strongly support the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord True in his amendment and congratulate those noble Lords who have spoken against it and in support of Amendment 7—I note that quite a few of them are lawyers—on their honesty in admitting that this is some kind of trick or gambit to frustrate the will of the British people, who voted overwhelmingly for us to leave the European Union, and to frustrate the law and the decision taken by both Houses of Parliament. I know that there is a difficulty in the House of Commons in so far as three times as many Members of Parliament voted to remain as voted to leave, but the fact is that Parliament passed the legislation to require people to take that decision and the Government of the day gave an undertaking that that decision would be respected. I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government had a date to do that: 29 March. That date has been put back. To claim that the possible missing of the date of 31 October is a huge impropriety to people who voted to leave in the referendum rather overlooks what has been happening in recent months.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
We have just heard speeches from the other side of the House against the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cormack, which sought to extend the deadline in respect of the Bill, that it would be foolish to do so because it would take off the pressure and would mean that we were kicking the can down the road. At the same time, it is perfectly clear that the mover of the amendment is passionately determined to prevent us leaving the European Union. That is what this amendment is about.
I wish to make a more general point about the Bill as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, welcomed the fact that my noble friend is to join the Constitution Committee, whose report on the Bill is extremely damning. I have never seen a bigger Christmas tree than this Bill—all sorts of things have been added. The Bill has been fast-tracked, which means that there is no opportunity to consider many of the important matters in detail. I do not blame the Government for that. The House of Commons has chosen to add a range of issues and the whole thing is going to be fast-tracked through this House. To my mind, when added to a device to try to frustrate the elected Government implementing what the people voted for in the referendum, that is deeply worrying.
Lord Cormack
I accept the result of the referendum, as my noble friend knows only too well, but the people did not vote to leave without a deal. The amendment would make sure that if the country leaves without a deal, it leaves without one but with parliamentary approval. That is the substance of the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I turn to the use of the phrase, “leaving without a deal”. Deals have already been made on citizenship, flying planes and access to ports. There is no deal. If my noble friend is saying that we must defend parliamentary democracy by voting for a deal in the form of the withdrawal agreement, which was overwhelmingly rejected, I think that he has got himself into something of a tangle. It is totally inappropriate for this amendment to be added to a fast-track Bill about Northern Ireland. The amendment would pursue some will-o’-the wisp notion that Parliament will somehow need to be prorogued so that we can leave the European Union on 31 October. Parliament has already voted overwhelmingly for us to do that and 31 October is the deadline which has been set by the European Union.
I give way to my noble friend. We have all the usual suspects in this debate.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
The point that my noble friend is skirting around is that Parliament—both this House and the other place—has voted against leaving the EU without an agreed deal. That is why we are so disturbed that one of the potential leaders of the Conservative Party and the future Prime Minister has refused to rule out using what would be a parliamentary gambit to prorogue Parliament with the express purpose of frustrating the votes in both Houses which say that we should not leave without a deal, as that has been shown to be damaging to the economy in all the official publications.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does my noble friend agree that there was an overwhelming majority to pass a law which states that we would move Article 50 and leave the European Union? Parliament may have voted on Motions on one thing or another, and it may vote on Motions between now and 31 October. However, if Parliament wishes to change the law, it needs to pass the necessary legislation. What I am objecting to is the undermining of our parliamentary procedures by amendments such as this. I object to people seeking to manipulate what Parliament has already decided. If we wish to change the law, we have to have a Bill that will be passed by both Houses. The law of the land says that we will leave on 31 October and all the people who are now raising this straw man of a prorogation of Parliament are to my mind ignoring the fact that Parliament has already determined by a huge majority on the vote on Article 50 that we will leave.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Does the noble Lord recognise that if we leave without a deal at the end of October, we will leave with no legal basis whatever on which to operate? We do not have a legal agreement. In order for no deal to be agreed, Parliament should have the right to vote for no deal.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not recognise that but I can understand why, as a member of the Liberal Party, the noble Lord continues to make that kind of argument, just as he and his party have sought to create unwarranted scare stories throughout the whole debate because they do not want us to leave the European Union. I am simply making the argument that a majority—17.3 million people—voted to leave the European Union and Parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass a law which moved Article 50 which means that we will be leaving on 31 October. That is the case unless the Government seek a further extension and, I think rather remotely, the European Union agrees to provide one. That is not going to happen.
All this stuff about prorogation is yet another example of people kicking up dust, wasting the time of this House and Parliament and diverting the Government from what they should be and are doing: making the necessary preparations so that we have in place a series of arrangements that will enable us to leave the European Union and to continue to build a prosperous nation, in line with what the British people voted for.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he may know that I voted to leave the EU—and, if asked again, I would do the same thing—but I did not vote to leave with no deal. There are thousands and thousands of people like me, so it is only right that Parliament gets another say on this. A no-deal option is not what a lot of us voted for.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the support she has given to what the majority of people in this country wanted to see happen, but I point her to the opinion polls, which show that hers is a minority view. Most people in our country now want this matter finished, so that we can get on with attending to the biggest issues we face—whether social care, education, taxation or anything else—and that is what we should be getting on with.
I make one last point, which arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said when he wrongly implied that my noble friend was attacking a particular individual; he mentioned Gina Miller. I pay tribute to Gina Miller; she has done a brilliant job. Had it not been for Gina Miller, we would not have been forced into passing the legislation that, by law, requires us to leave on 31 October. I say to the noble Lord moving this amendment: beware of Gina Miller and the law of unintended consequences. By seeking to frustrate the wishes of the people, you will put the reputation of Parliament and the standing of this House in jeopardy.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat—I see he already has—could he just explain why, if the matter is as straightforward as he puts it to us, it has been so difficult for his right honourable friend Mr Boris Johnson to make it clear that it does not require prorogation to achieve the outcome he is looking for—that we leave the European Union on 31 October? So far Mr Johnson has refused to make that clear. Can the noble Lord suggest why that might be?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Yes. I voted for Mr Johnson —I look forward to him becoming Prime Minister—because he seems to understand that the first rule of negotiation is not to make any concessions in advance of carrying out the negotiation. It is a foolish person who asks, “Will you make this or that concession?” and agrees to it along the way.
The very fact that this amendment is before us indicates that he is up against a Parliament in which some three to one in the House of Commons wish to reverse—or certainly voted against—the decision of the British people. I believe he will go into these negotiations from a position of strength, whereas I regret to say that his predecessor went in offering money before there was anything in return. The withdrawal agreement is an agreement to have a further negotiation about a whole range of things, including fishing, trade and other matters. We will be in good hands with Mr Johnson if he becomes leader of the Conservative Party. His approach to negotiations is entirely correct.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he has answered my question. In the light of what he has just said, does he believe that the use of Prorogation to bring this matter to a close is part of the incoming Prime Minister’s armoury and should therefore be retained in that position? If he believes that, does he think the use of Prorogation in such circumstances appropriate?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I recall hearing complaints not so long ago from the Front Bench of the noble Baroness that this Parliament should have been prorogued earlier because not enough opposition days were being provided and it had gone on too long. When Parliament should be prorogued is a matter for the Executive of the day. This amendment and debate are a distraction from the main issue we should be concerned about; in the case of this Bill, Northern Ireland and our Brexit negotiations, putting in place the necessary preparations—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
We should be dealing with the series of arrangements that will need to be made when we leave the European Union on 31 October. I still believe it entirely possible that those people in Europe—we now have a new, slightly odd gang there—faced with the reality of a Prime Minister who is determined for us to leave, will perhaps see common sense and we will be able to get a negotiation. It would be a foolish person indeed who answered the question of the noble Baroness in the context of the forces we face.
Viscount Hailsham
My noble friend has not addressed the very question asked by the noble Baroness: that is, what does he think about the motive behind this? If Mr Johnson is proposing to prorogue Parliament to prevent the House of Commons challenging the decision of Ministers, does he think that is right?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not think for a moment that he is, and I do not think that the House of Commons is able to challenge our leaving on 31 October unless it and this House pass the necessary legislation to do so. If this House is worried about the timetable and the opportunity to do so, that is a much bigger problem than the timetable for any Prorogation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is one of the most persuasive debaters in this House, as he was in the other place. However, I am concerned by what he said a moment or two ago. He seems to have forgotten that we do not have an executive form of government in this country. If it is Mr Johnson who becomes Prime Minister, that is what he becomes—Prime Minister, not president of the United Kingdom. The role of the Prime Minister is surely to face Parliament, the House of Commons in particular, persuade it if he can and serve it if he retains its confidence. If he loses its confidence, it becomes his duty to resign, which could happen more quickly than some, particularly Mr Johnson, think.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If I may respond to that point, what the noble Lord says is absolutely right, but the Prime Minister also has a duty to obey the law. The law is that we are leaving on 31 October. If Parliament does not like what the Prime Minister does, it can pass a Motion of no confidence, and then we will have a general election. If we end up with a general election in those circumstances, I am not sure the noble Lord will get what he wished for.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
The noble Lord chided the number of lawyers taking part in this debate. I have certainly practised law, but, if I may say so, and with great respect, what he has just said shows how little he understands the law of which he has complained.
To turn back to the thread of what I was going to say, I have spent 34 of the past 36 years of my life as a Member of one and then the other of these two Houses of Parliament. I listened to the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Anderson with great attention. I must tell him that I am extremely reluctant to vote for his amendment because, as a parliamentarian of 34 years, I do not like to see the rules of the two Houses of one of the most distinguished Parliaments in the world used as part of a parlour game—as devices.
But then I listened to the noble Lord, Lord True, and, with great respect to him, I realised that the true democrats in this debate are the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Newby, and the noble Viscount Lord Hailsham, who tabled this amendment. My reluctance is overcome by my wishing, as they do, to sustain the law and sustain—I use that word advisedly because I am not ashamed of using it—the traditions and democratic role of this Parliament, including the role played by your Lordships’ House.
I fear that what is being advised to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord True, and what appears to be in the mind of Boris Johnson, is to drive a carthorse through parliamentary procedure and simply leaves the debris as an acceptable part of what occurs. It shows that they do not understand the fundamental constitutional nature of the referendum and the process that followed it. It was not the duty of this Parliament simply to leave the European Union just like that. It was the responsibility of this Parliament, having been advised by the population in the referendum to attempt to leave the European Union in a way that did not destroy the economy or the political structure of this country. In my view, that requires the attention of Parliament to the very end, not the frustration of the law.
If I have to, I will reluctantly vote for the amendment, but it could all be resolved so simply. All Mr Johnson has to do is to pick up the telephone—with a witness or maybe several witnesses present, I hasten to add—and say to the noble Lord on the Front Bench, “I have been very badly misunderstood. I give a clear undertaking that I will not prorogue Parliament so as to frustrate the very purpose for which it exists”. Then I would not have to vote reluctantly for something that I do not really like.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the critical issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would not answer in my noble friend’s question, is whether he actually favours Prorogation. It is important that we get to the substance of the issue, which is very clear. Is it a responsible or legal act, in the view of the two Houses of Parliament, to ban Parliament from meeting to discuss the affairs of the nation in September and October? That has never happened before. The noble Lord, Lord True, said that there have been Prorogations in October. But there is a long-established convention to this effect. Prorogations are for a few days before the new Session of Parliament. The Library has produced a note that lists them all. They are of five days, six days or three days. In one case, it overlapped with the Whitsun Recess and was for 20 days. They have been of 12 days, seven days and three days—always for the purpose of preparing for a new Session of Parliament.
The noble Lord referred to the supposed controversy of 1948. There was no controversy in 1948. The two Prorogations to create the additional Session required by the Parliament Act 1911 lasted one day each. There was no controversy about the Prorogation. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, there was controversy about the nationalisation of iron and steel. That was because the Conservatives did not want it and Labour did. It had been in the Labour manifesto and Labour sought to implement it. But there was no controversy about the terms of the Parliament Act 1911.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, laid much emphasis on motive. The motive was to prevent the House of Lords blocking the nationalisation.
Lord Adonis
The motive was to pass a new Parliament Act amending the Parliament Act 1911 under its own provisions. An absolutely legal procedure was followed. It was pursued on the instruction, no less, of a huge majority in the House of Commons because it followed the 1945 election.
All these points are entirely spurious. The issue that the Committee needs to address is whether it is acceptable for Parliament to be banned by the Government from meeting in October when there are urgent affairs of state to be debated; namely, Britain’s membership of the European Union and what policies will be pursued in that regard. I am absolutely amazed that any parliamentarians think it appropriate to ban Parliament from meeting as a way of overriding what might be the will of Parliament if it does meet.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord is talking nonsense. I do not believe that Prorogation is an issue. He is quite right when he says that Parliament can change the law, but I do not believe there is either a majority or the time to change the law before 31 October. In doing so, many people would lose their seats, just as he failed to win his in the recent election because of his position.
Lord Adonis
That is a very silly debating point if I may say so. The key issue is that he said that he did not think Parliament meeting in September and October was a concern. In that case, what on earth are we arguing about anyway? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is seeking to establish in law that Parliament must meet in September and October. If the noble Lord agrees with that, why on earth are we having this argument in the first place?
The only other point that needs to be made—Boris Johnson is clearly considering this, otherwise these stories would not be running and we would not be in this situation—is that it would be a grave constitutional crisis if a Government were to ban Parliament from meeting for two months, for the whole of September and October. That is what would be involved. There is no modern precedent for that happening and no precedent in the past century for Parliament not meeting in October.
Lord Adonis
I think my noble friend is referring to 1974. I have looked that up. Parliament met at the end of October 1974, having had the election. There is no precedent for Parliament not meeting in October. There is no precedent in Britain for a controversial use—a use that would not be generally accepted by most parliamentarians—of the prerogative of Prorogation since 1831, when William IV prorogued Parliament at the request of Earl Grey to prevent the frustration of a Dissolution, which was so radically different a case from the one we have today that it is not comparable. The only case that I can see in any of the Dominions that corresponds to the situation we face now is from Canada in 2008. The then Canadian Prime Minister advised the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. All I can say, having looked at the circumstances of that case, is that it was bitterly controversial. The Governor General thought long and hard about whether to accede to the advice of the Prime Minister. It was immediately after a general election, when the circumstances were very different. If Boris Johnson is thinking of dragging Her Majesty into a controversy as deep as would be involved in banning Parliament from meeting in October, he will be doing a massive disservice not only to Parliament but to all our institutions of state. I hope he does not go there.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that this has been a robust debate. Obviously, I support the amendment to which my name has been added and oppose Amendment 7A, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth, which would wreck that amendment.
I will deal with the arguments that have been raised against this amendment. I shall start with the first of them, which is that it is inappropriate in the context of Northern Ireland. I would have thought that the question of what parliamentary oversight and intervention are possible in relation to Northern Ireland is of the greatest importance. The Bill as it stands proposes, rightly, that reports will be published about the progress towards the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland. Should Parliament not be there to receive those reports, to debate them, to consider them and to make recommendations on them, that would be the consequence of stopping Parliament sitting during that period.
I note that David Sterling, the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, said only the other day:
“We have lacked that ministerial voice in Whitehall that has championed the cause of Northern Ireland”.
So to find that Parliament was not sitting just at the time when the issues with which this Bill is concerned were coming up would be a great tragedy. So it is very much an issue which Northern Ireland should be concerned about.
But of course it is broader than that. The debate has made that very clear. The argument that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, started with must be right. If what we are talking about is the possibility that Parliament will be banned from meeting and expressing views during the critical period when we are leaving the European Union—I accept of course that the Bill says what the date is, but it is open to Parliament to do something else if it chooses to do so—to say that Parliament should not be there at that stage is a constitutional impropriety and would be a great assault on our current constitution.
It is said, and it is argued by the opponents of this amendment, that it is there to frustrate the will of the people in relation to leaving. Well, it cannot do that. Nobody suggests that it can do that. As one of those who signed the amendment, I do not suggest that it does that. What it would do is make sure that Parliament was there at the time that decisions were being made so that we did not have a situation where at the time of one of the greatest decisions this country has made in recent times there was simply an Executive and no Parliament to oversee or control them. That would be the greatest assault on the constitutional traditions of which I am so proud, as are so many Members of this House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows, I admire his debating skills and his opinions, but he has not responded to the question put by my noble friend. I hope that when the Minister gets to his feet he may be able to give a clear answer on whether in fact this can all be brought to an end by a statement that there is no risk and that there will be no Prorogation. Unfortunately I expect that that is outside his power—and I see he is nodding. I suspected that was the case, and we all know why that is so. That would be an end to this debate. As it is, with that uncertainty as to whether Parliament will be allowed to sit during that critical period, we have to do something to allow an opinion to be expressed about that. The gambit would not be doing this; the gambit would be making sure that Parliament was not there at a time of crucial national emergency. That would be the constitutional gambit.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord True, on a speech that succeeded in insulting everybody in this House: the Liberal Democrats for not being the party that supported leaving, obviously my Front Bench and me—I fully expected that—his former leader, Sir John Major, for what he said, and others as well, including his current leader, as I have just been reminded. But be that as it may; he is entitled to do that and to take those views. But what he said in attacking the judiciary and the rule of law was completely off target. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on this. The judiciary is indeed unelected. I remember losing an important case in the House of Lords—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may have been on the other side; he is nodding both enthusiastically and with a smile on his face, so I would guess that he enjoyed the victory—precisely because the House of Lords said in answer to my arguments, “No, we are not unelected. We are there to carry into effect the law, even though that is something that the Government do not want to happen at this particular time”.
Having had the privilege of serving in that role, I know what the rule of law means. You have to defend things in front of an independent and sometimes critical judiciary. Sometimes you persuade the judges and sometimes you do not. However, it is absolutely critical to our democracy that they remain and are not attacked in any way.
Where does that leave us? I was struck by the remark by the noble Lord, Lord True, that the judiciary were not elected, so should not have a say. Of course, the people who are elected are in the other place. We are talking about making sure that those in the elected place are there to express the views that their constituents—the people of this country—believe are right. That is what should happen. This debate can be put to an end by whoever becomes the leader of the Conservative Party in the coming days making it clear that that will not happen—but until then, I respectfully say that this Committee should take the step of following the House of Commons by saying, “We should pass this amendment to make sure that Parliament is there and doing its job when Brexit comes around”.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I expect that in years to come constitutional scholars will study this debate and explore many of the arguments. I suppose that it is my purpose to return us to what I hope is the principal purpose of the Bill to which this particular amendment has been appended. This Bill aims to ensure that we can restore an Executive in Northern Ireland in good time. This is a noble aim, with which I think we all agree.
We ought to start by recognising that Members in the other place have already debated and voted on these issues. Of course, the Government agree that Parliament must be kept apprised of progress towards restoring an Executive in Northern Ireland. The Government has already responded to the concerns here by agreeing to bring forward to 4 September the date by which a report will be made.
In many respects, the key issue here—which a number of noble Lords raised, for perfectly understandable reasons—is the need to keep focused on what we are trying to achieve through the reports we are discussing today. That is to ensure that Parliament is kept abreast of the ongoing aspects of the talks in Northern Ireland. However, I have stood here on many occasions and said that it would be inappropriate for me or my right honourable friend in the other place to give a running commentary. That is for one simple reason: we must give a clear and safe space in which those negotiations and talks can unfold. It is perhaps not enough for us to simply say, “Nothing to see here, move on”. We need to recognise that.
The votes were close in the other place, so some noble Lords might argue that we should give Members there an opportunity to think again. However, it is important to point out that the closest vote of all was on the addition of fortnightly reporting requirements, which the Government lost—although noble Lords are not proposing that the other place should be asked to think again on that one.
These amendments tabled by noble Lords are broadly very similar to those already rejected by the other place. They would require the initial progress report, as well as fortnightly ones thereafter, to be considered by Parliament and be subject to an approval Motion. However—again—in many respects, each element of this has nothing to do with the situation in Northern Ireland, which has necessitated the Bill in the first place.
As we speak to one another and the people of Northern Ireland, it is important that we recognise that this Bill serves a principal and singular purpose, which is to ensure that we give an Executive the appropriate space to reform.
Baroness O’Loan
I thank the Minister for giving way. If the Bill serves a principal and single purpose, why are the other clauses being admitted to it and why are the Government supporting them? It seems to me that this contradicts the position that the Minister has just articulated.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness raised those points before. I say once again that the question of scope is not for this House; it was a question determined by the other place. On that point, it was not the Government or Opposition who won or lost; it was the will of the other place taken in a vote of conscience. There was no government Whip whatever in the other place. Those majorities were singular and significant; we as a Government heard them and must respond.
On the issues that we are discussing here, the majorities were not significant or singular; indeed, they were remarkably anything but. I stress, as I say these things now, that we need to recognise that which is germane to the issues in Northern Ireland and that which is a vehicle for another purpose—perhaps a Brexit purpose, divorced and distant from the thing we are here to discuss. I do not doubt that noble Lords will seek to find by other means a way to ensure that the future leader of this country, whoever that individual may be, is held to account by both the other place and this place. That is right and proper, but there are other means by which it can be done; this is not the right vehicle by which to do it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am intrigued by his argument that there are other ways in which this could be done. Will he expand and tell us what they are?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness almost got me on that one, but she will not be surprised to know that I, too, will not be drawn on those matters. It is important, as we circle back to where we began—
Lord Cormack
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is always right that the Government should be accountable to Parliament and not the other way around, and that Parliament should never be the creature of government?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It would be easy to answer that in a simple way, but I suspect that tucked inside the question is a matter for greater constitutional scholars than I. I stand before noble Lords not, I am afraid, as a lawyer but as a humble geologist. I therefore feel ill-equipped to answer a question of that august nature.
In returning to the point before us, I say that this is not the right way to achieve these ends. The other place has spoken on these matters. It has spoken in a voice which we have heard on other issues and should hear today. I would ask that these amendments should not be pressed. I do not believe that they give comfort to the ongoing talks in Northern Ireland, and nor do they progress the important aspects for which those talks have been set up.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and noble Lords, and for the support that these amendments attracted. I hope it is now clear that it is not the purpose of this amendment to prevent the United Kingdom from leaving the European Union on or before 31 October; it would not be apt, and it is not intended, to do that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his research and I am delighted to have him as a social media follower, but my views on the wisdom or otherwise of Brexit are no more to the point of this amendment than are his.
I listened carefully to everything that was said and it still seems inescapable that, if there are any fetters at all on the absolute power of the Government in this matter, those fetters must be in the courts, in Parliament or, as a last resort, in the person of the monarch. I did not detect any enthusiasm from those who spoke against the amendments for any of those options. I found myself wondering what checks or balances on the authority of the Executive they were minded to acknowledge —but there we are. In short, I am undeterred by what I have heard. It may be—it is very likely—that I will come back to this on Wednesday. But, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Amendment 7A falls as it is an amendment to Amendment 7.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
“( ) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on progress made towards preparing legislation to provide for transparency of political donations and loans from 1 January 2014.”
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, Amendments 8 and 22 are Liberal Democrat amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond. They are important, and I hope the House will give them serious consideration and support. Indeed, I hope that the Minister may even be able to accept them.
Amendment 8 would provide that the progress reports must include:
“a report on progress made towards preparing legislation to provide for transparency of political donations and loans from 1 January 2014”.
Amendment 22 contains a new clause to ensure that, if an Executive has not been formed by 21 October, the Government must, within three months of the progress report being laid, introduce regulations to backdate the transparency of political donations and loans to 1 January 2014.
Let us look at the political and historical context. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides for greater transparency of donations and loans to political parties. It was widely supported, and it imposes restrictions on the sources of donations, especially to prohibit foreign and anonymous donations to political parties, and to make registered parties subject to reporting requirements in respect of donations above a certain value. Political parties in the rest of the UK are, rightly, bound by those provisions, and they have been widely quoted and enforced—to some people’s discomfort, I have to say.
Many noble Lords in the Chamber this afternoon will know that, by cross-party agreement, political parties in Northern Ireland were excluded from those provisions and therefore have not been required to reveal the sources of their funding. I think that people understood at the time that there were good reasons for that, because of concerns that the security of donors would be at risk if their names were made public. But I also think that people would acknowledge that the political and security context has changed significantly in recent years, so that exemption could not be expected to continue indefinitely—especially because, as I shall explain, concerns have been raised about it.
During the passage of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, the Government agreed to an amendment from Naomi Long—then MP for East Belfast and now leader of the Alliance Party and a Northern Ireland Member of the European Parliament—to ensure that the greater transparency that applied to the rest of the United Kingdom should be extended to Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to Naomi Long, who has worked tirelessly to try to bring that equivalent transparency to Northern Ireland.
The provision ensured that, at a point when the Secretary of State determines, any donation of £7,500 from a single source to a political party from January 2014—that is the significant date—could be subject to publication. The political parties in Northern Ireland and their donors have therefore known that donations received from 1 January 2014 could eventually be published and scrutinised. That is important: this is not something about which they should express any surprise.
However, when the order was eventually produced last year, it provided for transparency of political donations and loans only from July 2017. At the time, we on these Benches tabled a regret Motion simply asking why that was the case, given what was in the 2014 Act. This is important because, during the period 2014 to 2017, there were two general elections and a referendum. The Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland has collected the relevant data: it has the information, but without our amendment it is unable to release it.
Noble Lords will be aware that it came to light that, during the referendum campaign, a very significant donation of £425,000 was given to one party in Northern Ireland. In the context of the highly charged debate on Brexit, people should be able to know all the details of that significant donation, not least—I guess this information is known—given the reports that the donation was not actually spent in Northern Ireland but was spent elsewhere in the UK and indeed potentially perverted the outcome of the referendum. This is therefore not just a matter of concern regarding transparency for the people of Northern Ireland; it is about Northern Ireland being used as a vehicle to undermine the transparency of the law in the rest of the UK. It has to be acknowledged that that is not a situation that should be allowed to continue.
The rules are in place to shine a light on the process. This comes at a time when, sadly, I suggest, trust and confidence in political parties have never been lower and mistrust over who is funding which political parties for what purpose has never been a matter of more public concern—and, it appears, legitimate public concern. Transparency should be the foundation, the bedrock, on which the trust that voters can have in the democratic process should be built. We have had accusations of foreign interference in elections and referendums, not only here but in other parts of the world. We have seen, for example, revelations in Italy of huge amounts of money being sought from Russia to fund a major political party.
People are therefore entitled to ask for a justification and explanation for why the Government chose the date of 2017 rather than 2014, which they had indicated they were minded to accept and for which the data has been collected. When he responded to the debate on our Motion, the Minister stated:
“Right now, we are not ruling out the re-examination of the period that precedes 1 July 2017. Indeed, the draft order will allow consideration of it, once we have had an opportunity both to bed in the transparency order and to examine the details reflected therein. We will not rule anything in or out on that point. I stress that. It is important that we recognise it”.—[Official Report, 27/2/18; col. 623.]
Yet so far there has been no further consideration of this matter. In a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on 12 February this year, the Minister said:
“The Government has no plans in place to legislate to facilitate the publication of pre-2017 data. We are committed to undertaking an operational review to consider all aspects of the operation of the donation and loans systems in Northern Ireland, to review whether there might be a case for further reforms”.
If the Minister is indeed committed to such a review, when will it take place? I suggest that, if he were minded to accept Amendment 8, he would have the opportunity to conduct such a review. Is he able to accept it, given that at the time of the legislation in 2014 the Government indicated that the data would be collected and that people should be aware that that data could be applied?
We are committed to ensuring that there is proper transparency and accountability for political donations and loans in Northern Ireland. We think that if we do not do so then it will undermine our entire democratic system, and we are not prepared to let that happen. I repeat that we on these Benches regard this as a crucial issue for the integrity of the political system both in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK. It cannot be acceptable that a law is allowed to sustain in Northern Ireland that allows Northern Ireland to be used as a vehicle for donations that would be neither clear nor acknowledged and could infiltrate the rest of the UK and completely undermine the legislation that applies to the whole of the UK. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I support my noble friend on this amendment. When we were discussing this issue on 27 February last year, we made it clear that we wanted any loans and donations to be published as from 1 January 2014, not at the later date of 2017, as we have already heard. We were very pleased to support the Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2018 with that one proviso. It made clear that, for the first time, the Electoral Commission would be allowed to publish information about loans and donations dating back to July 2017. The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 allowed that, and we have still not been given a satisfactory explanation as to why the Government held back from it.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the proverbial visitor from outer space might have been somewhat surprised a short time ago when we were discussing the previous set of amendments about what piece of legislation we were debating. It is the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill. I was so pleased to see a packed Chamber and all these people taking such a keen interest in Northern Ireland, but they have deserted us all of a sudden. The great, the good and the not so good have gone. It just shows how fickle fortune is in the political arena.
On a more serious note, I think that there is merit in this amendment. At the end of the day, since the 2014 date, donors have known that their details might potentially be released. I accept that it would not have been fair to release the names of donors who donated before that date because they would not have known at that stage that their names might end up in the public domain. There is a perfectly solid and reasonable case for that. Subsequent to that, people have known. I therefore see no reason why 2017 was called into account when 2014 was the kick-off date for this process. That is not an unreasonable thing to suggest and therefore I am supportive of it.
I would like to make a serious point about the proceedings relating to the previous amendment. I am sure that, when we talk about Prorogation, the people on the streets of Belfast talk of little else. They will be bemused that we have been caught up in this firefight which is not strictly speaking relevant to this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is not in his place at the moment, but he was more than right when he called this a Christmas tree Bill last week. In fact, Christmas implies celebration and something to look forward to, so maybe that is not the right phrase for it; it is a jumble, a mess and a sorry piece of legislation, with all these things included. Then we find ourselves getting involved in a national debate on a totally different matter. Her Majesty’s Government will have to look at this. I must say to colleagues in the other place as well that I know things can be drawn too tightly, but we have gone to the other extreme with this legislation. However, I would be more than content to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I firmly believe that there should be full openness and transparency regarding donations and loans to all the political parties in Northern Ireland, just as there is in the rest of the United Kingdom. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State sought the view of all the Northern Ireland political parties on this matter in January 2017. As I emphasised in February 2018, there was clear support for full transparency. However, only one party—the Alliance Party—took the rather unusual position that the implementation of the new rules should be backdated to January 2014.
I acknowledge that the earlier date was referred to in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, but in my view retrospective legislation is acceptable only in exceptional circumstances. It is not fair to reveal the identities of those who made donations assuming that the law at the time would always apply. It is strange that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is intent on reopening issues that have been fully considered in the House and elsewhere, rather than concentrating on providing an effective framework for the future. The treatment of foreign donations to Northern Ireland political parties, for example, is an important and unresolved issue. The Electoral Commission is in full receipt of all the facts regarding donations before 2014, so although I support full transparency, I believe that the date of 2014 is a fair way to treat this.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
There is something which is right about the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce: the whole of the United Kingdom should have similar regulations regarding transparency of donations and loans. The Committee will be aware that for decades this was virtually impossible in Northern Ireland, because people would be intimidated and worse if their donations to various political parties were made public and they were identified as possible targets. That was an obvious reason why the law in Northern Ireland was not the same as it was in the rest of the United Kingdom. Happily, the world has changed. There should be regulations which are common to all parts of our country.
There is an issue about people who were unaware when they gave donations that their names would be revealed; would they have given them if they had known that? We must take this into account, but we must not allow Northern Ireland to be used as a back-door conduit for donations simply because the law and regulations in Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, raises an important matter through Amendment 8, one that I know your Lordships take a keen interest in. As he pointed out, the donations and loans order that came into force last year provided complete transparency for donations and loans made to Northern Ireland parties from July 2017. At that point, we said that we would look again at the regime in due course to see if further changes should be made. Our feet have certainly been kept to the fire. I was very impressed with what has happened in and out of the Chamber, as outlined by the noble Lord.
I can confirm that the Government are happy to report to Parliament on the progress that we have made on the issue of donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland from 2014. The Government have no concerns in accepting the noble Lord’s amendment today, and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, indicates that this is not unreasonable to the people that he has been in touch with. I have also noted the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont.
Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would insert a new clause into the Bill compelling regulations to be made on this issue. I know that this is a matter of concern to the Committee, as I have said. We have debated more than once how we might make progress on this complex issue.
During consideration of the transparency of donations and loans order last year, we made it clear that we intend to work with the Electoral Commission and Northern Ireland parties to establish whether further changes are required to the existing regime. However, we have made no commitment to legislate further on this matter. As always, on this issue it is important to move forward on the basis of consensus in Northern Ireland, and we will be consulting the parties. It is not appropriate to commit to making legislation on this issue before consulting the Northern Ireland parties.
We intend to look at the Northern Ireland donations regime as a whole. I realise that these are difficult and sensitive issues and I repeat that we look to move forward with consensus in Northern Ireland. But we cannot accept the noble Lord’s Amendment 22, and I urge him not to move it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting Amendment 8, which, as I said, does exactly what it says on the tin: it enables the Government to bring forward reports about the implementation of the regulations back to 2014, and does not prevent the Government introducing regulations at a later date. I understand that the Minister is unwilling to accept Amendment 22 and would like to reserve my position on that, but I welcome his acceptance of Amendment 8, which takes us a step further down the road. We would be much happier if we knew that all the data was going to be published, but we accept that there has to be a process and consultation.
Lord Adonis
“( ) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on the improvement of higher education provision in Northern Ireland and the establishment of a university whose principal campus is in Derry/Londonderry.”
Lord Adonis
My Lords, a few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that the great and the good had fled the Chamber. I leave him to speak for the great but, as far as the good are concerned, there is no purer good in society than education, including higher education. The issue I bring before the House is the state of higher education in Northern Ireland. It is in a very unsatisfactory condition. This would not normally be a matter that detains this House, because the Northern Ireland Assembly would be sitting and the Executive would be coming forward with proposals, but it is now two and a half years since the Executive met. Two and a half years is a large part of the time that pupils are educated for. Two and a half cohorts of students had the opportunity, or lack of it, to go to university, so I make no apology for raising the issue in this House. Each year that we delay dealing with higher education provision in Northern Ireland is a year that many thousands of young people are denied the opportunities they should have. It is right that, in the absence of an Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, Parliament directs its attention to this issue.
The issue is simple. There is an inadequate number of higher education places in Northern Ireland. This is a long-standing issue, but it has been getting progressively worse as education participation has risen across the United Kingdom. There are 50% more undergraduate places per capita in England than there are in Northern Ireland, and one-third of all students who have a Northern Ireland residence are studying outside Northern Ireland at the moment.
I have had the pleasure of going to Northern Ireland a great deal recently and talking to young people. Apart from Brexit, which I have mostly been going to discuss, the issue they raise with me all the time is inadequate university provision. There are not enough university places and people are put off going to university because they are unable to go locally. Most people, particularly the most able students, feel they need to leave Northern Ireland to get a higher education.
This general problem is in crisis in Derry, because there is no university with a dedicated campus there. There is one campus of the University of Ulster, the Magee campus, which has a historic mission and has existed in Derry for a century and a half. But it has a tiny number of places and is not being expanded as it should. I have gone through towns and cities of a comparable size across the United Kingdom, and not detected one anywhere with fewer higher education places than Derry. It is true that some other towns and cities of a comparable size in England, Scotland and Wales do not have a dedicated university, but even where they do not, they have campuses of other universities which provide far more places than in the case of Derry.
I was initially surprised by this because I am not versed in the history of Northern Ireland, but as I got into it, a very sorry story was revealed. In the 1960s, the Lockwood commission was engaged in deeply controversial issues as to where the second university in Northern Ireland beyond Queen’s University Belfast should be located. I am afraid that it was a straightforwardly sectarian division of opinion. One part of the community wanted—
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
I was a Minister in Northern Ireland during the period. The committee was headed by Lockwood, who was an English academic. He produced a report on a second university for Northern Ireland; he recommended not Londonderry but Coleraine. Runner-up to Coleraine was the city of Armagh. It was not a sectarian decision; it was made by an impartial English academic. It is slanderous to suggest that he was sectarian.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the statement just made by the noble Lord would be deeply contested within Northern Ireland. One has only to look at the literature and the debate there. I respect the noble Lord’s point of view, but it is deeply contested.
As the noble Lord said, the decision was taken to locate the second university instead in Coleraine, a small town. The decision of the Lockwood committee was to close the Magee campus, but the then Northern Ireland Government thought that it would be a step too far. There was a modest increase in the number of places at the Magee campus, but no major new departments were located there—on the contrary, there was a reduction in their number. This has been a long-running issue since.
When I went to Derry, the business community and young people said to me that the single decision which would do more than anything to boost the economic and social life of that city would be the location of a dedicated university, for which there is masses of space, alongside an expansion of the number of places in the city by the University of Ulster.
These decisions are simply not being taken, but it is worse than that: the decision on the table to locate in Derry medical places at the University of Ulster has now been entirely stalled by the absence of an Executive and an Assembly. There are no medical places in Northern Ireland outside Queen’s University Belfast. The great city of Derry has no capacity to train doctors or medical staff to degree level, because there is no provision at the Magee campus of the University of Ulster.
The story becomes worse than that when one delves into the situation. A decision has been taken to expand the University of Ulster, which has campuses across Northern Ireland, but the greater part of the expansion is taking place not in Derry but in Belfast, with a hugely expensive relocation of the Jordanstown campus to the city centre—it is costing more than £200 million.
I raise these issues which are not being debated and discussed in Northern Ireland because there is no Assembly and no Executive. They are of huge concern.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I declare an interest: I taught in the University of Ulster. I hesitate to interrupt, but one reason for the Jordanstown campus being relocated to Belfast is that the building infrastructure is not capable of being sustained and is not safe.
Lord Adonis
There may be very good reasons for such decisions being taken, my Lords, but that does affect the fact that there is no increase in the number of places in Derry. The focus of the University of Ulster is not in Derry. Its headquarters are in Coleraine. The big expansion in which it is engaged is in Belfast. Belfast is the only place in Northern Ireland that has an adequate number of higher education places. This issue is being systematically unaddressed.
As I have said, in the normal course of events, this matter should be addressed by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly; it is not. It is tragic for Northern Ireland that it is not. Each year where it fails to be addressed means that more young people have opportunities denied to them. It is therefore essential that this Parliament addresses the issue, particularly in the context of the economic and social situation in the city of Derry, which I think most noble Lords would agree is deplorable at the moment.
Derry has the highest unemployment rate in Northern Ireland and the lowest employment rate. Indeed, it has the highest unemployment rate of any city in the United Kingdom. When I met leaders of the business community in Derry, they said that the single decision that could do more than anything to boost job creation, confidence and the location of new businesses in Derry would be the building of a dedicated university in that city. So I think it is right that we address this issue. For as long as there is no Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, this is going to be a burning issue of concern in Northern Ireland.
I look forward to the Minister’s assurance on two points if direct rule is going to continue for any length of time—and despite the assurances given earlier today, it looks perfectly possible that it may continue for some substantial period. First, will the Government unblock the decision about the creation of medical places in the University of Ulster’s Magee campus in Derry? Could that not be taken forward next year? What is stopping that decision? Secondly, if direct rule continues beyond September, as appears likely, will the Government give an assurance that they will look at the expansion of university places in Northern Ireland as an issue of urgency, so that more young people do not have opportunities denied to them? I beg to move.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I was the Minister responsible for further and higher education for some three and a half years and I had to deal with what is now Ulster University at some length. I visited Londonderry on a number of occasions. The Magee College was formerly sponsored by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Ultimately, it became a campus of the University of Ulster, as it was then called. Various pressure groups were formed, including one called U for D—University for Derry—a group of local businesspeople and others who were trying to promote a more substantial campus on the site. The university authorities talked to my department and we looked at sites and various options. However, a whole range of other factors has to be taken into account.
Northern Ireland has had the highest participation rates in university education by people from disadvantaged backgrounds—in excess of 41%, the highest in the United Kingdom. However, we must remember that a very significant number of students are not able to obtain their education, simply because of the curricular availability in two universities in one Province, and a number of people will inevitably move to other locations for higher education. That is not necessarily a bad thing: people need to broaden their horizons and they cannot all be kept locally. I believe it is important to bear that in mind, but for a population of our size to have multiple universities covering the spectrum that is needed in the current circumstances is a very big ask.
The other thing to remember is that the council and authorities of the university came to me with their own plans. I went to visit the Jordanstown campus and as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, it was absolutely clear from all the professional advice we received that the buildings were in such a condition that it was not economically feasible to modernise them. They were built in the 1960s, they were out of date and the reports were very clear that it was not possible or economically feasible to rebuild or modify them on that site. Consequently, the university decided that it wanted to push itself into the Belfast region: we are talking about a distance of eight or nine miles further towards the city centre of Belfast. My department supported it in doing that, but it was its decision, not ours—it was not forced. The council of the university and the vice-chancellor said, “This is what we want you to do for us”. We gave them the first tranche of money to start the work on their campus in York Street in Belfast, which is now in an advanced stage of construction.
To deal with the particular issue in Londonderry, there is substance to what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, says. I strongly support, as I know my colleagues in the Assembly do, the proposal for medical students to be taught up there, because there is a shortage of medical staff throughout the health system in Northern Ireland. I have referred to it many times in this Chamber and we will be doing so later, so I totally support it.
There are funding constraints, as is always the case. I also point out that it is not simply about higher education. We have rebuilt the further education estate throughout Northern Ireland—it has been a herculean task. That was ongoing, and we must remember that not everything can be confined to higher education: we have apprenticeships, and a whole range of other areas to cover. If we had more money, I suppose that we could do more things, but we must remember that we cannot determine precisely where a student will go. We kept our fees suppressed, not at the £9,000 level that they are in England; they are probably approaching £4,000 at the moment. That was a deliberate decision to try to make higher education more attainable and affordable.
I support the fundamental point that the noble Lord makes about doing more up there to broaden the range of courses that can be taken. I did support it, I think that there is widespread support in the Northern Ireland Assembly for putting the medical students up to Londonderry, and I would support it. He must remember that there is a supply and demand issue here. The number of students who could be generated in the immediate vicinity of the city of Londonderry is limited, and not all students want to go to university in their own backyard. Young people want to explore, go further and see different things.
We must also analyse potential demand. That is a primary job of the university. It must determine where it is getting its students from. It was made very clear to us what it wanted to do. It said: we want to rebuild our Jordanstown campus and put it in the centre of Belfast. Will you support us or not? It was not a question of Londonderry versus Belfast—that option was not open. It had made its decision. I believe that it should now proceed to support the opening of the medical facility in Londonderry. I would support that—it makes sense, it gives the city a bit of a push—but we must bear in mind that decisions on these matters were taken by the university itself, not by the Government.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Empey, in their support for the proposed medical school in Derry, which appears to have complete cross-party support. If the Northern Ireland Assembly were up and running, from everything I have heard and seen, it would be progressing as of now. It is the lack of an Assembly that is the block. When I raised this previously, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, said that the Londonderry city deal might contribute to it, but the question is whether that is completed or whether an element of government ministerial input is still required to enable full delivery to take place.
This is just another example—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, probably has a list as long as both his arms—of where problems arise. As I said, I have visited the Magee campus. It was an interesting visit given all the things they are doing there, including impressive work on artificial intelligence. As far as the university is concerned, the building is available, it is anxious to move forward and it is frustrated not because of a lack of support—or even, in principle, because of a lack of money—but because of exactly the reason we are stuck here: the lack of decision-making capacity in Northern Ireland.
Can the Minister tell us anything encouraging as to whether steps can be taken that do not immediately depend on the re-establishment of the Assembly or, alternatively, add another bit of pressure to re-establish the Assembly?
Lord Adonis
I greatly appreciate what the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have said in respect of the medical school, but does he accept that the issue goes much wider than that? The number of university places in Derry has declined since 2014 from 4,658 to 4,313. That is the lowest figure by far in any of the 15 towns and cities across the island of Ireland that have higher education provision. Does he agree that there is no reason whatever why Derry should be so disadvantaged in the provision of higher education places?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I defer to the noble Lord on the figures and I accept that there is an issue in this. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about balancing supply and demand, but, having represented a Scottish constituency for decades, I have to say that we are in part the beneficiaries of that lack of places because Scotland is a popular destination for medical students from Northern Ireland. Because of the mismatch, when students from Northern Ireland come to Scotland to study medicine, they tend to stay, which does not help the supply of doctors for Northern Ireland. We have an advantage in Scotland in that we have four, or possibly five, medical schools, if you count the undergraduate school at St Andrews, and we train some 20% of the UK’s doctors. It does not always have to be a balance of local students; you can attract students from elsewhere. Indeed, surely the essence of what we are trying to do in Northern Ireland is to make it the kind of place that people want to come to and stay, along with somewhere for which local people can see a future.
I agree with the basic point being made, but my main point in intervening was because of my direct engagement on the issue of the Magee campus. I am looking at the work being done across the piece and the frustration of the university. It has something that it can go ahead with, which would achieve the targets. I think we are talking about 80 to 100 medical students, which were the numbers given to me. In that context, anything the Minister can say that would give the people of Londonderry a more positive sense that this could go forward would be welcome.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
I understand that point. Of course the city of Derry would be enhanced by a larger university presence. There are two very fine universities in Northern Ireland—Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Ulster—so all that my noble friend Lord Adonis, has said is absolutely right. We would support him in his amendment to ensure that a report is produced on progress with university provision in that part of Northern Ireland.
However, this Bill is about restoring the Executive and the Assembly in Northern Ireland, and that is the only way properly to ensure that these improvements are made. I fear that there is a tendency—noble Lords will see it in the Bill—towards creeping direct parliamentary rule coming into our proceedings. It is not that the Government are providing Ministers for Northern Ireland, rather that Parliament is asking for report after report on all the different issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland. Later, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will raise a number of hugely important issues that call for reports on matters that are for the Assembly and the Executive. Ultimately, the answer for those in the city of Derry who want these things to happen is to talk to those politicians who can bring the Assembly and the Executive together in Northern Ireland. There is a Sinn Féin MP in the city of Derry—for Foyle. Perhaps he or she—I do not recall who it is because they do not attend the House of Commons—should be approached, as should the Members of the Assembly to get the Assembly and the Executive up and running. You can then deal with the issues affecting higher education and so on; that is the key to all of this.
We could talk for ever in this House and the other place about reports and what we would like to see, but ultimately, in the absence of direct rule—
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Having worked in Northern Ireland, he will realise that 90 miles takes you from one side to the other. It is a comparatively small place. If we are to have a medical school, what on earth has happened to the medical school at Queen’s University? Other universities used to be jealous of it. Since hospital services tend to be centred on Belfast—we have seen the recent example with tests for breast cancer—how can we justify setting up another medical school? I have nothing against the city of Derry, but how can we justify setting up another a mere 90 miles away when medical care is, by and large, centred in Belfast?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
It would not be for me or anyone else in the House to determine that. It would be a matter for the Ministers responsible for higher education and health to determine. Of course, the noble Lord is right to refer to the medical school at Queen’s University, Belfast. In my home village of Abersychan in south Wales, three of our family doctors were educated at Queen’s, and fine doctors they were too. But of course, Northern Ireland exported them, as it exported other people, and they did not come back. The issue is not whether people should or should not be educated at Queen’s, but whether there should be better higher education provision in the city of Derry, including medical studies. That is a matter for the Assembly and the Executive. As soon as they are up and running, they can make those decisions, but it is not for us to make them; it is for the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland so to do.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has raised important issues and I am grateful to him for doing so. I appreciate having again a short debate with him on higher education matters, here on a very specific issue. I recall from previous debates that the noble Lord has visited Northern Ireland, so it acts as a bit of a link when he raises these matters today.
Higher education, and indeed education services as a whole in Northern Ireland, have been raised in various debates in the House over the past two years. It is clear that education is an important area that needs strategic decisions on future reform. That is vital to ensuring that all children and young people in Northern Ireland have the opportunity to fulfil their full potential. On the issue of establishing a university in Derry, I am aware that the city and the wider north-west has a pool of talent to be nurtured, and I know of the excellent University of Ulster Magee campus in Derry city centre. I am also aware, as I believe are a number of noble Lords, of plans potentially to establish a medical school in Derry, as mentioned today. I am keeping a close eye on the progress of this proposal in the context of delivering the Government’s commitment to a Derry and Strabane city deal. However, while I know that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, knows this, measures to improve higher education, such as to invest in a new medical school or university anywhere in Northern Ireland, are devolved matters. It is this Government’s fervent hope that Northern Ireland’s political leaders can see their way to agreeing to restore the devolved institutions so that locally accountable leaders can take the strategic policy decisions needed to make progress. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has spoken eloquently on these points. Perhaps I may reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State is making every effort to ensure that the ongoing talks process is a success.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made a point about there being not enough university places in Northern Ireland, a point of which I think the Committee has taken full note. I am grateful for the views put forward about the situation on the ground by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. That has been helpful to the Committee. Higher education provision is crucial to ensuring that we have the skills for the future and opportunities for our young people. They should have the choice to study at universities across to UK.
As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out, there are two universities in Northern Ireland: Queen’s and Ulster. Ulster University has several campuses, including the Magee campus where a range of courses are offered, including in professions such as law and accountancy. As mentioned, Queen’s University runs a medical school, and discussions on a medical school at Magee are ongoing.
Decisions on places are a matter for the government department in Northern Ireland. As this is a devolved matter, I will not purport to be able to significantly enlighten the Committee on the substance of the important issue that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has raised. But in light of its importance—here I am for once on the same side of the fence as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—I am happy to accept the amendment and to commit to reporting on progress on the issue.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, that is an extremely constructive response on the part of the Minister, and I welcome it. It is a significant step forward and gives us the opportunity, on the basis of a good, factual account of the situation, to debate the future in autumn in the event that there is not an Assembly and Executive. If there is, that report will no doubt be useful for them too. However, may I just clarify a point of some significance? In the event that there is not an Executive or Assembly in the autumn, under this Bill and the continuation of these powers do the Government have the power to proceed with the establishment of the medical campus in Derry on their own account?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My understanding is that they do not, but I will write to the noble Lord to clarify that matter.
Lord Adonis
I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could do that. In the light of the assurance he has given, I do not feel the need to prolong the debate any further. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
Lord Cormack
My Lords, Amendment 10 and Amendment 18, which immediately follows it in the grouping, stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Trimble and, in the case of Amendment 10, that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
When we debated the Second Reading of this Bill last week, I made the point that we are now entering extremely sensitive, delicate territory. I quoted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, when I said that in the House of Commons this had,
“become a Christmas tree Bill”.—[Official Report, 10/7/19; col. 1843.]
Two particularly large baubles were hung on it last week when those votes returned significant majorities on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. I completely understand why those amendments were passed in another place, but if we are really concerned about devolution and have a real regard for the sensitivities of these issues and the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland, we have to tread exceptionally carefully here. That is why these two amendments stand on the Order Paper this evening.
Nothing should be done in the field of abortion unless there has been extensive consultation with Northern Ireland—if, sadly, no Executive has been recreated and no Assembly is sitting—because these are devolved matters. As we were reminded forcefully and cogently when we debated Second Reading, as recently as in 2016 the then Northern Ireland Assembly made its views on abortion very plain. If we really want to see—and I certainly do—devolution and power-sharing restored in Northern Ireland, it would be rash of the Westminster Parliament at this stage, when my noble friend has assured us that he is confident that the talks are going well and the parties close together, to make a precipitate move on this subject. That is the last thing we want to do.
This amendment provides for consultation in Northern Ireland if no Executive has been established by 10 April next year. I have chosen that date, as I chose it in earlier amendments today, because that is the 22nd anniversary of power-sharing. My noble friend, replying to my earlier amendments, in effect said he wanted to hold their hands to the fire and keep the pressure on. There is no better way of keeping pressure than using that date, the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement and the establishment of a power-sharing Executive that followed some years later.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, looking at Amendment 10, the key thing I see is,
“offering a consultation with the people of Northern Ireland if no Executive has been established”,
by the date mentioned. It is really indefensible that we sit here acquiescing in the continued non-existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I understand why my noble friend has put this amendment forward. I am slightly uncomfortable that the amendment is a bit passive—
“if no Executive has been established”.
One should really do more than just say, “We will do this if it happens, but we don’t appear to be doing much else to keep things going”. I know there is a talks process under way from time to time, and sometimes I hear people saying that they are very close and that things are going well. I very much hope that that is the case, but we have been here before and had negotiations that were getting very close—then some gentlemen whom we rarely see or hear anything from send their messages in and the landscape shifts considerably.
In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to the fact that this is not just a matter of interest to Her Majesty’s Government but that another Government are involved. That brings back to mind the agreement we made nearly 22 years ago. That agreement had two elements to it: the multi-party talks, which happily came to a positive conclusion, and the agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Irish Government, which finds expression in legislation passed by this House. In that very short agreement, which I think had only two or three clauses, the first clause—the important one—contained a solemn undertaking by Her Majesty’s Government and the Irish Government to support the product of the multi-party talks; in other words, to support the steps we took towards the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and to support the Assembly itself.
I draw the attention of Her Majesty’s Government to the fact that they have an obligation to support the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not think they are discharging that obligation. It is true that you have to proceed via agreement with the parties, but one must go further than saying, “We’ll leave it up to the parties”. That is not supporting it.
Since this unhappy situation came about, a number of Members of this House have made proposals from time to time about what could be done. I did that several times myself until I started wondering what the point was of trying to work up something that gives another way forward if there is no sign of any support coming from the sources from which it should come. Unfortunately, where there is an obligation on Her Majesty’s Government to support an Assembly—and, by extension, to support those trying to bring it about, even though that means going a roundabout route and applying pressure to various parties—there should really be more consideration from them about their obligation and how and when they will implement it.
Amendment 18 says that regulations,
“must be introduced if no Executive has been established”.
I know it is a bit premature to try to work out at this stage what the form of those regulations would be, but, if there is a legal obligation on the Government to introduce some regulations at that point, that is to be welcomed, as it might help accelerate the rather anaemic processes that are going on at the moment.
These are suggestions to think about, but I bring the Committee’s attention back to the fact that that agreement was made on the basis that there would be good faith from the Government in implementing it. They responded by making a solemn undertaking. I now invite them to fulfil it.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I cannot endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, too strongly. He is absolutely right. Consultation is essential if Northern Ireland is to have any sense that there was integrity in the intentions of the Government in what they have done in the past.
As I have told noble Lords, over the weekend I received 15,000 signatories to my letter to the Prime Minister; I keep getting texts, and the number seems to be rising by a thousand an hour. There is another side to this that I do not think noble Lords are aware of. Given that Northern Ireland voted not to leave the European Union, if we move towards Brexit and we simultaneously move to direct rule, many of the unionists in Northern Ireland—my noble colleagues may contradict me—would reject that. They will want a Northern Ireland Assembly; we are capable of governing ourselves in these devolved matters.
I know from what is written that the nationalist people of Northern Ireland would reject it utterly. For them, it would be the end of the Good Friday agreement; it would be the end of support from the British Government for the institutions of the Good Friday agreement; it would imperil our peace process. Equally, it would create a construct within which the reunification of Ireland would become rapidly more likely. If Northern Ireland is not allowed to govern itself and space is not made for the talks which need to take place, direct rule, which has been a very bad thing for Northern Ireland, will inevitably follow.
I say to noble Lords with a heavy heart that, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said on Wednesday, they are walking on very sacred ground as they contemplate these issues. It is not just about abortion; it is about the whole devolved settlement, the integrity of government and the future peace and prosperity of all four parts of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak about Amendment 18A, a manuscript amendment standing in my name which forms part of this group. The sole purpose was to ensure that Parliament is sitting between 22 October and 31 October this year. The reason for that was articulated in the previous debate promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson: to prevent an improper Prorogation of Parliament, for the reasons the noble Lord discussed. It has been grouped with these amendments. I have absolutely no intention of standing in the way of regulations to permit same-sex marriage. That is not my purpose. It was a procedural amendment, and your Lordships will doubtless be pleased to know that I do not intend to repeat the arguments I made in the previous debate or in any way to seek to bring forward for your Lordships’ active consideration Amendment 18A, because that matter was resolved in the second debate this Committee has had today.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, at Second Reading on 10 July in this House, the Minister opening the debate said,
“your Lordships will be aware that, in addition to reporting requirements, the Bill was amended to oblige the Government to introduce regulations to provide for same-sex marriage and abortion. Those votes demonstrated the strength of feeling of the Members of Parliament. However, these are”,
as we have heard,
“sensitive issues and careful consideration needs to be given to both the policy details and their implementation”.
He was absolutely right to stress that. He went on to say:
“Crucially, the amendments as drafted do not function properly, and so do not enable the Government to deliver on the instruction of Parliament”.—[Official Report, 10/7/19; col. 1824.]
Although time has been short for any discussions with the mover of this amendment in the other place, he promised to work with her to try to find a way through this difficulty. Is he now able to tell us how that conversation has progressed?
Also during that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, supported the amendments made in the other place and, in a typically thoughtful and carefully worded speech, said:
“I am of the view that, historically speaking, the broad tendency of the union has been to provide a better social and economic life for the people of Northern Ireland and a more broadly liberal life than would otherwise be the case”.—[Official Report, 10/7/19; col. 1839.]
Devolution is not an obstacle to the UK Parliament legislating on this matter. Parliament is sovereign here. The devolved bodies required to take a decision on these matters are not in place—that is a tragedy on which we all agree. This was raised in the Northern Ireland High Court, where the legality of the current situation was queried in two recent judicial review claims. Those who claim that abortion is a devolved matter fail to take into account the current circumstances in Northern Ireland, which mean that the devolved bodies required to take a decision on this matter are not in place. I reiterate that the UK Parliament is sovereign and has the ultimate responsibility to protect human rights across all countries of the UK, whether devolved Governments are in place or not.
Under Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, matters of national importance usually remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament and are known as excepted matters, which under paragraph 2(3)(c) include,
“observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under EU law”.
It is therefore clearly a matter for the UK Parliament and not a devolved matter on the face of the devolution settlement. The UK Parliament has an obligation to act under international and domestic law to ensure access to free, safe and legal abortions in Northern Ireland.
Baroness O'Loan
If that is the case, why was the amendment in the other place drafted in the way that it was, which was asking the Secretary of State to do this? There is no international obligation, legal or otherwise, to introduce abortion.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
But Parliament is sovereign and so it will make that decision itself.
Baroness O'Loan
I did not intend to imply in any way that Parliament is not sovereign, but there is no obligation under European law or international law to introduce abortion.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, from time to time we have to distinguish between what is utterly true, which is that Parliament is sovereign, and the particular circumstances in which that sovereignty is actually exercised. I am in the position of having been a passionate supporter—contrary to the views of the church of which I am an active member—of same-sex marriage. I do not think that anyone can suggest that I am holding things up because of my views on this. I happen to take a different view from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on abortion—perhaps that puts me into a rather special circumstance on this particular issue.
But I want to say to the noble Baroness that it is very difficult for any of us to get inside the minds of many people in the north of Ireland. That is a fact. We face a wholly different community from the communities to which most of us belong. That is true of people of all denominations, as a matter of fact. It is not an easy place to be. The difficulty that we have had of re-establishing devolved rule only shows how hard it all is. I have to say to my noble friend that many of us would like to see more signs of activity from the Government and the Secretary of State. I would like to feel that this was being pressed in a more active way than seems to be true—but perhaps it is being pressed and we do not know, so I do not want to carry that criticism too far.
But I beg people not to think that it is merely a matter of asserting the sovereignty of this Parliament to put through two changes in which they passionately believe—I passionately believe in one and passionately do not believe in the other. It is not just a matter of asserting our sovereignty. That is not how every community in the north of Ireland will see it. It will be seen as us deciding what we think is good for the Province.
Now I find that attractive because I very often want my opinions to be carried through more widely than they are. But we have already stretched the connection between us and the north of Ireland to breaking point over Brexit. I do not want to get into the nonsense that we have actually tried to carry through on Brexit when we ignored the problems of Ireland while going on about Brexit. We have already stretched that connection and are now suggesting that we stretch it even further. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, so remarkably put it, we are moving into a position in which false moves from us will change the whole nature of Northern Ireland.
There are those who want that and would see it as a benefit. But anyone here who cares about the unity of the United Kingdom should look very carefully at putting their perfectly reasonable personal views in front of the right of the Province to make up its own mind. After all, we specifically gave a series of things to Scotland, Wales and Ireland for people there to make up their own minds about.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
What would the noble Lord say to the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives, which all agree that this legislation should go through?
Lord Deben
I would say that we live in a democracy in which we have devolved these decisions, and they must prove that to the politicians elected for the north of Ireland. If there are no such politicians, the least we can do is to have full consultation in order that they will feel that they have been properly involved. The noble Baroness is saying that we can say to the people of Northern Ireland, “You cannot even be consulted. We are going to take the view of these royal colleges—great though they are—and enforce them on you”. That is not the way to win battles. What happened in the south when people voted, surprisingly many thought, on both these issues is that they had the argument. They had the discussion locally and made the decision locally, and it will therefore stick. It changed people’s attitudes in a way that I was enthusiastic about on one side and on the other side not.
We cannot go around saying on the one hand that we believe in devolution and then when it is convenient, because people take a different view from us, we take the opportunity to enforce something. We have to win the argument—not in London, nor even in Edinburgh and Cardiff, but in Belfast. We have to win it in Derry and in the north of Ireland. I hope that the noble Baroness will go and seek to win it. I may try to persuade people to take the opposite view on one of the issues, but at least we would be talking to the people for whom we are legislating and to whom we gave devolved power. Of all parties who should be on this side, the Liberal Democrats, who have been prime movers on devolution, should think to themselves that devolution means taking the good with the bad. They should recognise that it means that people make up their own minds, whether we like it or not.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
The noble Lord questioned me about statistics, more or less, and the number of people in Northern Ireland. It is some time since 2016 when the Government decided that they did not want to change the law. But statistics from the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey in 2018, just last year, found that 82% of the population polled agreed that abortion should be a matter for medical regulation and not criminal law, and 89% agreed that a woman should never go to prison for having an abortion. Those are significant statistics.
Lord Deben
Of all the parties in the country quoting public opinion polls, I should have thought that the Liberal Democrats should be particularly careful. I am not prepared to take public opinion polls—although I would point out to her that nearly 70% of the women of Northern Ireland and more than 65% of all people in Northern Ireland say that this should not be something that the United Kingdom Parliament decides.
So we can all bandy polls, but 2016 is a much more recent democratic decision than the democratic decisions that we have made. We are simply suggesting that, in order for the people of Northern Ireland not to feel that we are dictating to them in areas that are specifically their own, we should have proper discussion and proper concern for their views—and if that is not a Liberal view, I cannot think what is.
Lord Adonis
Before the noble Lord sits down, he is an extremely reasonable person, but surely he is missing the fundamental issue: for how long can people be denied fundamental rights simply because there is not an Assembly sitting in Northern Ireland? Of course, we agree with him about the virtues of devolution, but for how long can people be denied those rights simply because it is not sitting? It is two and a half years so far and the clock is ticking. Most reasonable people would think we are reaching the point where Parliament has to intervene if the devolved institutions are not there and working.
Lord Deben
I say to the noble Lord: that is in fact what is in the amendment. It enables that consideration to be done; it enables that conciliation to be done in the sense of giving people the chance to say what they think. There is a date on it and I remind him that I said in my own speech, as elegantly and delicately as I could, to the Government that I was not sure that the kind of oomph that we ought to have behind the attempts at the restoration of normalcy in Northern Ireland was there and I hoped that it would no longer look as if it was lacking. So I am not sure that we are very far removed. We are talking about making a decision but with the full respect of the people of Northern Ireland, either through their devolved Assembly or, if they do not have a devolved Assembly, through a form of discussion and understanding which means that people feel it is their decision and not ours.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, coming from near the border with the Republic of Ireland to listen to the debate today on Northern Ireland, I found the first hour very interesting but alarming—interesting because I am a former Member of the European Parliament and I am interested in Brexit and the debate for and against it, but it certainly was quite irrelevant to the situation in Northern Ireland and the Bill before us.
I have been encouraged by the atmosphere in the Committee in the last hour. It compares admirably with what existed in another place a few weeks earlier, when only a handful of people attended the debate on this Bill but then hundreds came to impose their will on the people of Northern Ireland without consultation. Setting a time limit for the introduction of issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion or whatever—and these are not the issues for debate; the debate is the future of the system of government in Northern Ireland—plays into the hands of some of the extremes that exist in Northern Ireland’s political life. There are unionists who believe in direct rule and who will be delighted to see this Parliament impose a decision on Northern Ireland, and most nationalists are delighted to see direct rule being imposed because they will say, “There are the English, once again imposing their will on the people of Northern Ireland”. So I find myself in agreement with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said and I was certainly encouraged by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy—who, almost more than anyone else, needs to be thanked for the Belfast agreement which I have before me today.
This is the basis for the future in Northern Ireland—Catholics and Protestants and people of no religion working together, unionists and nationalists working together. There has been a recognition in the Committee this past hour of the importance of devolution and people working together in Northern Ireland. That was not clear in the other place last week. I hope, therefore, that we will not set a time limit for the introduction of issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion but instead will support the Belfast agreement and the right of the people of Northern Ireland to work together and reach their own decisions.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I approach this discussion from the unique position that I held until retirement as the earthly leader of the Anglican Church in the whole of Ireland, which of course included the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland. When your Lordships recognise the dates for which I was privileged to hold that position, you will understand that most of those years linked to and were absorbed by the Troubles. Therefore, as I listen to a debate of this nature about politics and dates and, interwoven with that, personal attitudes to such sensitive issues as marriage of same-sex individuals and the extremely sensitive issue of abortion, my mind centres not on the legal principles involved or the dates on which this House or the devolved Administration made decisions but on the ordinary people I know in Northern Ireland, who are, above all else at this stage, totally frustrated by the lack of a local Administration, by the lack not just of elected people making decisions in their own country but of a sense of purpose and with it a sense of hope. If anything has deteriorated since the Good Friday agreement, it is the eradication of genuine hope that things can get better and remain better. When I approach issues which I recognise are sensitive and on which each of us has our own individual attitude, I look again at the frustration I just mentioned.
There is a wealth of suggestions of what will bring the local parties together. Virtually every month we are given a different interpretation of the state of those talks. It is not easy for the Minister to continue to reassure us that progress is being made, because people in Northern Ireland say, “We have been here before; we have heard this, it has been explained to us, and where are we now? Nothing is happening”. Into that morass fit sensitive issues such as the two that are now dominating this discussion and, with respect to your Lordships who do not have very detailed knowledge of what life in Northern Ireland is or what makes its people tick, who want to make decisions which will have the sense of being imposed, who explain to us constantly, “We do not want direct rule; we want the people of Northern Ireland to feel an identity of their own”, to this I say, “Hear, hear. We want that”, but when we look at the situation as it is, it is again one of total frustration.
What can usefully be suggested? I believe the suggestion stems from much we have heard in this debate. The word is “recognition”—of sensitivity, of the limits of sensitivity and the horizons of sensitivity, but recognition that sensitivity is something deeply personal in human relations and in human ambition, and nowhere more so is that evident than in such cases as same-sex marriage and abortion.
There is so much in the amendment before us that turns from giving an identity to the people who matter most—the people of Northern Ireland—that they are being considered, and that their needs, wants, views and hopes are not being discussed in the face of the truth of devolution. Even though to our eyes devolution is not working at the moment, that is no reason for any of us to say that it is not worth giving it a chance.
My plea at this juncture in our discussion is to recognise, as I said at Second Reading, because of the history that has brought this little part of the United Kingdom to where it is now, the need to be sensitive and to understand what we are talking about, because we walk on many graves.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is always instructive to listen to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and his text—sensitivity—is one that I hear very much. I want to take this opportunity to do the thing that this House does best: to speak on behalf of those whose voices are not heard or cannot be heard or who are often drowned out.
I could not be in my place last week, but I listened subsequently to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I have listened to her on many occasions, and she does, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, make a compelling personal case for her beliefs and experiences. In this House, we do not hear from the 1,000 women a year who leave Northern Ireland to come to the mainland to receive the treatment to which they are entitled as citizens of the United Kingdom. We never hear from them. We never hear from the poor women of Northern Ireland who do not come because they cannot afford it or cannot get the time to come over. We do not hear from any of those people. When we talk about matters to do with devolution and the constitutional settlement, I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames: yes, listen to the people of Northern Ireland, but listen to the people of Northern Ireland whose voices are drowned out and are not being heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, who made a very compelling speech, has been the most unlikely of allies to me at times. I say this to him: those of us who are on my side of the argument on the issue on which we do not agree do not wake up of a morning and decide that we are going to get up and talk about Northern Ireland without bothering to go to talk to the people of Northern Ireland—the men and women whose lives are directly affected. All the proposals which have come forward on same-sex marriage and on overturning the abortion law have come after not just the odd conversation but many years of working with communities in Northern Ireland to change the law. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, was right about frustration. There is absolute and utter frustration in Northern Ireland and a loss of hope that they too might enjoy the same human rights as the rest of us. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said there is no right to abortion. No, there is not, but there are some human rights to which each and every one of us is entitled and which women, in particular in Northern Ireland, have been consistently denied.
This is not a rushed measure to overrule constitutional niceties. It is a long and considered attempt to give all the people of Northern Ireland the equal rights and dignity to which all citizens of the United Kingdom are entitled. I suggest to the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Cormack, that we have waited years for that to happen. To kick it down the road now will be seen, not least in Northern Ireland by those who are losing hope in their political institutions, as yet another reason that we have failed them. I believe that in this Parliament we have a right to say that after all this time, the time has come.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly on this subject. As some noble Lords know, I was a GP and a family planning doctor and I saw hundreds of women who suddenly found that they were pregnant and did not want to be. I have been at the sharp end of the despair, misery and fear, and often the lack of sympathy from families and partners. I have experienced this. I have seen this despair. If a country has a law that permits abortion, it does not make women have abortions; it just gives them the right to choose whether they continue with the pregnancy. If the law is there, and it is a good law, they can have the abortion so early that they can carry on with their lives.
It is not for the rest of the community to decide what happens to these women. It is for them. I wish people would realise this. It is a very personal decision. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, it is a human right for a woman to have control over her body, and if she does not want to be pregnant after she becomes pregnant accidentally, she has a right to end that pregnancy. It is her body and she has control over that body—or should have.
Noble Lords have talked about more consultation in Northern Ireland. I have been in touch with doctors in this field in Northern Ireland for years, and the women of Northern Ireland are crying out—not all of them—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, they are coming over here and spending huge amounts of money to get an abortion over here. I plead with noble Lords to have some human kindness and sympathy and to allow women to decide this for themselves by extending the rule to Northern Ireland.
There is one point that I hope the Minister will clarify. We ratified CEDAW—the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women—in 1986. If we have done so, that is a UK matter, not a devolved matter. It is not to be passed down to the people of Northern Ireland—or Scotland, for that matter, but Scotland has already dealt with this issue—but is for the United Kingdom, and if people in Northern Ireland want still to belong to the United Kingdom, they have to accept that there are some things that the United Kingdom is committed to, and this is one of them. Women have the right to have an abortion. Not to allow them to have an abortion is a form of extreme violence to some women. If you have seen the lengths that women will go to to have an illegal abortion—
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
I am the father of four children and the grandfather of seven and I know the value of human life in terms of babies in the womb. I cannot imagine that the noble Baroness can neglect that particular aspect of life. Can she explain that to me?
Baroness Tonge
I am also a mother of three children and a grandmother of seven, so I am well aware of the value of human life, and so are very many of my patients. We are surely not going to have the whole debate about where life does or does not begin, and where souls enter foetuses—please do not let us have that debate again. All I am saying is that, whatever the situation, we are talking about a woman’s body. The foetus is dependent on the woman’s body and cannot live alone, and if a woman does not want that to happen, she has the right to choose. That is all I am saying.
Lord Hayward
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who made a fascinating, detailed and very thoughtful speech in our debates last week and has done so again this evening. The contribution made a few minutes ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, really drove home the point about the issue of abortion.
In this debate, I will concentrate my comments on same-sex marriage. When the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described this as precipitate and a leap, there was the implication that this had never been discussed before. The Northern Ireland Assembly has had five debates on this since 2012, the most recent of which was in late 2015. Each time it had a debate, the majority against same-sex marriage diminished, until finally in late 2015 there was a majority in favour of same-sex marriage. This was overturned using a procedure that was not really intended for social matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, identified in a previous debate. However, it was constitutional, so I recognise it. So we cannot say that this is a leap or a precipitate decision. We are now into seven years of debate in Northern Ireland on the subject.
Before today, I too have spoken on five occasions about same-sex marriage. I first introduced a Private Member’s Bill on 27 March last year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, identified, there are unseen and unheard people who are affected because they cannot get married in their homeland of Northern Ireland. I have referred on previous occasions to employees of this House who are in that position. They cannot return to Northern Ireland to achieve what every other person would want to achieve—that is, a marriage with their family in their home community.
When I first spoke on the subject on 27 March last year, there was a couple looking down from the Gallery who had waited for years to be able to marry in Northern Ireland. So let us please not work on the basis that this has not been considered but has suddenly been concocted on these Benches or in the other place over the last few days. I conclude with the thought that this was the subject of debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly for seven years when it was sitting. We cannot keep on saying to people, “Well, if … Well, if …”. Seven years is surely more than enough for anybody.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge and Lady Barker. I recall that just a few weeks ago we debated the provision of sex and relationships education to young people. I was shocked and dismayed by the protests of our colleagues from Northern Ireland. The point is, you may or may not approve of abortion or same-sex marriage, but we live in a world where we have to tolerate these relationships and choices. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, said, you do not have to do it if you do not like it—but you must not stop other people having the information and having the right.
You may or may not be a fan of Europe. Our human rights have come not from the EU but from the European Convention on Human Rights, much of which was British-based. It is not a question of consultation, either. If the population had been consulted on every single human right, we probably would not have them. Sometimes there has to be an external body that brings people into that circle of human rights and gives them their liberty. In this particular case, it is the right to a private and family life that women must have.
Sadly, most people in this debate are men and most of the supporters are women. That is highly significant. In an age of #MeToo complaints, when this Chamber has just been criticised by Naomi Ellenbogen for the attitude that some men take towards female employees, it is high time that men laying down the law had a bit more consideration for the feelings of the women who may have been put in the position of having to have an abortion, because the man who made them pregnant has abandoned them or is not supporting them—whatever the reason may be.
I think that in this situation devolution is being used as an excuse. This is perhaps the most profound human right a woman can have. Had it not been for the advances in contraception and abortion over the last 50 years, which gave us the confidence and freedom to go ahead with our education, plan our lives and have our children when we wanted them, we women in this Chamber would not be where we are. We must give this to the women of Northern Ireland. They are 50 years behind the rest of the world. Any man here who wants to deny this to them does not understand human rights or what he should be doing to help those women, rather than holding them back and condemning them to shady, shabby and expensive trips to other countries to get their human rights.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, might like to speak, because his clause stand part debate is grouped with these amendments.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
Yes, I wish to speak to Amendment 20, which is part of the first grouping. I understand that the groupings are not binding. If the noble Baroness is suggesting that I make my speech now, I will take the opportunity. I am quite content to do so and thank her very much.
We hear much about the Northern Ireland Assembly deciding this by a majority of one, but we do not hear much about when the Northern Ireland Assembly decided by a very comfortable majority that there should be no change in the abortion laws in Northern Ireland. If it is important how the Assembly voted on same-sex marriage, is it not also important how it votes on every other issue, namely abortion? There were strong feelings expressed here on Wednesday about the manner in which the other place amended a Bill which was intended to change the date by which an election in Northern Ireland has to be called and made into a Bill that brings in sweeping reforms relating to abortion.
We know that abortion is a devolved matter; we know that the clerks in the other place had advised that the amendments were out of scope; we know that this Bill was subject to a fast-track procedure—making it wholly inappropriate to deal with such a matter as abortion; we know that in 2016 the Northern Ireland Assembly voted by a clear majority not to change the law in any way, and we know that a ComRes poll shows that 64% of the people of Northern Ireland oppose Westminster legislation for Northern Ireland on this matter, rising to 66% of women and 72% of 18 to 32 year-olds. We also know‘ that all the main denominations in Northern Ireland oppose any change in the law—the Presbyterian Church, which is the largest denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, and the Church of Ireland—as do all the minor denominations which, added together, would make one major denomination, probably the third largest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland.
However, these things do not seem to be important. The Commons saw fit none the less to impose Clause 9 on this Bill. It has to be said, of course, that 100% of Northern Ireland MPs who take their seats voted against the provision. Quite apart from the substance of the issue, as a matter of procedural fair play it is hard to imagine a better expression of being treated beneath contempt. To really appreciate the significance of this, we must turn to the substance of the issue and recognise that abortion is a far more sensitive issue in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom; others have alluded to this. We must recognise that many people in Northern Ireland are very attached to our abortion laws; I might add that they are the most up to date of any region of the United Kingdom.
The Both Lives Matter report, which shows that 100,000 people are alive in Northern Ireland today who would otherwise not be, is hugely important. I realise that the Government have not created this problem. Their response, however, has the capacity to make things better or infinitely worse. The Minister suggested last week that there were some difficulties with Clause 9, but rather than acting as he should to moderate their effect, my reading of what he said was that the Government were interested in helping to rescue the provisions and possibly create a new power not based on Section 26. That would be wholly wrong because the amendment in another place that sought to create a new power—that is, new Clause 5—was not selected for debate and because the Government cannot introduce new offences without contradicting the Sewel convention. I am a wee bit disturbed today that there has been very little mention of respect for the Sewel convention.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
When the noble Lord speaks of the abortion laws as being up to date, does he think that the criminalisation of women who seek an abortion—there are outstanding cases and women who go to prison for seeking or having an abortion—is compatible with the rest of the United Kingdom? Does the think that is compatible with natural justice and human rights? The woman mentioned last week—I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble—whose 14 year-old daughter, a child, was raped by numerous men and bought an abortion pill online is currently facing a trial, in November, and possible imprisonment. Does he think that is a good way of conducting the law of the land? Is it progressive and liberal? Is it acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland?
Lord Morrow
When I say these laws are the most up to date I am speaking of the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly, in a cross-community vote, voted for them. I was a Member of the Assembly at that time, as were both my colleagues. We do not come to this with an ignorant view or without an understanding view. We understand—but is it of any concern to this House that 100,000 children are alive today because of our legislation? Members may turn their heads, look the other way and ask, “What is that to us?”. Maybe it is nothing to them, but it is a lot to the people of Northern Ireland. I sincerely implore your Lordships’ House to take cognisance of that.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Morrow. As a former Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I do not believe it can be said enough in this place that, in 2016, the Northern Ireland Assembly considered the matter of abortion. It did not just have a general debate. It voted on primary legislative amendments to our abortion law and determined not to change the law in any way at that time.
I believe that the last time Westminster voted on primary legislative changes to a real Bill, as opposed to a 10-minute rule Bill, was back in 2008. This means that Northern Ireland has the law with the most recent democratic sanction of anywhere in the United Kingdom. In that context, it simply cannot be right for Great Britain MPs to overrule every Northern Ireland MP.
The only justification that I have heard is human rights—but there are two problems with that approach. First, there is a supposition that access to abortion services is a human right. In the other place, the mover of the amendment, the honourable Member for Walthamstow, said,
“There is a specific definition of human rights”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/19; col. 106.]
implying that there is universal agreement on what human rights mean. I support honourable Members in that debate who rightly said that there is no international right to abortion. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made the point last week that the right to an abortion is not included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no right to abortion under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women—CEDAW—which is the locus of the authority cited by Clause 9.
The second supposition is that a determination by a UN committee is binding on a member state in a way that a declaration by the UK Supreme Court of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights would not be. The latter can make a ruling on incompatibility with human rights in any given situation, but it is for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to act on that ruling. As the Supreme Court has said, Parliament can decide to do nothing about the court’s ruling. None the less, we are being advised that we must change the law, and change it now, in a way that is manifestly undemocratic.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
Does the noble Lord not acknowledge that the Supreme Court has already indicated that it believes that the law in Northern Ireland is not consistent with human rights, which evolve? There is a judgment pending from the Supreme Court that could put the law in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom is a signatory to that convention. Does that not give the United Kingdom Government and Parliament an obligation to legislate on the law in Northern Ireland?
Lord Browne of Belmont
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I understand that that was on a very narrow case of fatal foetal abnormality. I will address that matter shortly, which should answer his question.
The chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recognised that the recommendations were non-binding in oral evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee in the other place when it was reviewing the law in Northern Ireland. Professor Mark Hill QC wrote an opinion about the CEDAW report, in which he stated:
“The Committee does not have the capacity or standing to give a binding adjudication on the United Kingdom’s obligations under CEDAW or on the proper interpretation of CEDAW”,
made the point that the International Court of Justice had not interpreted CEDAW as providing a right to abortion, and said:
“The interpretative function under the CEDAW is reserved, not to the Committee, but to the International Court of Justice.”
If this is not enough to convince your Lordships that the authority being given to this Committee is flawed, I shall quote from a Supreme Court judgment —R (A and B) v Secretary of State for Health—in which Lord Justice Wilson said:
“The conventions and the covenant to which the UK is a party carefully stop short of calling upon national authorities to make abortion services generally available. Some of the committees go further down that path. But, as a matter of international law, the authority of their recommendations is slight”.
Here we come to the case that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to. The judgment in that case stated:
“If the Supreme Court rules in the case of Sarah Ewart that there is a right in relation to fatal fetal abnormality, then that would create a very strong case for a small but important change to the law. It would not, however, create anything resembling a general right to abortion”.
Indeed, the basis for thinking that the court might support a right in relation to fatal foetal abnormality is what was said in relation to a case last year, in which the plaintiff did not have standing, so no rule was made. The court also gave another indication, to the effect that there is no human right to abortion on the basis of disability generally—something permitted in Great Britain.
Secondly, the medium of human rights is normally expressed as a check on the majority expressed through constitutional due process. This is highly ironic, given that the only reason we are here is the complete disregard of constitutional due process manifested last week in the other place, where we saw: dispensing with scope; debate being permitted in relation to out-of-scope issues that should have been the subject of their own Bill, even though the Bill before the House was being fast-tracked; and the imposition of a change on the part of the UK with the smallest population, and thus the smallest number of MPs, by MPs from outside Northern Ireland
The ethic that the end justifies the means is the kind of thing that constitutional checks are supposed to guard against, not encourage. If the proponents of Clause 9 press their case on the basis of the end justifying the means, as at present, that will cast a great shadow over the integrity of their human rights pretensions. If we want to live in a functioning union, by all means let us talk about human rights, but do not use them wrongly to suggest that there is a general right to abortion when no such right exists, and do not use them to dispense with the respect for constitutional due process, the presence of which can facilitate a functioning union, whereas disrespect for it will bring about its demise.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether I may be allowed two minutes to look at the provision that we are considering, which is Clause 3(6). What is proposed is,
“a review of the current legal framework on abortion in Northern Ireland with an analysis of how that … could be amended by Parliament … when there is no Executive”,
followed by these very important words, which I have not heard this afternoon,
“subject to a sunset clause to respect devolution”.
I read that to mean that whatever we may do, when there is an Assembly in Northern Ireland, it will be up to the Assembly to decide what the law should be in that country. It may revert to the law as it is now—but we hope that it will not.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I find this debate really shocking, and I support my noble friend Lady Deech and the other noble Baronesses. I have campaigned for women’s rights all my life, and the one word I have not heard tonight is “kindness”. I do not think any woman has ever wanted to have an abortion, and I am shocked by a lot of the attitudes coming through, which imply that women go for abortions in a willy-nilly, uncaring fashion. In fact, this is a terrible decision for any woman; it is not undertaken lightly, or without thought, worry and anxiety. Women have abortions because they do not feel that they can bring that child into this world and give it the care, love and family life it is due. This is something that has been absent from the debate, and I am shocked to stand here listening to men—as my noble friend Lady Deech says, it is men who are saying this. If it were men in those shoes, things would be different. They are entitled to stay overnight and then go off and leave a woman with the consequences. This is a human right; it is about kindness and decency. It is astonishing what is happening, 50 years on. I have been in this House for one year and two days, and I am shaking as I listen to all this again. We have had this argument. This is a human right and human decency, and we should not stand in the way of the women of Northern Ireland, who deserve it.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, many people listening to this debate, including those listening outside, will hardly believe or understand how a simple Bill for the extension of two dates for the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland could have arrived at a debate on major social issues that impact on the whole community.
We have come a long way in Northern Ireland, and it is right to acknowledge that. The people of Northern Ireland are good people. They have a good heart and, whether people believe it or not, in the midst of the greatest days of darkness and trouble, many—the vast majority—of the people of Northern Ireland lived happily side by side together and were good neighbours. They helped each other when they were in trouble; they worked alongside each other in many different ways. They are also a generous people.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I have listened to the debate with growing concern and anxiety about its tone and about what seems to be a very poor understanding of the constitutional issues that arise.
We ought to remind ourselves that we have been talking about moral issues that affect young women and young men of an age that does not exist among the membership of this House. Those of us who are the fathers and grandfathers and mothers and grandmothers of young people ought to bear that in mind. We have listened—I do not want to offend anyone but I will take the risk—to a lot of anecdotally based, at best, moral relativism, which to those who eventually come to read what has happened in this House today, particularly the young, will view as uninformed, if possibly well-intentioned, and with disdain.
The only evidence that I can rely upon is the evidence that I see with my own eyes and in my own experience. I can tell your Lordships that among my five daughters and step-daughters and my nine grandsons and grand- daughters, I have one daughter who is in a very happy gay marriage to our beloved daughter-in-law and another daughter who was in a gay civil partnership and is now married to a man, as a result of which we have a beloved former daughter-in-law and a beloved son-in-law. That is what real life is like. When you look at what happens in real families in these issues, without pontificating about what they should be thinking or, even worse, thinking for them, you see things in a much more realistic light.
I turn to the Bill and the constitutional issues. I repeat what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge about Clause 3(6), which expresses that these changes are,
“subject to a sunset clause to respect devolution”.
The Bill seeks to do almost exactly what those who have proposed these amendments are asking for; it just does it in a coherent and logical way. I have spent a great deal of time in Northern Ireland, looking at the Good Friday agreement and working as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. If you asked the good people of Northern Ireland what they thought about these issues, their answer would be, “Well, we’re not terribly interested in these issues as a constitutional matter, although we have opinions. What these wretched politicians should get on with is governing Northern Ireland by devolved government, which they are choosing not to do at the present time”. Devolution is not a right but a choice. The politicians of Northern Ireland have chosen not to govern their country through devolution at the present time.
So what happens to the political process in Northern Ireland? Does it come to stasis? Does it come to a standstill because the politicians cannot sit down in a locked room for a few days and realise that their duty is to govern that very important part of the United Kingdom? That is the choice they have made so far. When that choice has been made, it is constitutionally the duty of the Parliament in which we sit to determine all the issues that a devolved Government would consider, including these enormous social issues. Northern Ireland’s constitutional settlement, which produced the miraculous results of the Good Friday agreement, which I admire without a single word of demur, sets out and accepts that when there is no government by devolution, there is government from this Parliament. In my view, this Parliament is perfectly entitled, and under a duty, to take the decisions set before it this evening.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this has been a long debate. When the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke at the beginning, he said this was sensitive, delicate territory. He is right. I have close friends on both sides of the argument and I resent it when people abuse the integrity of those who have a different view. All views should be respected in this House. The tone in which some comments have been made does not reflect well on this House. That point was made by the noble Baroness.
Coming back to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about what we are debating tonight, which were moderate as always, I have not written a speech like some noble Lords, but I have a couple of comments. I think one of our colleagues from the DUP described this as a process which was not procedurally correct—
Baroness O'Loan
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She talked about the nature of comments and said something about a noble Baroness making a comment. I would like to know who and what she was talking about.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I was referring to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. She said she was upset about some of the comments that had been made in the debate, and I respect the comments she made in that regard. I think she was right to make them.
Coming back to the point about whether this is procedurally correct, as somebody who has spent more hours than I might care to discussing this with clerks or colleagues, I can say that if the matters before us were not procedurally correct, they would not be debated by this Committee today. All matters before us are procedurally correct. The noble Lord from the DUP made the point that the provisions on abortion and same-sex marriage were not supported by Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. I regard every single Member of Parliament as equal to every other. Each Member has a duty to consider the position of the United Kingdom as a whole. We have a Conservative Government, supported by Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland of a different political party, who presumably vote on issues affecting the whole of the UK. I would not criticise Members of Parliament who vote on issues that affect other parts of the United Kingdom, because all MPs are equal.
Baroness O'Loan
I do not think it is quite right to say that huge numbers of women are being raped, become pregnant and are imprisoned because of breaches of the law. That is not what is happening in Northern Ireland. Yes, we have some women who are raped. Undoubtedly, some of them will get pregnant. Northern Ireland needs to sort these things out for itself.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think the noble Baroness misunderstood. I agree that Northern Ireland should sort it out, but a victim of violent rape who becomes pregnant and seeks an abortion faces a harsher penalty than her attacker. That seems quite wrong.
The House of Commons has voted on two issues, with substantial majorities. On Wednesday, we will have an opportunity to look at how the Government have responded to Conor McGinn and Stella Creasy; the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, will be bringing it here. We look forward to seeing what will happen. This debate has highlighted how sensitive this is, and that there are intransigent different points of view which I think cannot meet. We must do what we believe is right.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, this debate has stirred a great many emotions. We have heard very powerful speeches from all sides of the House. To ensure that there is no confusion, I will be very specific, and, if you will forgive me, I will break precedent and read what I have to say; it will be easier for me.
Abortion is a sensitive issue. There are strongly held views on all sides of the debate, in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Many of those views have been expressed during this debate and during the passage of the Bill in the other place.
We must recognise the clear will of the other place. That House sought a commitment that the Government would legislate in these matters. The Government respect the views expressed in the other place. Those views were expressed on a free vote, which is a matter of conscience. I stress that the amendments which have come from the other place are procedurally correct, and we must recognise them for what they are. My honourable friend in the other place, John Penrose, the Minister, very clearly set out the challenges represented by the devolution settlement before these votes took place. In doing so, he was careful to ensure that the other place was fully informed.
As I made clear at Second Reading, there are technical problems with the drafting of this clause which need to be resolved. On an issue as important as abortion, which relates to the health and safety of women in Northern Ireland, it is not enough to express the desire for change. The Government must ensure that the drafting of the Bill is effective and can, in practical terms, deliver the change that the Members in the other place want to see. Discussion is ongoing, with the support of the Government, to try to deliver a clause that works. Discussions have taken place with the two Members of Parliament who moved the amendments. I hope that, when we come back to consider these on Report, we will have amendments which are fit for purpose.
I appreciate that there have been a number of views on this issue, not least those that have touched upon the question of devolution itself within a constitutional framework, and not least those that have touched upon the moral questions underpinning abortion. It is right that the Government take no view on these matters; these are matters of conscience, and each individual noble Lord must look to themselves on these matters. We hope that we can make progress on these matters at the next stage. On that basis, and rather than for me to do a full round—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister referred to the constitutional argument, and he is the greatest living expert on the Sewel convention, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. The noble Lord implied —or perhaps was explicit—that, if we passed this Bill, we would be in breach of the Sewel convention. In my recollection, the Sewel convention says that we will not normally legislate without the approval or consent of the devolved Assembly. This situation, where we do not have an Executive and an Assembly, seems completely abnormal. Therefore, I cannot see how we could be in breach of the Sewel convention. I would be very grateful if the Minister, as the expert, could give a ruling.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am loath to use the term “ruling” on this one, if I may be frank. I understand the noble Lord to be correct; the Sewel convention allows for not acting under normal circumstances, but by any definition the situation that Northern Ireland finds itself in today is not normal. However, I would not like that to carry with it the weight of greater minds than I. I may have to put a very formal note to your Lordships later to confirm that, just in case I am in any way in error.
On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, this has been a long and, at times, a difficult debate. When I introduced the amendments, with the support of my noble friend Lord Trimble—who has had to go to another engagement —and, in the case of the abortion amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I said that this was an extremely sensitive and delicate subject, and the Leader of the Opposition the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to that. I think that every word that has been uttered has at least underlined that I was correct on that.
The only thing I regret is that some people, perhaps because they felt hurt, have reacted in a slightly unfair way. Noble Lords must remember that my noble friend Lord Trimble, who supported both these amendments, is a man who perhaps has done more than any other individual in Northern Ireland to bring about the Good Friday agreement and serve his part of our great United Kingdom and his country with diligence and honour, and he is the last man who would be insensitive in these issues. Indeed, at Second Reading, he referred in a slightly jocular way to his own family experience of a daughter marrying another woman. When I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place, I had a great deal to do with the noble Baroness, Lady O’ Loan, who was then the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. She is a great public servant, and it was an honour to deal with her. I met nobody at any stage in Northern Ireland who was more fair, more dispassionate or more concerned about the fate of those who had suffered in the Troubles. She was even-handed, almost to a fault. I was sad when I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said. It would be sad to believe that anyone who has spoken in this debate has done so with anything other than a passionate sincerity and belief.
When I introduced the two amendments, I began by saying that I was doing so for one reason only. It is nothing to do with my views on either of these subjects but because I have a very passionate view about Northern Ireland and the need to restore devolution. It was because of that that I tabled these amendments, which have received some support and some opposition. I am grateful to those who supported and I completely understand the deep feelings of those who have opposed them but, I repeat, the only reason I introduced these amendments is that I see devolution slipping away. I made the point at Second Reading that I see that we are moving inexorably towards direct rule, and I deeply regret that. I hope that, when those in Northern Ireland read this debate, they will realise—to quote again a current catchphrase—it is time for them to take back control. We need a Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. I hope that what has been said collectively in this debate, from all sides of the argument, will convince people in all parties in Northern Ireland that they will be guilty of a dereliction of duty if they do not take back control.
“(f) delivering regulatory alignment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in regard to gambling.”
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has been unavoidably detained in his diocese, so has asked me to speak to his amendment. This is a probing amendment attempting to address an issue that causes regulatory anomalies, in that Northern Ireland does not have the same standards for gambling as Great Britain. This amendment is an opportunity for the Government to enable greater harmony in gambling regulation and legislation. The existing lack of alignment has appeared piecemeal in nature since the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and has led to confusing quirks. For brevity’s sake, I will quickly outline the differences the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has identified as being of difficulty to the people of Northern Ireland, who do not have a well-regulated gambling industry with safeguards for all.
Northern Ireland does not use the Gambling Act 2005. Instead, it relies on the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has suggested that this outmoded basis for a modern gambling industry has led to a lack of safeguards. As the Department for Communities writes on its website, one in 50 Northern Irish adults has a gambling-related problem, which is,
“three times higher than in GB”.
A review into future regulation took place in 2011, but regulatory and legislative harmony has not occurred. Arguably, a lack of oversight has been the result. Courts and district councils license gambling activities, the Department for Communities controls licences for track betting and the PSNI enforces the law. Take, for example, the confusion over Gambling Commission regulation. The 2005 Act created the commission, with no authority in Northern Ireland, yet exceptions exist. Under Section 5 of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, for example, the regulator has oversight of the offence of advertising unlicensed remote gambling. This regulatory confusion is not anyone’s desire, not least those who must understand these distinctions.
I turn to another quirk deriving from the lack of legislative harmony. The Gambling Act 2005 underpins much of industry behaviour, including the spirit of the CAP codes, which inform Advertising Standards Agency regulation. As gambling advertising is overseen by the ASA, which has oversight of Northern Ireland, it makes the situation unclear. The advertising regulator states:
“The Gambling Act 2005 does not apply outside Great Britain”.
Therefore, licensees should ensure that:
“Specialist legal advice should be sought when considering advertising any gambling product in Northern Ireland”.
It is not just regulators based in London that struggle with the lack of clarity. The Department for Communities told the BBC in 2018 that the mere legality—not the stake, but the legality—of so-called fixed-odds betting terminals is a grey area. I quote,
“their legality can, therefore, only be definitively determined by the Courts”.
Many of your Lordships are aware of the work from these Benches on stake reduction of electronic gaming machines. The situation we were in, until a stake cut, was a consequence of the 2005 Act, yet devolved legislation never had the categories of A, B, B2, et cetera. While there is no certainty of the legality of these machines in Northern Ireland, the industry has flourished. When the rest of the country saw a stake reduction, the estimated 600 fixed-odds betting terminals in Northern Ireland did not see a legally enforced stake cut. These confusing loopholes do not even begin to touch upon notions of no-purchase-necessary rules, Sunday trading or casinos. The anomalies and confusions abound: gambling operates inconsistently within the UK, and this affects lives.
It has been a steep climb through this complicated legislation. Clearly on some things regulation and rules are the same, and then on another matter they diverge. While these Benches, alongside the Church of Ireland, deeply regret Westminster legislating on Belfast matters, Northern Ireland deserves clarity as soon as possible. Harmonisation can offer this, and I hope the Minister considers it in the Government’s report. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, I welcome this amendment and recognise the activity that the Bishops’ Benches have shown on this issue over the years. I hope they recognise that the Liberal Democrats have also been active on this, with both my noble friend Lord Foster in this House and Ed Davey in the other House putting on pressure to get rid of the £100 limit for fixed-odds betting terminals. It is fair to say that that pressure and the campaign that came with it, despite a number of false starts, has had results. But as the right reverend Prelate made clear, the situation in Northern Ireland is not legally enforceable. Therefore, observing the £2 limit is only voluntary for the industry. It would be beneficial to report that, even if it has in the short run, it should not lapse, but be maintained at that level so that abuses do not take place.
The other issue raised by the right reverend Prelate relates to the advertising of gambling. Nobody is suggesting—yet—that there should be a complete ban on advertising gambling, but the way it is focused should be monitored. One of the most insidious aspects of gambling and its promotion is the way it draws people in and becomes addictive to the point that it destroys lives, not just financially, but emotionally and, as we know, people have literally committed suicide. My noble friends and honourable friends have met too many families of those who have committed suicide. This has reinforced their belief that advertising gambling should be strictly controlled and done in a way as to make it clear what different types of betting, bonuses and gimmicks involve, and how much they could cost and draw people in.
The industry should also fund the help provided to people who become addicted to gambling. If the gambling industry is to have a justifiable existence—killjoys might want to stop it, but that is not necessarily the objective—it has to accept responsibility for the dangers associated with gambling and their consequences, and put resources into helping people who have become addicted. It should also put resources into ensuring that people do not become addicted in the first place, certainly not from the way the industry is promoted.
Given the practicality of the amendment, requiring the Government to report with a view to bringing the laws of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom together, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. That would be beneficial. It may be perfectly right and proper to say that we can have different laws in different parts of the country—we have had this debate in Scotland as well—but the fundamentals of safe and responsible gambling should be UK-wide. It should be possible at least to establish a practice that applies across the United Kingdom even if there might be slight variations in the law—devolution can allow for that. The fundamental objective should be that gambling is non-addictive and does not draw people into levels of loss that they simply cannot support, leading to tragic consequences.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I support the right reverend Prelates on this issue. This is one of those issues where if the Government were to take some action it might get support from the Assembly—very moderate action is proposed in the amendment. Anyone who has seen late-night or daytime TV will have seen adverts for gambling, aimed particularly at women in many cases, that encourage viewers to roll their winnings and depict all the glorious things that will happen to those who gamble. If there is a gap in legislation or enforcement in Northern Ireland—and I had not realised the extent of the differences until they were explained to us tonight—it is clearly a serious problem and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I fully support all that has been said about the problem of gambling in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of problem gamblers. I know of one sad case where this has led to suicide. It also leads to the breaking-up of families and marriages and loss of homes. A report on this matter would be extremely useful, but to be consistent with the arguments already made, I have to say that, at the end of the day, legislation should be reserved for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, is quite right to raise the outdated gambling laws in Northern Ireland and I thank her for her remarks.
These laws are complex, but in Northern Ireland they have not kept pace with emerging technologies such as electronic and online gambling. Such technologies have made it much easier for people to gamble, including from inside their own homes, thus changing the entire gambling landscape.
The gambling laws in Northern Ireland date back to 1985 and are modelled on a much older Great Britain law which was repealed and replaced by the Gambling Act 2005. A few aspects of the 2005 Act have been extended to Northern Ireland. In particular, if a remote gambling operator does not hold the remote gambling licence from the Gambling Commission that it would need to be permitted to advertise in Great Britain it cannot advertise in Northern Ireland either.
Although the legislation has not kept pace, I am pleased that businesses have in some instances led the way in taking steps in line with the more updated GB regulations and applied them across the whole UK, including in Northern Ireland. For example, GVC, which owns Ladbrokes Coral, has voluntarily reduced fixed-odds betting terminal stakes in all its UK operations from £100 to £2 in line with GB regulations. I understand that other NI bookmakers have committed to this voluntary reduction. Any such actions to improve social responsibility by NI operators is to be welcomed.
As the right reverend Prelate will be aware, gambling is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. The reform of this legislation should be for a restored Executive and Ministers to consider, informed by the results of that review. I am pleased to say that I am content to accept the amendment and to commit to reporting on progress, but I repeat that this is a devolved matter and thus the depth and detail of such a report will not be something over which I have control.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment and warmly thank the Minister for his response. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans would value a conversation with the Minister to discuss the variations in regulation of the gambling sector in other jurisdictions across the UK.
Space Science and Technology
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mawson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the 50th anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing on 20 July 1969, what plans they have (1) to exploit space science and technology, and (2) to improve and encourage public participation in that field.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I thank all the parties in this House for helping me to secure this important debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rees, for all his advice and support.
On 16 July 1969 at 8.32 am EST, the Saturn V rocket carrying the Apollo 11 astronauts, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, at Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center set off for the moon. I suspect that many of us in this Chamber are old enough to remember exactly where we were and what we were doing at that moment as the world held its breath, came together and watched in awe these amazing events in black and white footage on our television screens. I can certainly remember where I was and the sense of wonder it sparked in me; I was 15 years old. It was only eight years before this that President Kennedy had set NASA this mission and seven months since NASA made a bold decision to send Apollo 8 all the way to the moon on the first manned flight, on a massive Saturn V rocket.
On that fine morning in 1969, 7.5 million pounds of thrust propelled them into space and into history. After one and a half orbits of the earth, Apollo 11 headed for the moon. Three days later, the crew is in lunar orbit and, one day later, Armstrong and Aldrin climb into the lunar module “Eagle” and begin their descent, while Collins orbits in the command module. Collins wrote later that the “Eagle”,
“is the weirdest looking contraption I have ever seen in the sky”.
When the lunar module landed at 4.18pm EDT, only 30 seconds of fuel remain. We all know the rest.
When you dig into the details of this amazing human feat of risk-taking and daring, you discover some interesting facts. It was costing a massive 4% of USA GDP at the peak; it took more than 400,000 people working together as a team to get those two brave men alive there and back from the moon. During the final seconds of descent, “Eagle’s” computer is sounding alarms. It turned out to be a simple case of the computer trying to do too many things at once—sound familiar? But as Aldrin would later point out:
“unfortunately it came up when we did not want to be trying to solve these particular problems”.
Armstrong later confirmed that landing this craft was his biggest concern, saying that,
“the unknowns were rampant … there were just a thousand things to worry about”.
The excellent BBC World Service podcast, “13 Minutes to the Moon”, gives the real human detail of how this was achieved, just how extraordinary and hard the task was, how hard people worked, the sense of dedication, teamwork and commitment, and how it caught the imagination of the entire world. There are apparently all sorts of small but crucial matters that you have to remember as an astronaut if you want to get back alive. Small things quickly become very big matters. For example, of all the things that Buzz Aldrin had to remember, one important detail was to ensure he did not close the door of the “Eagle” when he left the craft to step down on to the moon’s surface. There was apparently no outside door handle on the craft if he shut it—just think about that.
At a time when we are in danger, as a country, of talking ourselves to death, drowning in thousands of words and coming apart as a nation, this 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing is a breath of fresh air. It takes place this Saturday 20 July and reminds us of an amazing practical human achievement that required massive collaboration across wide groups of people with many different skills, experiences and values, to achieve a practical outcome that the whole world could celebrate. The focus was not on words but on a practical task: doing something together. This extraordinary human event carried with it important opportunities for our economy and for every nation on earth, particularly for our children and the future of this planet.
Just before Easter, I was approached by the Aldrin Family Foundation in the US and the Hackney artist, Helen Marshall, whom I know. They were working with the Kennedy Space Center and asked whether my colleagues and I would be interested in working with them and the People’s Moon project in the US to help celebrate and share this extraordinary human achievement with this generation in the UK. We jumped at it. I declare my interest. The Peoples Moon is a global project to mark, in a unique and creative way, the 50th anniversary of landing the first humans onto the lunar surface. It is producing giant photo and video mosaics that will appear at multiple locations around the world starting now, this July.
A team of us working together have now secured, this Saturday, the anniversary of the moon landing, giant screens in Times Square, New York, in Piccadilly Circus, London, and in Singapore, which will show, at the exact time 50 years ago, the landing of the lunar module. A giant projection of Neil Armstrong’s first boot print on the moon will be projected on to the floor in Piccadilly Circus, so that people can literally stand in his footstep. These celebrations will coincide with other events across America, the highlight being at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Our own Professor Brian Cox will be taking part in this gala. The permanent home for the People’s Moon exhibit will be at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida: future generations will be able to click on individual pictures and learn something about the thousands of individuals that took part and what their aspirational “giant leap” was in 2019.
To make this large moon mosaic, we are asking people, particularly young people, to download the People’s Moon app and send us individual pictures of themselves with a statement of their “giant leap”, describing their aspiration in a few words. The Apollo programme was accomplished by the efforts of more than 400,000 people coming together and achieving an impossible dream. This project is encouraging this generation to come together and inspire the world to believe in them and dream the impossible again. This giant art installation, a picture of the moon made up of 10,000 people’s pictures and their “giant leaps”, will stay as a reminder of our time, 50 years on, of what we have learned from these extraordinary events in the history of humankind and the impact they have had upon our lives and our economy.
Just over a week ago, Professor Brian Cox and I ran our eighth science summer school in a school in what was, just over a decade ago, a failing housing estate and failing school in Tower Hamlets. This year, 60% of our children in this school have gone on to Russell group universities, many to read science and engineering. Our means of turning around what was a failing school was, first, to get good leadership and build a focused team of staff; then to inspire the children and expose them to the lives and journeys of this country’s top scientists and engineers; then to connect this yearly inspirational event to the ongoing science and engineering curriculum in the school; and, finally, to make sure they meet, hear and work with people who are actually running some of this country’s top science and engineering businesses. Join the dots, create an aspirational culture and believe in these children: they have many talents. We know; we have the data to prove it.
Just over a week ago, these children from east London were joined by 60 children from Rotherham and Skelmersdale as Brian and I took the science summer school into the north of England. They heard from Abigail Hutty, who is working on the ExoMars Rover, co-ordinating the design team who are building this vehicle, and from Andrew Smyth, an aerospace engineer at Rolls-Royce and finalist in “The Great British Bake Off”, who shared with us the scientific links between the heat shield on the space shuttle and the make-up of meringues and arctic rolls—amazing. There is much debate about the direct benefits of the massive investment in the Apollo programme. Perhaps, though, that misses the point: the sense of self-belief, the entrepreneurial, can-do attitude that it engendered could be seen as its major successes. The Apollo programme gave a major push to computer technologies; it purchased 70% of the entire production of early integrated circuits and more or less invented software engineering, so perhaps it is no surprise that the USA is pre-eminent in these spheres today.
The “Earthrise” photo from Apollo 8, showing the earth rising beyond the moon, was taken the first time humankind left earth’s orbit. For the first time, we saw how small and precious our planet really is. For the first time, we could see the globe in the context of the cosmos. This was, arguably, the major driver of the nascent environment movement, and in the long term it may be that this was by far the programme’s greatest impact. Pope Francis, in his speech to the Council of Europe in November 2014, challenged us all:
“Where is your vigour? Where is that idealism which inspired and ennobled your history? Where is your spirit of curiosity and enterprise?”
The clues may be in this incredible story of human endeavour, self-belief and risk taking.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for giving me this opportunity to celebrate this momentous anniversary of human achievement. As Buzz Aldrin climbed the steps of the lunar landing module for the last time, Neil Armstrong reminded him of one item in his shoulder pocket that he was meant to leave behind. It was an ultra-microfiche inside an aluminium case inscribed simply “From Planet Earth”. He dropped it from the steps. The microfiche that floated slowly down to the moon’s surface contained goodwill messages from 73 world leaders, including Indira Gandhi, Pope Paul VI, Chiang Kai-shek, President Tito, Haile Selassie and the only surviving signatory, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to read these: they were optimistic in tone and had two great themes. The first was a desire for peace; and the other was the hope that this great human scientific advance may hold the key to improving life here on earth.
It is important to remember the context of 1969. We were at the height of the Cold War and the Vietnam War. It was a time of great power tensions, not unlike our own. Notwithstanding this division, the writers of those messages believed that the search of the heavens had the capacity to draw us closer together on earth. The moon and space were not a resource to be exploited but a frontier to be explored. The boundaries to be expanded were of human knowledge and understanding, not of nation states. This sentiment was captured in the lunar plaque for the Apollo 11, which remains on the surface of the moon and states:
“WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND”.
This is also expressed clearly in Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, signed by 103 countries, and which the UK played a leading role in securing. Article 1 states that exploration,
“shall be carried out for the benefit and interests of all countries ... and shall be the province of all mankind”.
It may be that this momentous anniversary offers us an opportunity to revisit that treaty and reaffirm our commitment to its precepts. As we celebrate the Apollo 11 mission, we might pause and reflect what we may be in danger of leaving something behind: a belief that, whatever our differences, we are all human first and that we are privileged to share the most extraordinarily beautiful home in the known universe, which it falls to us in this generation to cherish and improve for the benefit of the next.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for securing this debate. When devising our industrial strategy, it makes sense to assess our opportunities and play to our strengths. In relation to both, the UK should be doing more: though only 3% of the world economy, we are 5% to 6% of the world space economy, so we are already doing well, although we need to do a whole lot better if we are to reach the Government’s target of having 10% of the global space market by 2030. Apart from the trade and the very high-value jobs we can create from space exploitation, there are four good reasons why we need to be active in this field. Space programmes allow us to monitor and observe our world: this is vital for environmental protection and climate change mitigation. Communications rely on space programmes, as does navigation. Then there is the vital area of defence. We need to be independent in all these areas.
We are already active in two of the major sectors of space exploitation: building satellites and receiving and interpreting data from them. The area where we are lacking is in independent launch facilities, although this aspect of space exploitation could be worth £3.8 billion to our economy by the end of the decade.
The Sutherland space hub being developed by Highlands and Islands Enterprise is supported by £2.5 million from the UK Government as part of its £17.3 million funding, and other grants have been made available to companies developing a new rocket, launch operations and a new satellite. The location of this site makes sense, so that we can launch to the north-east, but it is in Scotland, a part of the UK where the people and the Government do not want to leave the European Union and where the SNP Government have threatened to attempt to break up the union if we Brexit. What happens to the Sutherland site then? I understand that there is another site in Cornwall where there are plans for a launch site, but the investment in Sutherland is already great. What discussions have taken place with the Scottish Government to protect that investment?
Brexit threatens more than that. Half our current satellite manufacturing is exported to the EU. Tariffs would make us less competitive and a no-deal exit would be a disaster for companies such as those in the Glasgow and Surrey clusters, which build a lot of small satellites. One area in which we excel at the moment is removing space debris. There is a parallel here with the plastics that pollute our oceans. In our race for development, we have polluted the oceans with plastics that do not decompose and we have polluted space with bits of technology that are no longer used. A British satellite manufacturer has a clever netting system that can remove them. Surely this technology has enormous potential. Are the Government backing it?
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, the Americans committed 4% of the federal Budget to Apollo. Had that level of spend been sustained, there would have been footprints on Mars by now. But once that race against the Russians was won, there was no imperative to sustain that massive effort, so Apollo remains, half a century later, the high point of manned spaceflight.
However, space activity has burgeoned. We depend routinely on orbiting satellites for communication, satnav, environmental monitoring, surveillance and weather forecasting—and for science. NASA’s budget remains much larger than that of the European Space Agency, but it is mostly spent sustaining America’s pre-eminence in manned flight. On the unmanned front, we should proclaim more loudly that ESA has parity. The successes of Rosetta, Planck, Gaia and Copernicus—all strongly involving the UK—fully match what NASA has achieved. We can be proud of Europe’s publicly funded space effort and should remain key players.
In parallel, the Government should foster commercial projects, supporting launch sites and research and development. They should also promote educational ventures—this is where Leicester and the Open University deserve special mention. We must not forget the influence on young people of such enterprises. Space is second only to dinosaurs in fascinating the young. In coming decades, the entire solar system will be explored by fleets of tiny automated probes, interacting with each other like a flock of birds. Robotic fabricators will construct in space solar energy collectors, telescopes and industrial-scale structures.
Will there be a role for humans? The practical role for them gets ever weaker with each advance in robots, sensors and miniaturisation. It is therefore hard to justify massive funding by taxpayers. Manned spaceflight should be left to privately funded adventurers prepared to participate in a cut-price programme far riskier and far cheaper than western nations could impose on publicly supported civilians. The phrase “space tourism” should be avoided. It lulls people into believing that such ventures are low risk. If that is the perception, the inevitable accidents will be traumatic. These exploits must be sold as dangerous sports or intrepid exploration. By 2100, thrill seekers in the mould of Sir Ranulph Fiennes may have established bases on the moon and Mars. Elon Musk of SpaceX says he wants to die on Mars, but not on impact. We should cheer on these enthusiasts.
We should never expect mass emigration from the earth. Here I disagree with Musk and my late colleague Stephen Hawking. It is a dangerous delusion to think that space offers an escape from the earth’s problems. Coping with climate change is a doddle compared to terraforming Mars. Nowhere in our solar system offers an environment even as clement as the Antarctic. There is no planet B for ordinary, risk-averse people. We must cherish our earthly home.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin recounted:
“What I want to remember most is the glance between Neil and myself, with the engine shutoff, just the second after we touched down, because we had just completed the most critical door opening for space exploration in all of humanity”.
Opening that door had the potential to allow infective agents—“moon fever”, whatever that might be—to enter the capsule and be brought back to earth. Although science fiction had postulated several terrible diseases, one thing was certain: there would be no resistance to any such infection on earth. Therefore, the risk of infection had to be zero. It was not. In 1963, NASA recommended quarantine of any astronaut coming back from lunar landing missions and three weeks’ quarantine was deemed adequate to detect the emergence of possible lunar microbes. They have not been found, but organic material is out there, possibly pointing to our origins.
Dr Bill Carpentier, when aged 33, entered the sealed negative pressure capsule with the returning astronauts to monitor every aspect of their health, physical and mental. Analysis of gait in weightless conditions has now shed light on our neurological systems. Bone density changes explained fracture risks and the sequelae of intense radiation received in the Van Allen belts is still being monitored. Space medicine is now a sought-after training programme and has been established in the UK in part by the efforts of Professor Gradwell and colleagues from King’s.
Research into space flight includes the man-machine interface, human performance, fatigue effects, space cabin safety and habitability, decompression sickness, the fluid shifts in zero gravity that cause hypotension on re-entry, and spatial disorientation. This all informs aircraft accident investigation. Publications from astronauts’ data have looked at their cardio- vascular, pulmonary and nervous systems. However, as Dr Carpentier said:
“You’re not sending a cardiovascular system into space, you’re sending a person”.
That glance between Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on landing on the moon encapsulates that human interaction that determines success or disaster. After Neil Armstrong’s death, his family had a simple request to us all:
“Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink”.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson said, all of us recall with great intensity exactly what we were doing, feeling and thinking when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. As an early computer programmer and systems analyst, I was particularly concerned about the software and whether it would hold up. Had my colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic done everything that they possibly could to test it to extinction? It held. The astronauts landed and they came back. It was a most magnificent triumph. It was of course a triumph for humanity as well. For the first time we came together across national boundaries, religions and languages in a celebration of what it was to be human. To be alive to witness that great event was a privilege that none of us can ever forget.
It was also a sound investment. The money spent on space is actually spent here on earth within our economies. It provides high-tech employment, jobs and growth, spinning off new technologies that benefit all our lives. The Apollo programme brought a more modern world to everyone, everywhere. Indeed, it is one of the shining examples of the truth that investing in science and engineering works. This can be a great role for government as the funds in turn fuel growth in our economy and provide jobs here at home, attracting talent from around the world to our universities, institutions and companies and driving British industry ever further forward. Today, British companies and entrepreneurs are leading a resurgence in space exploration. They are at the forefront of the world of satellite communications and space commerce, successfully driving yet more jobs and investment into our economy.
The crew of Apollo 8 circumnavigated the moon in December 1968—on Christmas Eve—and took the iconic “Earthrise” photograph, an image directly credited with starting the environmental movement at home. This was the first time that the human race collectively saw the beauty of our home planet against the backdrop of the deepest darkness of space. Our earth shines like a jewel in space; it is the jewel of all creation. All who have seen the earth, no matter from which nation, experience the overview effect. Seeing the beauty of our planet quite literally changes them. My great friend Nicole Stott has been in space three times and the experience of seeing the earth from there has changed her dramatically. Indeed, the greatest gift we received from the Apollo programme was not the moon but, rather, the earth.
I was fortunate in that one of my early political assistants in the House of Commons went straight into space. He now runs an immensely successful British-American programme. That is a good example of how that programme affected just one person, along with his wife Nicole Stott, the astronaut. Apollo was by far the best foot forward ever in my lifetime for all humanity.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for tabling the debate. As noble Lords know, we circled the moon before we landed on it, and on Christmas Eve 1968, Apollo 8 became the first manned spacecraft to leave the earth’s orbit. As the astronauts completed their circle of the moon, they saw in front of them an astounding sight: the exquisite blue sphere hanging in the blackness of space. They photographed it and the result was the image known as “Earthrise”. It is without a doubt one of the most profound events in the history of human culture and, without a doubt, an amazing photograph. For the first time we saw ourselves from a distance. Our earth, our home, in its surrounding dark emptiness, seemed not only infinitely beautiful but infinitely fragile and precious.
The photograph graced the cover of James Lovelock’s groundbreaking work Gaia. Lovelock showed us for the first time that everything on earth is connected, and that it is regulated for its own good and thus for our good as well. Rainforests, oceans and the soil beneath our feet ensure that that we have air to breathe, food to eat and natural resources from which to thrive. Initially, Lovelock’s view was pilloried and thought a hippy interpretation of the photograph, but now it is accepted science. “Earthrise” spurred many people to think differently. In 1970, the United States set up the Environment Protection Agency and in 1971 both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were founded. Our own Department of the Environment followed in 1972.
Later in his life, William Anders, the astronaut who took the photograph, said:
“This is the only home we have and yet we're busy shooting at each other, threatening nuclear war and wearing suicide vests”.
It took our leaving the planet to fully understand how awesome and vulnerable it is. Sadly, we are still not learning the lesson. Some 50 years ago, the brilliance of humanity rose to the challenge laid down by President Kennedy when he said that man will go to the moon. We succeeded, triumphantly, so 50 years on, let us put that combined brilliance to work again to save the very precious world that we are all lucky enough to inhabit.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for tabling this debate. Project Apollo was and remains a great technical achievement of humankind. It has inspired millions around the world and it is an honour to have the opportunity to help commemorate the 50th anniversary of the moon landings today.
Everything about Apollo astounds. When President Kennedy set the goal of a manned moon landing in 1961, only a single American had flown in space on a suborbital flight, yet the President had the ambition—almost the audacity—to commit the nation to a moon landing before the end of the decade. The resulting machine, the Saturn V moon rocket, was the most powerful machine ever built.
I am a nuclear engineer. Designing nuclear reactors is not quite rocket science, although it gets close at times and makes me appreciate the engineering genius behind Apollo all the more. I remember how inspirational Apollo was to me as a child. Sadly, I cannot claim to recall where I was at the time of the moon landings, but I pored over the details of the mission. It played a key part in my decision to pursue a career in engineering. It is that ability to be inspired and excited by the future that gets children interested in science and engineering, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out. That is one of the great legacy benefits of the programme.
The dreams that many had in the 1960s about the future of space flight never quite transpired, yet we are at a critical juncture in the history of space flight, driven in the main by the development of reusable rockets by private industry in America. I believe they will transform the economics of space flight and will lead to many opportunities and growth in the sector. On the 50th anniversary of Apollo, it seems wholly appropriate that space is becoming really exciting again.
The UK has an excellent, thriving industry in the production of satellites, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to. It would be really inspirational to get the capability to launch those satellites back in the UK. I note the really positive developments with spaceports in Cornwall and Scotland. Several private companies in the UK are looking at developing launch technology—for example, small launch vehicles and engines for reusable launch vehicles—and the Government should look closely at the funding of those efforts. Contracts to kick-start private investment in those areas could pay dividends, mirroring the approach used so successfully in America. There is an opportunity to capture that before it is lost to others.
I finish with something about the spirit of Apollo. It was a great endeavour, with the whole nation united to achieve a single goal. Maybe that same spirit is what we need to resolve the climate challenges of today.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and send good wishes for the People’s Moon project. I hope that the media give it the coverage it deserves and that it succeeds.
My locus in speaking in this debate is twofold. I hope it is not thought of as one-upmanship to say that I was in Downing Street on 14 October 1969 when Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins were received by Harold Wilson as part of the world tour that followed their journey to the moon. I have a son, James, who works in Munich as a space vehicle controller—a title that slightly worries me, but he assures me it is perfectly safe.
The past 50 years have seen an amazing movement forward in unmanned exploration. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, was right to draw attention to the fact that we were probably right: the brief we have had and “8 Days: To the Moon and Back” showed, perhaps more than we knew at the time, just how perilous that journey to the moon was.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we really are going into a new space age, with lots of encouraging things happening—not least the work by Professor Brian Cox, which has been mentioned, Tim Peake and his adventures and successive Governments in the past 10 years giving legislative and investment support to our space industries.
There are, however, still things that worry me. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, mentioned the future of our participation in the European Space Agency. The Government must really make clear what their intentions and hopes are for our participation in the European Space Agency. I worry that we are moving away from:
“We came in peace for all mankind”.
The Chinese, the Russians, the United States and France all seem to be developing military capacity in space. What is the Government’s view of these dangers? A number of speakers have also talked about the environmental clean-up in space.
I was very interested in the comment from Buzz Aldrin in “8 Days: To the Moon and Back”. On the way back from the moon, he said that space travel would continue because of,
“the insatiable curiosity of all mankind”.
My son James has told me that what has inspired him more than anything else was that “Earthrise” image taken by Apollo 8—our earth suspended in the void. It is a reminder of both our urge to explore new frontiers and our responsibility to our fragile blue planet.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, within a month of the Apollo mission landing in 1969, another—not quite as remarkable—event occurred: I was born. Although, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, I have no memories of that day or the moon landing, growing up alongside the Apollo 11 lunar landing anniversaries and annual celebrations has had an effect on me. Growing up, I felt an optimism for the future—I still feel it now, although sometimes it is tested—and a belief that we can do better and be bolder.
There is something exciting, mysterious and adventurous about space exploration and lunar landings. The success of that Apollo mission is now 50 years past. On Monday 21 July 1969, the first Oral Question on the Order Paper was from Lord Brockway, a former general secretary of the Independent Labour Party, the ILP. He spoke of the landing as,
“opening an entirely new era in history”.
He warned against the dark side of the potential militarisation of space and further asked the Minister about the potential for,
“laboratories orbiting with scientists from different countries working together”.—[Official Report, 21/7/1969; col. 650.]
The vision of space laboratories consisting of representatives from across the rivalling world may have seemed far-fetched at the time but, as we all know, the international space station has now orbited for over 20 years—a feat that has seen former Cold War foes working together. We should not underestimate the power of space exploration to create dreams or open potential.
The UK is in a fortunate position and can be at the forefront of new future space programmes, but only if we seize that opportunity. Our reputation as the mother of the Industrial Revolution and our leading universities and research centres are known across the world. While the UK’s membership of the European Space Agency is not affected by leaving the EU, Brexit sadly places in doubt our participation in other projects such as Copernicus and a few others.
To finish, I remind the House of the response, back in July 1969, to the Question from Lord Brockway. The then Minister, Lord Chalfont. agreed with Lord Brockway’s sentiments and added that such ventures into space should be,
“a co-operative rather than a competitive enterprise”.—[Official Report, 21/7/1969; col. 650.]
I ask the Minister to take heed of that message in future UK policy, both in space and beyond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, like virtually all other noble Lords —I exclude the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Ravensdale—I too can remember the grainy pictures on television 50 years ago of the landing on the moon in 1969. I am probably exactly the same age as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson—but it is not unusual in this House for our minds to go back that far.
I begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for giving this boost to the People’s Moon project. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I hope that it gets reasonable coverage because, although we in government recognise the important role that space can play in our economy, security and environment, also important is its unique potential to inspire the next generation. I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said about that—the need to get into schools and the work that he is doing on that front. If the Government can help in one department or another, my door is open; he can come to me and we will see just what is possible.
So soon after the debates on net zero, it was also useful for the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lady Nicholson—and I think the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as well—to mention the impact of those photographs of Apollo 8 six months earlier, and just how suddenly and completely they changed our view of the world we live in. Again, I remember those photographs as they appeared in the newspapers at the time.
It is right that we mark the 50th anniversary. It was a truly historic moment in human history, and we should also use this moment—I believe this debate will help do so—to celebrate the United Kingdom’s growing space sector while looking into the future. I hope to say a little about that.
In the 1960s, the space race was fought between two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Since then, there has been a remarkable growth in the number of spacefaring nations—I forget how many mentions I have seen in the press over the past two days of missions from India, China, Israel and so on—and an unprecedented level of international co-operation on projects such as the European Space Agency. I can give a commitment that we will continue to be a member of that because, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said, it has nothing to do with our withdrawal from the European Union.
When many of us think about space exploration, we see those early pictures of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin taking those first steps on the moon—but it is also important to remember President Kennedy and his remarkable speech some seven years earlier in 1962 in Houston, when he set America on its path to the moon. He said:
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills”.
I believe that the resulting Apollo programme was indicative of what a Government can do and how quickly they can do it. It also shows what citizens can achieve when they put their mind to it. However, as other noble Lords reminded us, it should also be remembered that it is not only hard but very expensive. Both the noble Lords, Lord Mawson and Lord Rees, reminded us that, at the height of Apollo, 4% of federal government spending went into the NASA budget. As a result, in seven years they achieved what they did. One might pause and think just how long it is taking us to sort out this Palace—but that is possibly not the proper thing to say at this stage.
While we recognise the achievements of the past, we should also look to the future, where the United Kingdom aims to play a leading part. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, kindly said that we were doing well—but, as always, she then said that we could do better. The space sector is a success story. It generates an income of £14.8 billion, employs 42,000 people across the country and supports a further £300 billion of economic activity through the use of satellite services. But she was right to draw attention to the need to do more. I can confirm that we are involved in programmes dealing with debris removal and that we are committed to the Sutherland spaceport in Scotland and will continue to be so whatever happens. Scotland is the best place in the UK for vertical rocket launch. We are in regular discussions with the Scottish Government about development of spaceports.
The UK is also a world leader in space science—in designing, developing and operating spacecraft in the most challenging environments imaginable and returning data and observations. We are working closely with industry and, I want to emphasise, our world-class university sector, which both help to grow the UK space sector further as part of our modern industrial strategy, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
I have mentioned this to the House before, but I will mention again that I saw for myself the results of some of that work when I visited a company designing, building and exploiting the data from microsatellites in Glasgow. The noble Baroness talked about the strength of Glasgow in that field. Why does a company that comes from the west coast of America want to build satellites in Glasgow? The simple fact is that the expertise and the universities are there and it is a jolly good place to work. We should be proud of that.
The UK Space Agency also delivers a space science and space exploration programme through the European Space Agency and in partnership with other agencies around the world, funding cutting-edge technologies and inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers.
I was grateful for the reminder from the real expert in this debate; the noble Lord, Lord Rees. There is a range of different experts in this debate, but I think that the noble Lord is the one with the most pertinent expertise. He reminded us of our expertise and that of the European Space Agency in unmanned flight. There is a real opportunity for the UK space sector to strengthen its international relationships and enhance bilateral opportunities while continuing to collaborate with our close partners across Europe. My honourable friend the Science Minister will be speaking more about this tomorrow at the Policy Exchange, including about our plans to increase collaboration with NASA as we approach the moon landing anniversary.
I will mention public engagement and the Apollo 11 anniversary, because the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, asked how we would celebrate that anniversary. We have conducted a crowd-sourced history campaign, capturing the memories of those who are old enough to remember 1969—unlike the noble Lord, Lord McNicol —when humans first walked on the moon. The UK Space Agency and the Arts and Humanities Research Council will publish a collection of those memories later this week, which will include newly unearthed photographs and stories that highlight the lasting legacy of Apollo. The Government have also supported a series of outreach activities to engage the next generation in space.
My honourable friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation recently attended the launch of the Science Museum’s Summer of Space activities, which included two new exhibits: the Apollo 10 command module which orbited the moon on the final test mission before the Apollo 11 landing and Tim Peake’s Soyuz spacecraft which safely returned Tim and other astronauts to earth in 2016 following their stay in the International Space Station. I believe that making use of those opportunities is a good way of marking the historic anniversary and I can think of no better way for Members of this House to mark it than by visiting the museum and seeing those historic artefacts which are a physical reminder of the extraordinary feats of space exploration and, as is clear from noble Lords’ memories of just how crude the equipment was, the bravery of those astronauts and the ingenuity of the scientists and engineers who supported them on their missions.
I conclude by stating that the Government recognise the historic and scientific significance of the Apollo 11 landing and the potential that space has to improve our life on earth. We are seeing rapid growth in the UK space industry and will continue to support it through the industrial strategy, which includes a programme to establish small satellite launch capability from UK soil as well as investments in new space infrastructure such as the National Satellite Test Facility at Harwell. Last week the Government also announced a £40 million investment in Space Park Leicester through the UK research partnership investment fund, leveraging further private investment. Again, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said about the need for private investment in this field, and further public investment by the likes of Lockheed, Amazon and others.
As I said, we will also continue to be a member of the European Space Agency once we leave the European Union and we will work with other partners as part of humanity’s efforts to explore the final frontier while engaging the public in our efforts to help the UK lead the new space age.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Monday 15th July 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 190-I(Rev)(a)(Manuscript) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the revised marshalled list (PDF) - (15 Jul 2019)
Lord Empey
“( ) After making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 10 September 2019 on progress on the establishment of a Renewable Heat Incentive Hardship Unit in the Department for the Economy.”
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Committee will see that I have a number of issues in Amendments 12 to 16. I have to say—I have said this to the Minister before—that I believe that this Bill, which was set out to be a relatively simple exercise, has now transformed itself into something totally different. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described it as a Christmas tree, so I take the view that if people at the other end are entitled to put baubles on the Christmas tree, I can put tinsel on it. Let us be under no illusion. Once the dam is breached, people will flow through with their own ideas and are perfectly entitled to do it. I have chosen a number of things because I believe they are very important to the people of Northern Ireland. Most of them are not being addressed, yet people are in significant difficulty as a result.
I will start with Amendment 12. The RHI has proven to be one of the most significant developments in Northern Ireland in recent years. It was ostensibly the reason Sinn Féin collapsed the Executive in 2017. I have never believed that that was the only reason. Nevertheless, it is on paper as the reason. As we discovered when dealing with rates and the renewable heat incentive in March, many people are in great distress as a result.
After we had discussed things, the Minister promised that a unit would be established within the Department for the Economy to look at the individual circumstances of everybody who was at risk and at a loss as a result of the change in the premiums being paid for the use of the boilers. It appears to me that the department has taken an exceptionally narrow view of what that means and is confining itself to European Union rules stipulating that it could provide loans at commercial rates for up to six months and that would probably be as far as it could go. That is no use to the people.
In the debate earlier, before the dinner-break business, people referred to undertakings that the Government gave. In this particular case, the relevant Minister at the time appealed to the banks in writing for them to lend to people who were going to operate these boilers. The banks responded to the Minister, loaning money on the undertaking that the rights were being grandfathered and there was a 12% return. Some people got these boilers, calculated the income that they had received from them over the 20 years of the scheme, put that into business plans and perhaps went on to borrow money for other related projects, such as additional chicken houses and so on. They now find that the premiums they are in receipt of are a mere fraction of those they had put into their business plans and were promised by the Stormont Government at that time. They also find themselves in the bizarre situation that the Republic of Ireland is about to introduce a similar scheme for 15 years, while the scheme that exists here, which pre-dated the Northern Ireland version, will be continuing for its 20-year period. So the competitiveness for the person using one of those boilers in Northern Ireland compared with in the Republic or the rest of the United Kingdom is totally destroyed. I say to the Minister that this requires urgent action, and the action so far flagged up by the Department for the Economy is totally inadequate.
I come now to Amendment 13. We have all agreed that the welfare system was in urgent need of reform. It was unwieldy, far too complicated and, most important, it was not properly supporting people into work. Yet, instead of simplifying the overall benefits system, the reforms made it even more difficult, with new layers of complexity and added delay. In 2015, the local political parties in Northern Ireland agreed that a package of measures was required. This included support for people moving from DLA to PIP, or perhaps from DLA to nothing at all, as well as many other issues, such as additional support for the independent advice sector. One of the most important mitigations was in relation to the social sector size criteria. While we can all accept the principle behind families being allocated homes that most reflect their needs, the reality in Northern Ireland did not—and, shamefully, still does not—have the stock to reflect modern demand; in other words, there are insufficient homes for single people or small families.
If, as is so greatly feared, the current mitigations expire next March and nothing is there to replace them, many thousands of local families face the prospect of serious financial hardship. Let us take the bedroom tax alone: a massive 34,000 households would lose support valued at £22 million per annum. I repeat: this is not because people are refusing to downsize; it is because there are literally not the houses for people to downsize to. It is as simple as that. There have been talks between the parties of Northern Ireland in recent months on the issue of future mitigation. I am told that they have gone quite well so far, yet the Department for Communities in Belfast has repeatedly said that decisions on the provision of any future support from April next year can be a matter only for incoming Ministers. That is why I have tabled this amendment and put the realistic timeframe of December on it.
On Amendment 15, the Minister will be aware that we have a serious problem with suicide in Northern Ireland. It is at the highest level in the whole of the United Kingdom. Troubles-related issues may be part of it; indeed, I have no doubt that that is the case. But we are the only UK region without a current mental health strategy and our funding per capita for mental health services is far below the UK average. We have this very difficult situation, yet the Protect Life 2 strategy has been sitting on the shelf for over two years. We are talking about individual lives; primarily the victims are young men. I believe there is widespread support among the political parties in Belfast to see this strategy taken off the shelf. I think this was referred to last week by other colleagues here and that everybody is on the same hymn sheet. At the end of the day, however, the strategy is still sitting there, nothing is happening and, without it, the departments are not in a position to take decisions. The advice that the parties have been given by the Civil Service is correct: this requires a Minister to take a decision, and that is not happening.
Amendment 14 is about libel legislation in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Black, has tabled a more specific amendment that will be dealt with later, so I shall not go into detail. Basically, we are on the same page, but I was looking to try to give some kind of kick-start to this. We have fallen far behind the rest of the country, and I support what the noble Lord will propose at a later stage.
On Amendment 16, I have described our situation with health time and time again. On Second Reading I referred to the latest report from the Nuffield Trust, backed up by Professor Deirdre Heenan of Ulster University, its co-author. The statistics are sobering. Upwards of 120,000 people out of a population of 1.8 million are waiting for more than a year for a consultant-led appointment. Every target is being missed: if the target is 95%, most of the percentages are in the low 60s. We are not close to other regions in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the capacity of the service to meet the demand from the public is simply not there.
We are flying in nurses from Great Britain. Their air fare is paid, their accommodation and meals are paid, and their hourly pay is grossly above that of the ordinary nurses on the wards. Although the agency nurses do a good job and we could not survive without them, this cannot be a sensible or economic way forward. When people are flying in and out, they are not in a position to open up a relationship with a patient or understand that patient. Moreover, different systems operate in different trusts. This is an inefficient and highly expensive way of providing a service.
In our earlier debates we talked about life. I did not get into the argument about abortion, although I have my own views on it—but we understand that the fundamental thing is a respect for life, and choices. Yet we know that the way in which the service is being delivered in part of our own country is at such a level that life is being affected. If a cancer patient waits weeks and months for an appointment, that directly affects their chances of survival. In diagnosis time is of the essence, as many noble Lords will know.
Our situation is out of control, and all the projections are that it is getting progressively worse. Every quarter the figures are worse than those for the quarter before. How many times do we have to learn that? The fact is that politics are being put before the welfare of hundreds of thousands of our citizens. None of us knows how often we shall have to depend on the health service. Not one of us in this Chamber knows how we shall be placed. Those figures represent mothers, fathers, sons and daughters; they are real people, and they are suffering because the service is not delivering.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I commend the noble Lord for consistently raising this subject, and for the passion with which he has done so. To support his case, does he agree that there is also a serious problem of lack of childcare, and the dreadful waiting times for children in the NHS in Northern Ireland?
Lord Empey
The noble Lord is correct. All our services are suffering, not through any lack of attention, or any attempt on anybody’s part not to provide a good service, but because people are overwhelmed. Decisions that were taken in the Treasury some years ago affecting the position of consultants’ pensions and other things are now impacting seriously on waiting lists because a lot of those consultants are absenting themselves. There is a perverse situation that the more work there is, the more they are making a liability for themselves. These are the sorts of things that are happening.
Leaving aside the politics of it—I do not want to see direct rule; I spent years of my life trying to see Stormont get going, accompanied by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and other Members who are in the House today, and we want to see it work—there is a humanitarian issue at the back of all this. People are hurting, and the longer the prevarication is allowed to persist, the greater the risk to individuals. The truth of the matter is that people will die on these waiting lists—we have to be honest about this—and collectively we are standing around watching this. I suspect that that is not a sustainable position for any of us to keep. It is in those circumstances that I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in his amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I commend him for his persistence on these issues. He brings home to us the realities of day-to-day life and the need to have an Assembly to deliver that.
Much more importantly, given that these are modest amendments that are asking only for reports, so I imagine that the Government might be able to accept them, the positive might be that at least we would not be completely wasting our time between now and October if it were possible to assemble really useful statistics and assessments that would enable the development of policy, so that as and when the Assembly gets up and running—if we want to be positive about it—it has something that it can get to work on, rather than having to start from scratch. This seems to be a practical suggestion. One can be very dismissive about commissioning reports and say that that is kicking cans down the road or not making decisions, but in the end policy requires information, statistics and recommendations, and for them to be constructively used. I hope the Minister will take on board that if he accepts the amendment, it means what it says. The reports should be not just a list of facts and figures but useful in terms of formulating policy that can be implemented sooner rather than later.
Another point of concern that Parliament will have to accept, whether or not we get the Assembly up and running, is that the effect of the lack of government over the last two and a half years is that Northern Ireland has fallen further and further behind. We may be facing all the difficulties, which I will not elaborate on, of a confused and uncertain Brexit situation where it may be impossible to find the resources to catch up. The longer time goes on, with waiting lists rising and other problems such as farmers facing bankruptcy over RHI and people struggling with welfare benefits, the Bill that will be required to bridge the gap and get things back to where they should be will be infinitely bigger and required in a shorter time than those two and half years.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is doing a service to the people by highlighting this issue, but it is of value only if something gets actioned. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the amendments and the obligation to produce reports, but also that they will recognise that those reports will need to be substantive to be useful.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I warmly support this group of amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I shall touch on just two of them. The first is Amendment 12, which the Government should have no difficulty in accepting. I recently tabled a Written Question asking them when the report on the establishment of a renewable heat incentive hardship unit, promised on 19 March, would be forthcoming. The reply that I received on 20 June stated:
“A call for evidence in relation to the form and function of the unit will shortly be released, and will close at the end of June. This will inform the Terms of Reference of the Unit”.
The Department for the Economy,
“anticipate that the panel will begin to accept applications in September 2019”.
By happy coincidence, the amendment moved by the noble Lord requires a report by 10 September. That seems to fit in admirably with the department’s plans.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I echo the comments on health of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. No one will doubt the deeply depressing assessment he has provided this evening, following earlier, deeply troubling accounts of the decline of the health services in Northern Ireland. It is truly tragic that health services have deteriorated so markedly under this Conservative and Unionist Government. Surely all the Northern Ireland parties would give their blessing to government initiatives to reverse the decline. Therefore, the message must surely be action, and action this day.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in his amendments. In particular, I focus on his remarks about health in Northern Ireland. It is worth putting on the record that, given the restrictions which he vividly outlined and the lack of resources due in the main to the absence of an Executive, the health service in Northern Ireland has performed remarkably well. I know from personal experience how, with the pressures centred on it, the health service in our community is struggling but managing to cope in many instances.
The noble Lord also referred to mental health. In the past few years, I have had reason to work with those who were paramilitaries during the Troubles and who are now, as they see it, seeking ways to rebuild shattered communities. In that scenario, it is remarkable how suicide, self-harm and other degrees of self-inflicted physical injury are not being reported as they ought to be. That is just one segment of a vast field that is crying out for better finance, support, research and leadership. In listening to the noble Lord’s words on his amendments, I hope the Committee will take this very seriously.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in their support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I do so bearing in mind that these are all devolved issues. Like him, we certainly want to see these taken forward by a devolved Administration. However, if these reports come through and there is no devolved Administration, the issues are so urgent and of such importance that they should not be allowed to lie there. Action has to be taken. Whoever the new Secretary of State may be, they will have to action these reports whenever they come through. I am delighted that the date is given; it is certainly not an extended period of time to allow these reports to be brought forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, reminded the Committee how the Minister promised the setting up of the renewable heat incentive hardship unit, and that it would look at each individual case. Many are in great distress at present; many are enduring tremendous financial hardship because of the tariff that has now been set. We have been told by civil servants that this is because of European legislation and regulation. I thought the Irish Republic was supposed to be in the same European Union, and England is a part of that as well. Yet the tariffs in England and the Irish Republic are completely different from the tariff that has been set for Northern Ireland. The new tariff will put people into great financial hardship. I appeal to the Minister for action on this matter to ensure that whether in the Irish Republic, England or Northern Ireland, the tariff is equalised, so that no one feels that they are being unjustly penalised for something that was never their fault. No matter whose fault it was, and we wait for such a report, it certainly was not those who applied to be part of the scheme.
I support the future welfare and mitigation support measures that will be in place after March 2020. We must ensure that those put in place are continued, and that people in the Province at the lower end of the financial scale do not face continued and further hardship.
I had a keen interest in suicide prevention both as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and when I was in the other place. The strategy needs to be progressed urgently. I say that because, wearing another hat, as a Minister, I have gone into so many homes where, sadly, people across every section of the community and of all ages have committed suicide; it is not only young people. I say this also having experienced it with loved ones of my own. It is never more keenly felt than when the experience comes into one’s own family circle. Then you know what it is to be left completely broken. You have no answers—so many questions, but no answers. We need to do something urgently, because so many are witnessing the heartache of suicide. That is a reality across the Province.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned the health service. The statistics are horrendous, but remember, we talk about statistics, but each one of these statistics is a fellow human being. People are suffering because of this. There is a decline in the health service. I pay tribute to our doctors, nurses and auxiliaries and all who are doing sterling work in the health service, but it has been stretched to the limit and is at breaking point. Many targets are missed. Many of our older people are lying in hospital when they should be at home. They want to be at home with their families, but there are no packages available for them because there is no one to care for them in their own homes. They are then accused of bed-blocking, when all they want to do is get home and be looked after within the confines of their own home and family circle.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that these are issues of vital importance, but we must remember that while we have the reports, if no Assembly comes into being—and I trust one will—urgent action must be taken by the Secretary of State.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. They are extremely sensible, so who would not? The noble Lord has raised this on a number of occasions; in a way it is a cri de cœur, because we have all these unresolved issues in Northern Ireland. We should remember that this is asking for reports, not action, because nobody can take that action.
The civil servants are limited in how far they can go. Every government department in Northern Ireland has now reached its limit for what a civil servant can do. The decisions that really matter now can be taken only at ministerial level. If you compare the last two and a half years with other occasions, either when the Assembly had not been created or had been but was suspended, there was direct rule; in other words, decisions were being taken by Westminster Ministers. Now, for two and a half years, no one is doing anything. No decision has been taken at all, and it just cannot carry on any more.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for once again bringing these matters before us. Yes is the answer to the question; we will commit to report on each of these items. I could sit down now, but let me flesh that out a little more. There is no point in producing a report that sits on the shelf. It needs to set out in detail the scale of the issue and the challenges to resolve it, and put forward means by which we can address them. We commit to reporting back on each of the issues the noble Lord has raised. Either I or, depending on events, my successor will do so. It is important to stress that we need to make progress on each of these.
On the RHI question, I had hoped to bring about more progress, but I was reminded of the limited powers that a Westminster Minister has when trying to deal with devolved civil servants where there are no direct means of instruction. We hope, as my noble friend Lord Lexden again said, that we will be able to address the hardships and the widest possible definition of them, bringing up the points made by the noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Empey. It is important to see these in their broadest sense, as I said when I addressed these matters previously.
I can think of no issue more important to mental health in Northern Ireland than the question of suicide strategy. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, was right to remind us of what a challenge it has been. I thank him again for the work he has done with the former paramilitary bodies seeking to return to a wider community base. We will be able, I hope, to do something with that. We need to understand the scale of the problem. The figures in Northern Ireland are shocking and we should be able to scale that, so we can see what has to be done. On the question of welfare mitigation, I give the same commitment: we will produce a report that sets out those aspects of mitigation that need to be addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, brought up the question of younger people. That was not part of the point of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, but I think it should have been, so we will commit to that as well. We have to see exactly how younger people are affected by this, so we will commit to that additional report alongside. It is important that we have that.
As to the question of libel legislation in Northern Ireland, we will report on that, although I am not sure exactly how. I am aware that my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood will be bringing up this issue shortly. I will happily commit to meeting him and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, to talk about this separately, in addition to committing to that report. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Empey
I am grateful to the Minister for his undertakings. I am also grateful to noble Lords on all sides for their broad support for these measures. It was an omission on my part not to have included the point raised by noble Lord, Lord Hain: I should, on reflection, have included that, but I appreciate that the Minister has given us an undertaking. On the basis of what the Minister has promised, I know it will require a lot of work over the next number of weeks—that is the challenge—but at the end of the day I think it will be useful work. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that by proposing and preparing reports we will ensure that, in the event that the Assembly returns, it will have something to work with. Because, let us be honest, the Minister’s department does not, on its own, have the capacity to deal with all this: it will have to rely heavily on the Civil Service in Belfast, which does know and is dealing with this on a daily basis, to have input into the reports. That information could be very useful to an incoming Assembly and incoming Ministers in the relevant departments. So procedurally, if he is going to do this, I am happy to accept his assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morrow
“(1A) Any regulations under this section must include provision—(a) prohibiting any person or religious body being compelled by any means (including by the enforcement of a contract or a statutory or other legal requirement) to—(i) conduct a same-sex marriage,(ii) be present at, carry out, or otherwise participate in, a same-sex marriage,(iii) consent to a same-sex marriage being conducted, or(iv) permit premises to be used for a same-sex marriage ceremony,if the marriage is to be solemnised according to the rites of a religion;(b) prohibiting discrimination claims against a person or religious body for refusing to do anything listed within paragraph (a);(c) prohibiting discrimination claims in relation to employment for the purposes of an organised religion where a person refuses to employ or otherwise appoint a person married to a person of the same sex;(d) protecting freedom for discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage, including urging persons to refrain from marrying a person of the same sex; (e) requiring the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance supporting freedom of expression and freedom of conscience in educational institutions in relation to beliefs about the definition of marriage.(1B) Provision made under subsection (1A) shall provide no less protection for freedom of expression and freedom of religion than applies in England and Wales.”
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the main purpose of this amendment,
“prohibiting discrimination claims against a person or religious body for refusing to do anything listed within paragraph (a)”,
is simply to ensure that there will be no fewer safeguards for free speech and religious liberty in Northern Ireland after same-sex marriage is introduced than there are here in England and Wales. I genuinely fear, and I believe it is a reasonable fear, that Northern Ireland will be poorly served in the protections given unless we make this amendment.
The extension of marriage in England and Wales was done by primary legislation, after many hours of debate in this House and the other place. For Northern Ireland, it will be done through regulations, which are not designed for highly controversial, sensitive and divisive subjects of this kind. They do not receive the level of scrutiny that this issue should. As all noble Lords know, there is no opportunity to amend regulations. Therefore, the regulations must contain adequate protections from the start. There was a public consultation on this issue in England and Wales before the legislation was even introduced. That consultation process raised areas of concern, such as religious liberty. These could then be given safeguards in the legislation and included in the scrutiny received in Parliament.
It seems that there will be no consultation before the Secretary of State is required to exercise this power. There is no time. There has never been a consultation on this issue in Northern Ireland, so the people of Northern Ireland are already being poorly treated.
Those of us who were part of the debate during the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act several years ago will remember the quadruple locks. Not all the quadruple locks will need to apply to Northern Ireland, but it will be vital that the necessary protections for religious liberty are in place. As things stand, there is nothing in Clause 8 to secure those protections, which must be integral to any introduction of same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland.
My amendment would require the Secretary of State’s regulations to include provision in certain key areas, but it is by no means comprehensive. The rushed nature of this process has made it impossible to think through the full implications, but these are areas that stand out.
There is particular concern about access to publicly owned facilities. There are churches in Northern Ireland, as here, that meet in council-run community centres or schools. Christian groups in Northern Ireland run events for children on premises owned by the public sector. The concern is that a council might, for example, make access to such facilities conditional on the church or religious body being willing to conduct same-sex marriages. Such stipulation must be explicitly ruled out. This is the focus of proposed new paragraph (a). This safeguard exists under the law in England and Wales. The language in the amendment of “compelled by any means” is taken directly from the 2013 Act. I simply want to ensure that Northern Ireland has the same level of protection.
Proposed new paragraphs (b) and (c), relating to discrimination law, are also designed to ensure that Northern Ireland matches England and Wales—and, indeed, Scotland. When same-sex marriage laws were introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom, a series of amendments was made to the Equality Act 2010. They protect religious organisations from discrimination claims for declining to participate in same-sex marriages, for declining to allow their premises to be used for same-sex marriage ceremonies and for not employing a person married to a member of the same sex. Similar protections must be written into the relevant Northern Ireland discrimination statutes. Without them, churches could be sued simply for requiring that their employees live in accordance with the doctrine of the church on sexual ethics. For example, I believe that the Church of England diocese of Southwell and Nottingham relied on just such a provision in the Pemberton case.
Also, when the 2013 Act was introduced, the Public Order Act 1986 was amended to ensure that criticism of same-sex marriage did not in itself amount to hate speech. Proposed new paragraph (d) requires such changes as are necessary to Northern Ireland law, including public order legislation, to protect the freedom to disagree. This is the core of any democracy. The introduction of same-sex marriage does not mean that everybody has to agree with it or that only one view may be expressed in the public square.
Finally, proposed new paragraph (e) deals with education. Following the introduction of the 2013 Act, the Government made it clear that teachers had the right to express their own beliefs on marriage. A fact sheet from the time said that,
“teachers have the clear right to express their own beliefs, or those of their faith, about marriage of same sex couples as long as it is done in an appropriate and balanced way”.
Guidance in 2014 from the DfE on the Equality Act 2010 said:
“No school, or individual teacher, is under a duty to support, promote or endorse marriage of same sex couples”.
There was also guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission repeating that assurance and adding:
“Governors, teachers and non-teaching staff in schools, parents and pupils, are free to hold their own religious or philosophical beliefs about marriage of same sex couples”.
The many people involved in education in Northern Ireland who hold to traditional views on marriage would appreciate similar reassurance and guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may help to expedite matters at this point. I listened to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. It is important to note that we have disagreed on a number of aspects of the legislation over the past few days and will probably continue to do so. However, on this matter, as far as I am concerned, the intention is to take the protections we have both for those who hold religious views and individuals on the other side who may have particular views, and protect them as well. We are talking here about the same thing: taking what is essentially in place in England and Wales and transferring it across to Northern Ireland. I have no idea of precisely what the Minister is going to say, but it is my view and that of others from where we stand.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I speak as someone who has had the great joy of recently being married under the legislation as it applies in England and Wales. I simply observe to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that, as someone who wished to be married, I had absolutely no wish to do so in a place or in circumstances that other people would have found offensive. That would have been deeply offensive to me. I wished to celebrate in my community, and I did. I was quite happy to abide by the laws of this country, which insist that my marriage had to be completely secular. It was a wonderful, wonderful experience and I hope that many other people, including my brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland, will be afforded the similar dignity.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I think we are closer on this than we are on other issues, but my one concern is this. It is to be found in proposed new subsection (1A)(e) in the amendment, which refers to education. I understand that in the preceding proposed new paragraphs, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to obtain the same provisions that obtain in England and Wales, but I am not sure that how the proposed new paragraph is worded is exactly the same. It may go further, because in England and Wales we debated the matter of schools elsewhere. I simply say to the noble Lord that I have concerns about that aspect of his amendment, but I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the majority of what the noble Lord has put forward and address this matter in his response.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 17, to which I have added my name. Once again, we should be discussing a simple administrative Bill, but instead we find ourselves considering one that would impose huge cultural changes on Northern Ireland without the consent of the people and over the head of their devolved Government. I am sure I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Bill is being fast-tracked in a manner that noble Lords who sit on the Constitution Committee have criticised as constitutionally unacceptable.
However, those present for the debates on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will recall the protections carefully carved out for religious liberty and free speech. As has been outlined, at present there is nothing in Clause 8 to secure such protections for the people of Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Morrow spoke about the need to uphold religious freedoms, but I wish to focus on freedom of expression. It is a right that belongs to everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion or philosophical views. Proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e) outline fundamental protections for free speech, which go to the heart of any democracy. Discussions about marriage arouse strong emotions, and this is especially true in the context of Northern Ireland, where not only are there large religious communities, but a wider culture that holds more strongly to traditional values around marriage and the family than other parts of the United Kingdom.
There should be absolute protection for such people to discuss and critique same-sex marriage in the classroom, the boardroom and, indeed, in the street. Proposed new paragraph (e) outlines a vital protection in the specific context of educational institutions. Universities, schools and colleges are platforms for discussion, debate and criticism of ideas, and this must not come under threat following any change in the law on marriage.
Earlier this year, robust new free speech guidance was issued for universities in this country. David Isaac, chair of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, underlined the continuing importance of this historical principle, saying:
“The free expression and exchange of different views without persecution or interference goes straight to the heart of our democracy and is a vital part of higher education. Holding open, challenging debates rather than silencing the views of those we don’t agree with helps to build tolerance and address prejudice and discrimination”.
I am sure we are all united on the right to free speech and against compelled speech. For these simple and fundamental reasons, I am happy to support Amendment 17.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
My Lords, I join with my colleagues. I am a signatory to this amendment and rise to support it. Introducing same-sex marriage is a move that has been highly divisive in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge that, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, there are people who hold strong views concerning this. I certainly know that many in Northern Ireland believe strongly, as I do, that marriage is between a man and a woman and is the fundamental building block of our society, and therefore that the definition of marriage should remain unchanged. However, having listened to the debate and that in the other place, I realise that it seems this legislation is going to be forced on the people of Northern Ireland.
In a relatively short period, there has been an alarming abandonment of the teaching of scripture on marriage as ordained by God. This contempt for biblical marriage includes not only the abandonment of it as a divine institution but a direct attack on it in the promotion of same-sex marriage. This is spear-headed in open defiance of God’s moral law, and those who hold to the scripture view are held in utter contempt.
I do not wish in any way to be hurtful to any person, but I also have to be faithful to and express what I believe. That is why I am in this House. I was an elected Member in another place for some 25 years and was certainly known to express—genuinely, earnestly and honestly—what I believe. As a Christian minister, I believe that in Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Moses wrote:
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them”.
This is a general statement of the creation of man in God’s image but stressing the distinction of gender. In Genesis, chapter 2, the Holy Spirit gives us further details not only of human creation but of the institution of marriage. The clear message is that God’s intention for marriage was that two human beings would come together. Chapter 2, verse 24, says:
“therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh”.
Northern Ireland people have never been consulted on whether they want same-sex marriage. One of our most fundamental social structures is being changed over the heads of those whom it will affect. It is notable that, when same-sex marriage was introduced in England and Wales, strong safeguards were included in the legislation to protect those who did not want to be forced to go along with something they disagreed with. It is vital that the people of Northern Ireland are given the same legal guarantees.
I appreciate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the manner in which he has responded to the amendment. All this amendment seeks to do is address the free speech and freedom of religion concerns that inevitably arise when such a huge moral change is brought in. It will merely establish the same protections that those in the rest of the UK are afforded.
The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to legalise same-sex marriage, but the simple fact is that regulations do not allow for the appropriate level of scrutiny and debate that such a monumental change requires. There is a real danger that, with this legislation and subsequent regulations being rushed through Parliament so quickly, those who object to the new law will be forgotten about and their freedom to disagree threatened.
Those who are against same-sex marriage may feel they have particular cause to be concerned in Northern Ireland if this amendment is not accepted. Even while the law has always been in line with their view, they have seen a Christian-run bakery hauled through the courts for its decision not to support a campaign for same-sex marriage. That case was pursued by a body, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which should be protecting everyone’s freedom. Without robust reassurances, many will feel that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland’s hostility to those with traditional beliefs about marriage will only increase. For example, many churches, as my noble friend has said, hold their services in community centres or school halls. They need to be reassured that they will not be forced to leave those premises because they hold to the biblical teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 in England and Wales states on the face of the legislation that no religious organisation or minister can be compelled by any means to marry same-sex couples or to permit same-sex marriages on their premises. It also contains explicit protections to ensure that any person who publicly expresses disagreement with same-sex marriage cannot be accused of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act. The Government equalities spokes- person at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said:
“A belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman is undoubtedly worthy of respect in a democratic society”.—[Official Report, 17/6/13; col. 75.]
It is vital that those who disagree with same-sex marriage feel that they are valued members of society and not in any way ostracised by the new law. I and my colleagues believe that this amendment will help that. Maria Miller, the Minister in charge of the 2013 Act, said:
“Whatever one’s view about the marriage of same-sex couples, it is legitimate and the Government will protect the right to express it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/13; col. 1027.]
This reasonable amendment is the least that can be done.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, no one can disagree with freedom of expression and the freedom of people to assert what they deeply believe in. At the same time, there is the freedom not to agree with the religion you are born under. Not all of us are Christians, and not all Christians hold to orthodox beliefs. My one concern—I can say only that it is a concern; it may be an extreme concern and noble Lords may dismiss it—is that, if there is such strong opinion against same-sex marriage in the church in Northern Ireland, if I were interested in having a same-sex marriage in a church, would I have to leave Northern Ireland and go somewhere else? Would there be a general strike against same-sex marriage by all religious bodies?
I do not know the answer to that, but I am concerned about it. This is expressed as being basically all about Christianity and its particular orthodoxies. I am not a Christian; I was born into a Hindu family, but I am an atheist, so it does not concern me. Nor am I interested in same-sex marriage—it is much too late for that. However, I am concerned to get an assurance from the Minister that, if he agrees to these amendments, there will be no compulsion on a couple in Northern Ireland to leave so that they can get married, that there will be some facilities available so that they can get what they want and have a same-sex marriage in a religious location.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, I welcome the tone of this debate and accept that the main purpose of the amendment is to translate the rules as applied in the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland. To that extent, it is welcome. Indeed, there was strong debate around the idea that there was never any attempt to force anyone to be involved in same-sex marriage or be required to perform or officiate at such a marriage. That was absolutely clear. The law makes that clear and I accept it entirely.
But I have two concerns. I have a slight concern about proposed subsection (1A)(d) in the amendment, which relates to protecting freedom for discussion,
“including urging persons to refrain from marrying a person of the same sex”.
That could become a pressure or indeed the beginnings of trying to convert people away from the idea of same-sex marriages. I draw attention to Schedule 7 to the same-sex marriage Act, which states:
“for the avoidance of doubt, any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of it felt to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”.
So it is not in itself an expression of hatred, but it could be in the way that it is applied. I have a slight concern that the amendment is unclear.
The other concern is about the role of education, which has caused plenty of problems on the mainland, never mind in Northern Ireland, on issues relating to gay rights and so forth in general. In that context, there are two issues that I think the movers of the amendment can take comfort from but should be aware of. First, teachers need to teach the facts. It is important that in any context, particularly if it happens in Northern Ireland that same-sex marriage is legalised, the fact of the law and the rights of that should be made clear in schools even if the school has a religious connotation that says, “We in our faith don’t necessarily agree with it”. The school has to accept that it is the law and that people are entitled to get married in that context.
Secondly, it is of course right for a school with a religious background to want to communicate its religious beliefs—and nobody is challenging people’s right to believe what they do. Nevertheless, in the process of doing that, discussions about the issue of same-sex relationships should be done in an appropriate, reasonable, professional and sensitive way. Some of that is difficult to put into law. It is about the culture and the environment in which the issue is expressed.
Many of us would reasonably accept that the speed with which people have moved from resistance to same-sex marriage to wide acceptance has been remarkable. That is very welcome for those people who experienced frustration and prejudice in not being able to get married. I suspect that, in spite of the arguments to the contrary, things may move more quickly in Northern Ireland than some people think. The noble Lord indicated that progress has been made in that direction and it is one area where contributions from outside this House say that it is now an accepted fact.
The amendments are understood. They recognise that people have a right to believe and they should be allowed to preserve that belief, but the balance is that they have to be careful that they do not impose those beliefs or share them and use them to extend prejudice.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in some ways the debate strayed further than the amendment itself. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. His explanation of what he was seeking to do with the amendment before the Committee was very helpful. When the same-sex marriage legislation went through this House, there was a lot of debate about some of the issues that noble Lords from the DUP have addressed. It was made clear that that legislation is permissive. It is not compulsory: it is permissive.
I disagreed when the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, spoke about the fundamental building blocks of society. People in a committed, loving relationship should have the same opportunities as everyone, whether same-sex couples or couples of different genders, to be able to celebrate and demonstrate that commitment to each other as being a long-term, permanent commitment, and not be ostracised for doing so.
Having said that, I think the points about this being similar to the legislation in England and Wales were entirely well made, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the only part I have some concerns about is the educational institution. I was recently fortunate enough to meet the head teacher of Anderton Park School in Birmingham and was deeply impressed by her dignity and her commitment to her pupils. I would hate to think that we would be getting into a position where other head teachers who are trying to do their best for their pupils, trying to instil in them tolerance and a commitment to understanding society as it is, would face such difficulties as she and her staff have had to in very difficult circumstances.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister says but I would imagine that any legislation he is discussing with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and Conor McGinn from the other place would be along the lines of the legislation that we have here in GB.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, this has been a thought-provoking discussion. I am often guided by my own beliefs and I recognise Ecclesiastes chapter 4, verses 9 to 10:
“Two are better than one … for if they fall, one will lift up the other”.
I am heartened by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, because I do not doubt that he will be working closely with Conor McGinn from the other place to ensure that what comes to this House carries with it the exact protections and care that we have seen in England and Wales and in Scotland. There are elements which need to be recognised in terms of the wider question of freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and I hope to see those protections coming through in an emerging amendment. As I said, the amendment from the other place has certain deficiencies and we hope to see those improved through the work which I do not doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, among others, will help move forward.
It is important, again, that we balance rights, obligations and protections throughout, not least in schools, and we must make sure that we are teaching the reality of what is going on. We need to make sure that pupils understand the wider question of relationships before they ever engage in sex education. I draw a distinction between relationships and sexual elements; I think they need to be seen in that context. It is important to remember that these issues have been addressed previously in different parts of the United Kingdom. These are not new issues. The concerns of particular bodies are not new and on each occasion I believe that the different authorities, whether in Scotland or in England and Wales, have learned from the challenges and have ensured that the protections which they have put together are adequate to address the concerns raised by noble Lords.
I appreciate the concerns which noble Lords have expressed. They are right to recognise that there is throughout Northern Ireland and elsewhere a particular constituency which sees the faith-based approach to marriage as an integral part of it. I do not doubt the validity of that or the importance of recognising why that must be accepted and trusted, but at the same time the wider context needs to be considered. I hope the amendment we see coming forward addresses these issues. On that basis, we hope that this amendment can be withdrawn. My final point is: congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what has been said in response to this debate and sometimes I end up more confused, but that is maybe more to do with me than anyone else. I take some comfort from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has grasped exactly what we are trying to do here, and I will be watching the progress of this with deep interest. Maybe on this occasion I can look more to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for some protection because he has not tried to throw in other issues that are not there.
“Pension for victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to give effect to a pension for those severely injured through no fault of their own during the period known as the Northern Ireland Troubles, in line with advice requested by the Secretary of State and submitted in May 2019 from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, and to provide that those who qualify for the pension should receive it back-dated to 23 December 2014, being the date of signing of the Stormont House Agreement.(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”
Lord Hain
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 21, which stands in my name and the names of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Bruce. I am grateful for their support.
I shall first speak briefly about the context which has dominated this debate. In 2007, when we negotiated the deal that brought Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness into power together, I said that I was the last direct-rule Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I now very much fear that that was wrong and that we are hurtling towards direct rule. I fear that greatly because the current situation has shown how difficult it is to get the Assembly up and running with a functioning Executive once it has been suspended. With direct rule, that becomes doubly difficult. I say to my friends in the DUP—and they are my friends, because I worked very closely with them as Secretary of State and have done so since—that I hope that they are taking note of what is happening in de facto parliamentary direct rule. A lot of things that are coming through are things they are not happy about. That is the consequence of the Assembly being suspended. It is not only one party—Sinn Féin—that is at fault. It is not only one party. Yes, it is at fault, and it is being uncompromising on some issues and details—but, I am afraid, so are my friends in the DUP. This is not just one party blocking the whole thing. I think there should be honesty about that. The consequences are here to be seen in issues that the DUP is deeply unhappy about.
In passing, I will say that, once again in the debates on this Bill, we are seeing the absence of a nationalist political voice in this House. Half the community does not have a political voice in your Lordships’ House. There is no modern Gerry Fitt, as it were. I know he was criticised by many of his followers for taking his seat here, but it was an important voice to hear. I know that will be agreed by unionist Members. I hope that, in considering future appointments to this House, the Government, perhaps in consultation with the independent Appointments Commission, will take note of that, because this cannot continue—especially if direct rule comes, as I very much fear it might.
I recognise that, as drafted, Amendment 21 is likely to require a money resolution in the House of Commons—or at least an amendment on Report to incorporate funding from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, which I hope the Government will agree to. I have spoken many times in your Lordships’ House on the urgent need to provide a pension for those who were severely injured through no fault of their own—I repeat, “through no fault of their own”, which is written into the text—as a result of Troubles-related incidents.
I, and I know those who have been campaigning, especially in the WAVE Trauma Centre, which I commend, for the pension for nearly a decade, have been greatly heartened and encouraged by the wide cross-party support in this House for this proposal: from the former Secretaries of State the noble Lord, Lord King, and my noble friends Lord Reid and Lord Murphy; from former Victims’ Ministers who served in Northern Ireland, my noble friends Lord Browne and Lady Smith of Basildon; from the distinguished former chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack; from the noble Baroness, Lady Altman; from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for the Liberal Democrats; and, from the Cross Benches, from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I am also grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, who, to use a colloquialism, gets it. I thank him for the detailed conversations we have had on this, as well as for his support of and direct engagement with the severely injured victims. It has been much appreciated.
Now is the time for action. I urge the Government not to divide the House but to accept this amendment with not only a firm and binding commitment to legislate but with the timeframe attached to other measures coming from the other place and set out in my amendment. The date for this will be 21 October 2019, unless an Executive has been formed in Northern Ireland by then.
Lord Eames
My Lords, I am honoured to add my name to this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I speak from years of experience, working with people who carry in their mind and body the scars of our Troubles. I will be very brief. If this Bill achieves nothing more than opening the door to some relief for these unfortunate fellow citizens, we will have achieved an abundance. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has referred to one case; I could repeat dozens of them. I simply say to the House and to the Minister that this is a reform that is passionately and greatly needed in Northern Ireland. I urge the House to accept it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to add my voice, and pay tribute not only to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who has been indefatigable in the way he has led this campaign, but to my noble friend Lord Duncan, who has been most receptive when we have met with him and talked about it. I agreed very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said at the beginning of his remarks. I will emphasise just two points. It is incumbent on all politicians in Northern Ireland to realise—Christians above all must realise this—that no one is perfect. We are all sinners. Whatever party we are talking of is never wholly in the right. It is crucial that this is recognised in Northern Ireland by Sinn Féin, the DUP and all parties, and that they come together to make sure that the Assembly meets and the Executive is formed. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, was right to stress that point.
He was also right to stress that we have no nationalist voice now—no moderate nationalist voice—in either House of Parliament. Throughout my time in the other place, there were always at least one or two SDLP Members. In my time as chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Alasdair McDonnell was one of the most supportive members of the committee. Whether on organised crime, the prison service or the Omagh bombing, all our reports were unanimous, and Alasdair McDonnell played a very constructive and important part in that. It would be very good to have a moderate nationalist voice in your Lordships’ House. As far as the other House is concerned, of course, they have to get themselves elected. It is one of the sad facts of life that those nationalists who are elected draw the money but do not play a part. That is up to them, but it would be very good to have a moderate nationalist voice in Parliament again.
I conclude by emphasising how crucial it is that action is taken—and this week. We need to know that this will happen. As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, many of those who would have been eligible are no more; they have died. In the course of this calendar year, between now and the end of the year, more will die. Many are suffering great privation and hardship, live in constant pain and are constantly haunted by the memory of the bestial act that deprived them of limbs and, to a degree, of liberty—because you do not have complete freedom if you have been so badly injured mentally, physically or both. So I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to assure your Lordships’ House tonight that, on Wednesday, we will have a workable, acceptable amendment. I am delighted to give this my support.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, I had no hesitation in signing the amendment, and was proud to do so. Like everybody else, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for the deep persistence and commitment that he manifests every time he speaks on this subject. It is somewhat disturbing to think that it is 21 years since the Troubles ended: these people have suffered for decades. Although there is consensus across the piece that the pensions should be delivered, it still has not happened. This is a point at which we can set down a mark of real commitment to recognise, while those people can still benefit, that we can do something about this.
Our debates today should give Northern Ireland politicians real cause for reflection. Increasingly, this House is discussing any and every issue relating to the people of Northern Ireland, because there is no Assembly or Executive to do it. They should be asking themselves, “Why aren’t we delivering this pension? Why aren’t we delivering better healthcare? Why aren’t we doing it?”. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that the things that appear to divide them do not seem, to us living on this side, to be the issues that the people of Northern Ireland want to unite them—such as dealing with the day-to-day issues and compensating people for their past suffering.
The amendment is simple, crisp and clear. If it is deficient in terms of a money resolution, the Government have the capacity to do something about that, and I hope they will feel able to do so. I commend the Minister, because every time this issue has been raised he has demonstrated total commitment, understanding and engagement—and frustration, perhaps, that the technical difficulties seem to get in the way. I hope that he has been able to cut through them and can give us a positive answer now.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I want to add a brief word to what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others have said. Unfortunately, many of us have seen, met, worked with and tried to help people whose lives have been shattered by bomb and bullet. I thank the Minister because I understand that he is considering this idea: I am sure the Government will find the money to pay these pensions to such a very small number of people. I want us to remember, particularly, the children. There are many children living in this situation—second generation, perhaps, from the actual victim of the shooting or bombing—and they may well act as a carer for their grandfather, uncle or father. That is a very difficult life, and they are subjected to the risk of transgenerational trauma, of which there is a significant incidence in Northern Ireland. A pension would allow for a carer, which might set some of those children free.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
My Lords, in his introductory remarks the noble Lord, Lord Hain, talked about the Assembly. I say to him simply that he knows that there is one party that had three red lines before it would enter the Executive. No other party put down red lines; it was one party and one party alone. Every other party in the Northern Ireland Assembly was willing, and is willing, without red lines, to enter that Assembly and deal with the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has already mentioned. Across the Committee, many Members have expressed not only appreciation but support.
I wonder how many people in the Committee know what it is to be in the family of an innocent victim. I stand in this House not to express somebody else’s pain—although as a Minister, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Eames, went to home after home. Hundreds, even thousands, of families have experienced the anguish and pain.
Last weekend, on the evening of 12 July, I entered the home of a couple in their late 70s, both seriously ill. A boulder was thrown through their window into their bedroom on 12 July in broad daylight, and they were terrorised. Tonight they cannot sleep. In actual fact it took them back 20 years, because 20 years ago that same couple were, like a group of other Protestant families in Beatrice Villas in Bellaghy, forced out of their home by the IRA. They had to leave that home 20 years ago and now, 20 years on, with one of them in their late 70s and one 80, they are faced with that terror again.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support with as much strength as I can the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and his colleagues in speaking to it. He has argued the case with unparalleled eloquence and persistence. I add my thanks to the Minister for the care that he has constantly given to this matter.
I want to pick up on a point mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Cormack: the absence of nationalist representation in our Parliament. I completely accept that that has been given sharper relief by the absence of the SDLP from the other place. I am chair of the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I am well aware of the problem. He is aware of how complicated and difficult it is and of the pressures involved in sorting it out, but I wanted to reassure him that I am well aware of this complex and difficult problem. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that I understand that it is thrown into sharper relief by the absence of the SDLP from the other place.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on his persistence in this matter. I am also encouraged that the Minister said last week at Second Reading that there would be no risk of a person receiving a pension if an act was carried out by his or her own hand. The criminal injuries legislation, if applied to this, would ensure that that did not happen. However, there is perhaps a risk with people’s relatives. Whatever we do, let us be absolutely clear that the language of the legislation clearly reflects Parliament’s intention; otherwise, somebody will JR the thing and the whole process will become discredited. That is my major worry. With that qualification, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I rise very briefly to endorse and thank my noble friend Lord Hain and his supporters for bringing this forward. As he mentioned, of all the posts I ever had in government, my role as a victims Minister in Northern Ireland was the one that stayed with me and affected me the most. The euphemistically named Troubles left a legacy of not just physical pain but mental pain and anguish that affects later generations and both sides of the community, as we have heard. A lot of people were caught up in things that they knew nothing about. I remember talking to one man about his experiences. Every year, a paper would print a photograph of a bus that had been wrecked in a bombing. His father had died on that bus, yet nobody thought of the pain it caused him to see that photograph printed on the anniversary year after year.
This is not just about the financial need people are in. It also gives recognition to those victims and survivors who will receive a pension and those who will not but who recognise how important it is that the suffering and trauma experienced by victims over many years has been recognised. This is also about health. Many have not undertaken the employment they could have done, which had a financial knock-on effect. This is long overdue. I am sure there is more that can be done over time for those who have survived, but I think this is a really important step. I am encouraged that we are all anticipating a very positive response from the Minister.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I believe I can give that positive response. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has given a great deal of leadership. A number of Members of your Lordships’ House have worked very hard on this matter, as have members of my team in the Northern Ireland Office. The noble Lord and I discussed earlier some technical improvements that need to be made, which I believe we can make tomorrow. The noble Lord has also raised the question of a money resolution and a consolidated fund. I believe we can address that.
I was privileged to meet a number of the survivors from the WAVE Trauma group. I recognise what they have been through. I thank the noble Lords here who have given that commitment to ensure that their voices have not been lost or forgotten. Every day we lose from here on in is one day too many. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very positive response and all those who have contributed to the debate, including the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. I am happy to withdraw this amendment and table a revised version tomorrow, which I hope will be acceptable to the whole House, including the Government.
Baroness O'Loan
“Requirement for majority of MLAs to support regulations
(1) Before a statutory instrument can be laid in each House of Parliament under sections 8 and 9 of this Act, the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) must be met. (2) The first condition is that the Secretary of State must—(a) hold a public consultation on the proposals in each of the regulations;(b) consult individually with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the proposals in each of the regulations; and(c) lay a report before each House of Parliament on the outcome of the consultations held under this section, including the number of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly in favour of and against each of the regulations.(3) The second condition is that—(a) the relevant regulations under section 8 may only be laid before Parliament if a majority of the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly support the regulations as stated in the report laid before Parliament under subsection (2)(c); and(b) the relevant regulations under section 9 may only be laid before Parliament if a majority of the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly support the regulations as stated in the report laid before Parliament under subsection (2)(c).”
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and that of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Lord, Lord Hay, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who cannot be with us tonight. This Bill had such a simple purpose: to allow the Secretary of State not to call an election and extend the time for agreement to be reached between the parties. That was all it had to do. I guess that was why the Government fast-tracked it. The consequence is that we do not have the usual time for consideration and now the Bill has been extended in a way which is unacceptable and which has the potential to do massive damage to the talks and any prospect of getting the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running.
The Bill has two odd sets of amendments—the ones which we discussed at length earlier this afternoon about Brexit, no deal and the Prorogation of Parliament, and those to do with abortion, neither of which should be in the Bill—and then it has the Christmas tree effect. I do not say that in a pejorative way. These are all very real issues which may need to be dealt with by a Northern Ireland Government.
It has been a curious debate. We have heard the Minister say that we cannot deal with medical schools at Ulster University, Magee, and that we cannot deal with a no-deal Brexit, but we are here to deal with this very sensitive issue in Northern Ireland. I have listened carefully, but I do not feel that there is an understanding of Northern Ireland. We are in a very delicate place. We all agree that we want our Assembly back, but this Bill, if passed in its current form, would also have the capacity to prevent that. We cannot underestimate the fragility of the Northern Ireland situation. I am always reminded that peace agreements last, on average, for 15 years. We have had our 15 years, and a few more. We are in a very difficult place. I know that Brexit is important, but, as I said in your Lordships’ House three years ago, the border and all that goes with it has the capacity to undermine everything, and that would be very dangerous indeed.
Part of this Government’s credibility rests on the extent to which they are regarded in the conduct of these talks as an honest broker. The Government’s response to these amendments does not seem to respect their obligations under the Good Friday agreement and other issues. It seeks to make a profound change in our law at a time when Northern Ireland is engaged in negotiation. It seems very odd that the Government, who are not charged with the conduct of these negotiations and who have seen attempts to kill police officers and others, who have seen the bombs and the ongoing bubbling of terrorist activity, are not a little more cautious in their outlook. The Minister spoke earlier of the need for clear space and safe space for the negotiations. I do not think that is happening here today.
It does not matter what one thinks about abortion and same-sex marriage or whether the law should change. Nobody doubts the sensitivity of these issues for those affected by them, but the clerks in another place advised that these issues fell outside the remit of the Bill. Each of these amendments represents a huge issue which should be the subject of a Bill in its own right, subject to prior consultation and then careful and measured consideration, with scope for amending the legislation. None of this has happened. There are options for everything that is being suggested here. There is a variety of different laws across Europe, even in the context of abortion. In many states, it is only permitted up to 12 weeks, with very rare exceptions; it is not necessarily the liberal law that the United Kingdom has.
The clause as drafted is, of course, unworkable. The Secretary of State has no power in the Northern Ireland Act to make the regulations requested by the amendment. Moreover, the law must be capable of being understood, yet what is proposed here is not clear. The Northern Ireland Attorney-General has spoken publicly about the difficulties generated by this clause, which is vague and goes beyond the Abortion Act 1967. Neither the Northern Ireland Assembly nor any Minister has the power to repeal the Offences against the Person Act by regulation; it is just nonsense. Also, based on this Bill, it is not clear what legislation or directions would say. We do not usually legislate for what we do not know.
The Government have said that they will make it work. Are they going to amend the Northern Ireland Act? What is going to happen? Parliamentary rules cannot be set aside without risking damage to our constitutional arrangements. To make matters worse, these amendments were accepted in relation to a Bill that is subject to a fast-tracking procedure that, even without these far-reaching and completely out-of-scope provisions, but simply on the basis of the Bill’s original purpose as introduced, must attract the attention—perhaps the censure—of the Constitution Committee, which last week reported that Northern Ireland Bills should not be fast-tracked unless they are really urgent. There is time to get this Bill right, and to get our talks back in action.
Many thousands of people in Northern Ireland are distressed by this. It is well known and has been said in your Lordships’ House that ComRes polling of Northern Ireland adults shows very clearly that people in Northern Ireland do not want abortion law changed from Westminster. That is the clear view of 64% of people, rising to 66% of men and 72% of 18 to 32 year-olds. Yet 332 MPs representing seats from outside Northern Ireland saw fit to vote for it, and 100% of Northern Irish MPs in the other place voted against it. Noble Lords should think about that.
Apart from the issues at hand, think of the utterly appalling precedent. The Minister told us last Wednesday that there is more to come. I appreciate this crisis is not of the Government’s making, but they are now engaged, whether they like it or not. Their response can have the effect either of ameliorating or exaggerating the difficulty, with all that means for the union.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
May I just inquire whether the noble Baroness is listing all the names on her list? It would be helpful for the Committee, with the hour that we are at, if the list could be severely shortened.
Baroness O'Loan
The Reverend Norman Hamilton has worked on the interface in north Belfast for 20 years, and hundreds of clergy and ordinary people—doctors, nurses and lawyers—all signed, from all sides of the community. They wanted one thing: to be respected as people and to allowed to make their own law on this amendment. That shows how concerned people are about this matter.
My amendment would not prevent legal change on either abortion or same-sex marriage. It would simply have the effect of restoring some constitutional integrity to Northern Ireland. It requires that there should be a consultation with the people of Northern Ireland, as there would be with any legal change on either issue in Northern Ireland, and most importantly that the views of the currently elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly be recorded for or against any regulations and that the regulations should not be laid before Parliament if they do not receive majority support from those Assembly Members. One thing I have not done is to introduce anything resembling a petition of concern, about which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke earlier. The legislation could pass by a simple majority.
One thing I noticed this afternoon was that the unborn child was largely absent from the debate. When mentioned, there was in some quarters a rolling of eyes and expressions of contempt. Yet it has to be said that abortion is about killing babies—real babies. Without Amendment 23, the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill will go down in British constitutional history as one of its blackest moments of all times, when constitutional due process was completely swept aside because of the conviction of parliamentarians, none of whom represents Northern Ireland, that the end justifies the means. That is never a good place to be. We have heard it said that it does not really matter at all if Northern Ireland’s MPs voted against this, because it is a matter of human rights and if you want to be in the UK you have to accept abortion as a human right. There is no human right to abortion, and I think that is slightly contemptuous of Northern Ireland’s MPs.
The Member for Walthamstow, who introduced new Clause 10 in the Commons, said this morning that this is an attempt by the DUP to hold us all to ransom. At this late hour, I perhaps need to assure noble Lords that I am not a member of the DUP. I am a Cross-Bencher and, as far as I can remember, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, is not a member of the DUP either. This is something that a cross-party group of 16,000 people are asking us not to do. This is the truest cross-community co-operation from all sectors of our community, from all sides, all places in our beautiful country. We have agreement that we do not want abortion railroaded through in the Bill. I ask noble Lords to at least grant Northern Ireland MLAs the courtesy, the respect and dignity of their roles as elected members and allow them to present their views on this matter. I ask noble Lords to give the people of Northern Ireland the same respect and provide for consultation. I beg to move.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 23 and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for persevering despite her sore throat and inspiring those of us who support the amendment. I support it because I believe it underlines our respect for devolution and for the people of Northern Ireland, a clear majority of whom, polling shows, as we have already heard, do not want law changes imposed on them by us here in London.
I also support it for another reason. I do not take a position on abortion per se; I do, however, take a position on disability equality. What is proposed in the Bill drives a coach and horses through disability equality. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister—indeed, whether anyone in the Government or in No. 10—has considered the message that changing the law to allow abortion on grounds of disability in Northern Ireland sends to the people of Northern Ireland, to the devoted parents and families of disabled children and, most importantly, to the disabled citizens of Northern Ireland. Today, Northern Ireland is the safest place in the United Kingdom to be diagnosed with a disability. If the Bill is passed, that will change overnight on 21 October.
I invite noble Lords to consider the Bill from the perspective of someone with Down’s syndrome. In England and Wales, the latest available figures show that 90% of human beings diagnosed with Down’s syndrome are aborted. Today, in Northern Ireland, disability-selective abortion for Down’s syndrome is not allowed. Instead, the culture is one of welcome and support for this disability. The latest figures from the Department of Health in Northern Ireland showed that while 52 children with Down’s syndrome were born in 2016, in the same year only one child from Northern Ireland with Down’s syndrome was aborted in England and Wales.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: is that not a cause for celebration? Is it not to Northern Ireland’s immense credit that disability equality is actually respected there? He may be aware that next year will mark the 25th anniversary of the most important social justice milestone of the 20th century for disabled people: the Disability Discrimination Act. A Conservative Government introduced it. How does he reconcile the Act’s acknowledgement of the right of disabled human beings to be equal, to contribute to society and to be respected with the message of the Bill, which is that if you are born with a disability, as I was, you are better off dead? For that is its message to disabled human beings, their families and the people of Northern Ireland.
That is why it is so sad that the party which swore to respect Northern Ireland is driving roughshod over the clearly expressed views of the majority of its people to impose lethal discrimination on grounds of disability and to treat human beings diagnosed with disability before birth as less equal. How terribly progressive, my Lords.
I wonder who has the greater learning disability here: those who seem intent on denying the equal right to exist to those such as human beings with Down’s syndrome or those, especially in my party, who appear determined to unlearn the lessons of the Disability Discrimination Act.
I was born disabled; I will die disabled. That is the hand I have been dealt. Indeed, it is the hand that most of us are likely to be dealt before our days are done. Are we seriously saying, as we near the end of the second decade of the 21st century, with all the amazing advances in medicine and technology, that we are so regressive, so insecure as a species, that we cannot cope with disability?
Various commentators report that the Prime Minister wants to leave a strong legacy. I am sure I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who will remember her speech committing herself and her Government to ending burning injustices. I will therefore take the opportunity to urge her not to create a burning injustice by allowing the abortion of human beings diagnosed before birth with conditions such as mine to be part of that legacy. If she does, no one in my party should be surprised if disabled people and their families think that the Conservative Party hates us and believes that we would be better off dead.
In conclusion, there is a clear choice to be made, and not just by my party. The choice is for disability equality or inequality. I implore all noble Lords who believe in genuine equality to stand with disabled human beings in Northern Ireland and respect them, and devolution, by supporting this amendment.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I have prepared a speech but I do not intend to make it. It is a pleasure, in a strange way, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, this evening. I heartily congratulate him because we know that what he says comes from the heart. His words have a ring of reality about them, of which this House should take note. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on her excellent contribution and on moving the amendment. While I am on my feet, I should say that the name of my noble friend Lord Hay of Ballyore is attached to the amendment, but for unavoidable reasons he cannot be here today. He regrets that immensely. I want to put on the record our total and absolute support for what has been said and I, too, commend the amendment to the Committee.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, lest people watching this debate take from it a one-sided view, I want to say that in 2018 an international poll was taken in Northern Ireland which showed that 68% of the respondents did not believe that people should be criminalised for having an abortion and that, if necessary, action should be taken in Westminster to make sure that that happens. The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey also showed that 89% of people in Northern Ireland believe that no one should go to prison for having had an abortion. It is a poll run by, among others, Queen’s University, Belfast. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, relies on the ComRes polls; people on her side of the argument always do. However, they are not the objective views that she might lead noble Lords to believe.
I have to say that, coming at this stage, the proposals in her amendment suggest that these matters can effectively be blocked by Members of the Assembly. That is what the power in her amendment would do.
Baroness O’Loan
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she explain when, before this time, I could have raised the amendment?
Baroness Barker
I am suggesting that these matters could have been put before Members of the Assembly. Indeed, as has been said, they have already been put before the Assembly, which failed to move them forward. I return to the point I made in earlier speeches. At the moment, there are people in Northern Ireland losing hope because no one is expressing views about the things affecting their lives. The amendment simply returns those people to a counsel of despair.
Lord Hayward
My Lords, I will briefly follow the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and echo what she said about blocking amendments. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, about time pressure, but there is what one might describe as somewhat unparliamentary or unlegislative language in the first condition. The amendment then goes on to refer to,
“the proposals in each of the regulations”—
in other words, you consult on each regulation individually with each of the MLAs and other people. Therefore, the effect of this amendment is not to have a broad consultation. In reality, it is a blocking amendment. That is the only way this can be read, even if one reads it as having been drafted in the inevitable speedy circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred.
I was trying to be helpful on the previous amendment. On this amendment, I am afraid that I find myself looking at what I regard as nothing more and nothing less than a blocking amendment.
Baroness O’Loan
Does the noble Lord not recognise the difference between the people of Northern Ireland having some form of consultation with their elected representatives and a blocking amendment? This is not a blocking amendment.
Lord Hayward
I do recognise the difference. It is in the noble Baroness’s own words, “some form”. The form in which this is laid out is quite specific, and it is no more and no less than a blocking amendment.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, this has been a challenging discussion. I will be very clear. We have received from the other place an instruction on a free vote where it was a matter of conscience. No party set out to move this matter forward. It belonged to no party in particular; it was a free vote. We have received a clear instruction; indeed, the majorities were very significant on this matter. It is therefore important that we recognise that we have an obligation to fulfil.
On that basis, we will not be able to support the amendment as put forward. I will briefly explain. Consulting the MLAs does not absolve us of the responsibility of ensuring that the amendment is delivered in a practical, workable and timely fashion. Those are the instructions that we have received from the other place and those are the instructions that we shall follow. On that basis, we will hopefully be able to move this matter forward.
I do not doubt that many views will be expressed on this, and that is important. Indeed, I suspect that the noble Baroness and I agree that this would be far better resolved by the Executive reforming. That is the purpose of the talks. If that Executive can reform, this matter can be addressed in Northern Ireland. Get the Executive reformed. On that basis, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The Minister suggested that this was an instruction from the House of Commons. I am still relatively new to this House. I thought that this Chamber was essentially bound by manifesto commitments from the ruling party going through the House of Commons. As the Minister said, that was a free vote in the House of Commons. If a free vote in the House of Lords gave a different result, would that not count? How is the Minister bound only by the House of Commons?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
If this House divides, it will be a matter of conscience. If this House divides and takes a different opinion, we will send that opinion to the other place. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O’Loan
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for a magnificent defence of those who are disabled even before they are born. As I said, I have listened carefully. I alluded to the timescale of this Bill. Second Reading was last Tuesday in the Commons; we got the amendments here on Wednesday morning. We have had a few days when Northern Ireland has been off, and now we are forced into a position in which we still do not have the government amendments for the day after tomorrow that are going to make this unworkable Bill workable. We have very little time to reconsider, think, contemplate and consider what the Government are suggesting. How terrible that the future of a generation of unborn babies should rest on these few hours in this place or the other place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment tonight, but I reserve the right to return to the issue in future.
Lord Morrow
“Definition of Victim
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to change the definition of “victim” in Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/2953 (N.I. 17)) to apply only to a person who is injured or affected wholly by the actions of another person.(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I intend to be brief on this because I will keep before me what has been said in the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I recognise that much of what was said compares with what I hope to say.
The definition of a victim has been a matter of great angst in Northern Ireland since its inception. Consideration of government proposals in the past has been coloured by the dissatisfaction people feel over an unfair definition of a victim. This has been a running sore for some 13 years. We have met many individual victims and several groups representing victims’ organisations. The victim definition is repeatedly raised with us as their key issue.
We consider the 2006 definition of a victim and survivor to be unacceptable, unfair and downright insulting. In our view, there is a clear distinction in law between a terrorist perpetrator and their innocent victim. To equate the two is morally wrong and totally indefensible. We have previously tabled legislative proposals to change the definition of a victim, but to no avail at this stage. We believe the Government should bring forward plans now to change the definition of a victim so that there is a clear distinction between perpetrators and victims. In any civilised society, it cannot be right that victims and perpetrators are treated as equals. We believe that this could improve the existing climate and context regarding consideration of the past and legacy proposals.
The Secretary of State wrote in the foreword of the legacy consultation document:
“A Conservative Government will reject any attempts to rewrite the history of the past that seeks to justify or legitimise republican or loyalist terrorism or which seeks to displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism”.
A perpetrator of an unlawful act cannot at the same time be a victim of the act they have perpetrated. Someone who pulled a trigger or planted a bomb should not be treated in the same manner as their innocent victims. This matter is fundamental to victims’ views. In our engagement with a number of victims’ organisations, we have been struck by extremely powerful testimony illustrating the depth and rawness of hurt and insult they feel at their loved ones being placed in the same category as terrorist perpetrators.
The DUP has a proud record on victims and legacy issues. In government, we quadrupled funding for victims. We have stood against a rewriting of our history and efforts to introduce an amnesty. Current arrangements for dealing with the past are utterly unacceptable. There is a clear imbalance, and continuation of the status quo will lead to further rewriting of the narrative of the Troubles. Innocent victims are not seeing progress on investigations into the murder of their loved ones. I beg to move.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I think the exchanges during the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, have the seeds of a solution within them. I would be supportive of that. He made the distinction between the provision of services and pensions for people who have been victims, so we understand that there is an issue there, but the whole question of legacy is still unresolved. There are still proposals out there, including the historical inquiries unit and other ideas that have been brought forward, which could threaten and help to rewrite the history, as has been referred to. But I believe from the exchange we had earlier that we are close to a form of words to find an acceptable solution to all of this that everybody can be comfortable with and move forward on. I certainly hope that that can be achieved.
Lord Eames
My Lords, the question of the definition of a victim has bedevilled many efforts to deal with the legacy of the past. My mind goes back years to when Denis Bradley and I produced our report. We struggled way back then with the definition of who was a victim. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, just said, the exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, earlier on threw considerable light because until there is a definition of victim, not for Northern Ireland alone but across the United Kingdom, that is accepted and incorporated in legislation and used in political dialogue, we will continue to come up against the brick wall of this definition.
Therefore, I welcome what the Minister said in his exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, because in the work that we have already done on the disabled and the victims of the Troubles, as the Minister knows, we have found many new avenues of dealing with disability and legacy in these matters. I am very hopeful, as has been said already, that we are on the verge of getting an acceptable definition of a victim.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I appreciate that the definition of a victim has bedevilled a number of people over a great number of years. I read with great interest the Eames-Bradley report, of which the noble and right reverend Lord is one author, Applying appropriate caveats to our earlier discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, regarding the victims’ pension, there are distinctions. None the less, if indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, these could perhaps be the seeds of a particular solution, we may be closer to a definition than has been the case for some time.
The Government have already accepted a reporting requirement to publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on whether the definition of “victim” in Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 should be revised to apply only to a person who is injured or affected wholly through the actions of another person. In addition, my honourable friend the Minister of State John Penrose committed in the Commons that Her Majesty’s Government recognise that the definition of a victim is something that a number of honourable and right honourable Members have campaigned on for a number of years, and commit to looking UK-wide at how we can make sure that victims are duly protected. That is a step in the right direction. We are closer than we have been before. Of course, there is still some way to go. I recognise that historically there have been challenges, which I noted earlier, and I am aware that the parties in Northern Ireland themselves have not always reached consensus on this particular approach. If we are indeed closer, I hope that we can make some progress and on that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, when I introduced my amendment, I said that I would keep before me what was said during the earlier debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Having listened to what has been said, I will not press the amendment tonight. Rather, we will watch progress on this matter. But the Government should take note that this matter has to be dealt with. It will not go away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Black of Brentwood
“Extension of the Defamation Act 2013
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to change the law relating to defamation in Northern Ireland to provide that the Defamation Act 2013 is extended to Northern Ireland.(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is also supported by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord McNally. I declare an interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group and draw attention to my other media interests in the register.
I will make two general points at the start of this short debate. First, I am a passionate unionist and a supporter of devolution, and I sincerely hope that, by 21 October, the talks process at Stormont will have succeeded and the measures that we are discussing in this amendment will once again be where they belong—in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland.
I would just like to add that I read the debates on this Bill in the other place and listened to the debate here in this House this afternoon and I want to underline that I understand the passions which the issues of equal marriage and abortion—which we have heard so much about in the last couple of hours—give rise to in the Province. I respect that, but this amendment should be an uncontroversial one on free speech and freedom of expression, which do not produce such emotions and concerns. Indeed, on all the evidence I have seen, there is a real appetite in Northern Ireland for change in this area and frustration that, after six years of waiting, we are no nearer to achieving that. I am very grateful for the comments earlier of my noble friend Lord Duncan and his commitment to report in this area and to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I. I will certainly take him up on that, but I would like to explain in these few remarks why I do not believe that this goes far enough.
The amendment seeks simply to extend the terms of the Defamation Act 2013 to Northern Ireland, as was always intended by the architects of that legislation. This House needs no reminding of the importance of that Act, in which so many noble Lords played such a vital part. It was one of the most significant and important pieces of legislation to come out of the coalition Government, and it happened after a huge amount of consultation and scrutiny. The Act was three years in the making. It started life here as a Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and it was followed by a long consultation, pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses, a draft Bill and consideration in the other place before it finally arrived here.
It was not a long Bill and its purpose was very straightforward. Its aim was to replace our out-of-date, costly and overcomplicated defamation laws which damaged freedom of speech and academic and scientific debate, stifled investigative journalism, and yet failed to afford proper protection to those who were defamed. In their place came a new law for a modern age which provided effective protection for freedom of speech, both online and offline, by discouraging trivial and unfounded actions; clarified and simplified defences for those accused of libel; addressed the scandalous issue of libel tourism; and ensured proper remedies for those who had been genuinely wronged. It has achieved those aims in England and Wales, to the great credit of those who drafted it and guided it into law.
The key point is that it was always intended that this law should apply to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. Scotland, of course, has always had its own separate law of defamation, although it is not one which has ever been significantly out of step with the rest of the country. Any outstanding anomalies will, I hope, be addressed through the new Defamation and Malicious Publications (Scotland) Bill currently under consultation. But the law of defamation in Northern Ireland has never been detached from that of England and Wales, which is why, when the law was last reformed in the 1950s, Stormont and Westminster moved in step. All that changed after 2013 in a way which has severed the Province from the rest of the country in an important area of law when a legislative consent Motion was not taken forward at the time by the Executive. It is still not clear, even after six years, why such an unjustifiable decision was taken at the time to cut Northern Ireland adrift. There was certainly no consultation about it or consideration of the implications. No transparent procedures were applied.
We may never know quite why the decision was taken, but we do know that ever since then efforts have been made to rectify the position with proper consultation. A detailed report and analysis by Dr Andrew Scott of the LSE, undertaken for the former Finance Minister Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, coupled with a consultation paper from the Northern Ireland Law Commission, scrutiny by the Assembly’s Finance Committee and consideration of a Private Member’s Bill on the subject, have all ensured that this short piece of uncontroversial legislation has been comprehensively crawled over in the Province and provided a very extensive evidence base for reform of the law there. Civil society has played its part, too, with a grass-roots campaign supported by more than 10,000 people, including, before her death, the murdered journalist Lyra McKee, and that continues to lobby for change.
That case for change is overwhelming. It is clear that the legislation has worked in England and Wales. It is clear that there is strong demand for its implementation from the people of Northern Ireland, including, crucially, the academic and scientific community. And the legislation, except perhaps for a few claimant lawyers determined to protect Belfast’s unenviable position as the new libel capital of Europe, is not controversial. Therefore , it seems to me that the key issue for us is: why the urgency? Why do we need to use this Bill to extend the Defamation Act to Northern Ireland rather than just waiting for when the Assembly and the Executive are back up and running again, as we all want, and why is the commitment that my noble friend made earlier to report back not enough? Those are very good questions that deserve answers, because they go to the nub of the amendment.
I believe that there are four compelling reasons. The first is one of principle. This is a question of fundamental human rights. The existing libel laws in Northern Ireland, condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee and many other international organisations because of their impact on free speech, deny to many, particularly academics, scientists and journalists, the right to free expression. Article 10 of ECHR, which is enshrined in UK law, protects the right to,
“receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.
That includes the public authorities of Northern Ireland and the frontier across the Irish Sea. This denial of one of the most basic human rights has gone on for too long and cannot be allowed to go on any longer if we have an opportunity such as this to rectify matters. Rights delayed are rights denied, and the people of Northern Ireland deserve better, so that is urgent.
The second relates to Northern Ireland’s local media, which has such a vital role to play in the proper functioning of democracy in the Province. As many noble Lords will be aware, local publishers are now in a very difficult commercial position across the UK and certainly in Northern Ireland, and they can no longer afford to bear the costs of such an oppressive and expensive libel regime. It is investigative journalism, so crucial in this part of the country, which suffers. Alistair Bushe, editor of the News Letter, wrote to me to say:
“The need for libel reform in Northern Ireland is now more urgent than it has ever been. For more than five years there has been a discrepancy between the legal position in the Province where claimants are not required to show that they have suffered serious harm and the rest of the UK where they are. During that time the financial pressures facing small media outlets across Britain and Ireland have increased making them particularly vulnerable to bullying or vexatious litigants”.
Gail Walker, editor of the Belfast Telegraph, echoed that by writing that,
“an extension of the Act to Northern Ireland is long overdue”.
Noble Lords should remember that under the oppressive system that exists in Northern Ireland, one defamation action that goes wrong could be enough to put a local newspaper out of business.
Statistics from the Northern Ireland Law Commission consultation paper, which show that there are six times as many claims for defamation per capita in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales, underline the point. Of the 30 defamation claims progressed to the High Court in Belfast in the past three years, fewer than five ended with a determination for either party—which shows how vital it is to introduce the serious harm requirements and prevent vexatious complaints. So, as editors testify and the statistics show, the case is urgent.
The third reason relates to the nature of Northern Ireland’s democracy and its governance. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said earlier, Northern Ireland needs more democracy, but to flourish democracy needs a pluralistic, lively and investigative press, vigorous scrutiny of public bodies, open discussion, robust academic debate, energetic citizen journalists and a free and unfettered flow of information, yet the libel regime in Northern Ireland discourages all of that. Do not take my word for it. Here is Lyra McKee, so tragically murdered earlier this year, who had this to say at the launch of the Northern Ireland Libel Reform Campaign in 2014:
“My line of work means I often upset people in power. I often find myself threated with our archaic libel laws. I’ve become involved with the Libel Reform Campaign because a muzzled press equals a poor democracy—and that is what we have. My hope is that we bring Northern Ireland into alignment with the rest of the UK by reforming our archaic libel laws, meaning they can no longer be abused by politicians with things to hide ... For corrupt politicians they have become a means of silencing the press. Northern Ireland can never be a properly functioning democracy”.
That heartfelt plea is an urgent one.
My final point relates to the issue of scientific and academic debate. When we have debated the issue in the past, the noble Lord, Lord Bew—who is in his place and has kindly told me that he supports this amendment—has warned in a number of powerful speeches that failure to reform Northern Ireland’s libel laws would have a profoundly chilling impact on such debate, and so it is proving. At the time of the Defamation Act, a survey of doctors found that half of all GPs felt that the old libel laws restricted the open discussion of the potential risks of drug treatment. Dr Peter Wilmshurst, an NHS cardiologist, told the Assembly that he had spent four years fighting a US corporation that sued him for questioning the safety of a heart valve. The Defamation Act has removed the chilling effect in England and Wales. It should remove it for doctors in Northern Ireland too. Failure to act raises pressing issues of health and safety, making this urgent.
Those are four very real reasons why we should not gamble on the success of the talks and wait until the Assembly and Executive are functioning again—which we all wish to see but none of us can predict. It may take weeks, months or years. However, the problems arising from the failure to reform the libel laws are here right now. They are damaging free speech in the Province, undermining investigative journalism, stifling scientific debate and, above all, disadvantaging the people of Northern Ireland. It has been six years. We cannot and must not wait any longer. It is time to act. I beg to move.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I will speak very briefly. I think that that is the most comprehensive case that could have been made in support of the amendment. There is very little left to be said. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was going to speak from these Benches and wanted me to say on our behalf that we fully support this. It is long overdue and was a very important piece of reform in the coalition Government. We cannot really understand why there has been a delay in implementing it. Clearly, this is an opportunity to do it. We fully support it.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, which brings back to your Lordships’ House an issue of the first importance. Shortly after the passage of the Defamation Act 2013, I instigated a debate in Grand Committee about the overwhelming case for extending it to Ulster. I later brought forward probing amendments to a Northern Ireland Bill.
The Government at that time agreed that Northern Ireland ought to enjoy the benefits of the 2013 Act and deprecated the Province’s exclusion. It meant that, for the first time in our history, it would have a different libel law from England and Wales. Acute dissatisfaction was expressed across the House that the Northern Ireland Executive—which was then in being—failed to provide any explanation of their opposition to the incorporation of the 2013 Act in Northern Ireland. The Government pressed for an explanation but received none.
When I withdrew my probing amendment in 2014, I asked the Government what further action they would take if the Northern Ireland Executive failed to pursue this matter properly. Sadly, Ministers have been unable to give me any clear reply to that question since then. The issue seems to have slipped from the Northern Ireland Office’s sight. I am glad that it has again been given the prominence it deserves through this amendment.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the Minister kindly accepted the amendment I proposed on this matter earlier. I fully accept that we were not co-ordinating on it. I support the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Black. He knows that and we have talked about this before—he has been to Belfast. He has explained exactly what is at stake, in a very coherent contribution. It is a mystery why this progress has been so slow, but that is where we are. I find myself in total agreement with his contribution.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I have very few remarks to make in response to my noble friend, but I thank him for his long speech. There is no doubt that defamation law in Northern Ireland does not reflect today’s digital age. To echo my noble friend’s words, reform is indeed needed. The issues at stake here hit the very heart of the relationship between citizens, media and the state. It is important to deliver protections in the field of freedom of expression.
My noble friend would like to see progress made to update the Northern Ireland law and I understand that position. There are certainly parts of the Defamation Act 2013 that could usefully be extended to Northern Ireland. However, this Act removed the presumption of trial by jury for libel actions. This may of course shorten and reduce the cost of libel actions.
It is of note that the 2017 Review of Civil and Family Justice in Northern Ireland by Lord Justice Gillen noted the extremely important function of the jury in defamation cases in the context of the Northern Ireland jurisdiction, in particular its role in finding whether the plaintiff has been defamed. As the Gillen review notes, juries in Northern Ireland have been traditionally considered the best fact-finder to judge what words or statements mean in the local context with its unique history, and whether they are considered defamatory in any case. These are matters that involve justice and freedoms, and on which the particular jurisdiction is important. The devolved nature of defamation law in Scotland is reflected in the fact that only a very limited number of provisions in the Defamation Act 2013 have been extended to Scotland, in particular around statements or reports which arise in the scientific or academic field.
Similarly, defamation law is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland; therefore, simply extending the Defamation Act 2013 to Northern Ireland is not appropriate. Further, I understand that, prior to the passage of the Defamation Act, the views of the Northern Ireland Executive were sought as to whether they wished to make a legislative consent Motion to provide for the Act to apply in Northern Ireland, but they declined to do so. Decisions to reform the law should be taken by a restored Northern Ireland Executive. This will allow the unique Northern Ireland context to be taken into account in any reforms. I regret that I am not able to help my noble friend but I respectfully request that he withdraw this amendment.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who supported this amendment. As the remarks from my noble friend Lord Lexden made clear, this is an issue on which we have been pressing for many years now. I remember well his debate in Grand Committee four years ago, yet no progress has been made. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his comments. Yes, indeed, a legislative consent Motion was declined at the time but no real reason was given for that and none has been given since, which I do not think is satisfactory when we are talking about an area of law of such importance as libel and involving such fundamental human rights as those of freedom of expression. This is an area to which I fear we will have to return. I will take up my noble friend Lord Duncan’s offer to meet to talk about how we might make progress in this area. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland: regulations
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for a publicly funded compensation scheme under an HIA Redress Board, distinct from the Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2009, to be charged to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, given the lateness of the hour, I may not allow the Committee to enjoy my 15-minute contribution and will perhaps be slightly briefer. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, for his discussions with me on my amendment and for the consideration he has given to this issue. My amendment deals with the historical abuse inquiry and the recommendations made following that inquiry. I say at the beginning that, as we discussed earlier today, this is not the only inquiry where the absence of an Assembly has disadvantaged the people of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord and other Members of the Committee will recall that I have raised the hyponatraemia inquiry on many occasions now. It was an inquiry that I set up as a Health Minister in Northern Ireland after the deaths of a number of young children. That inquiry reported many years later, yet no action will be taken until a proper Executive and Assembly are up and running. To me, that is a sad and terrible state of affairs for the families of those young children. That issue, and many we have heard about this evening, tell us about the impatience building up in Northern Ireland among those suffering the injustice of local politicians not dealing with their crucial issues.
I pay tribute to the late Sir Anthony Hart, who chaired the historical abuse inquiry. He died suddenly last week, not having seen the progress he would have liked to see on the recommendations he made. We are waiting to take action to implement his recommendations to compensate those subjected to terrible abuse in children’s homes where they had been placed by the state, so the state had a duty of care. Those homes were run by churches, by charities and by state institutions between 1922 and 1995. The very places where children should have been safe from harm are where they were abused.
My amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for a publicly funded scheme. I know that funding has been one of the handicaps and difficulties for the Government, but the funded scheme would be charged to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund by 21 October 2019 unless the Northern Ireland Executive are formed first. It builds on the amendments in the House of Commons requiring the Secretary of State to report on progress made in preparing the legislation.
We have not gone into the detail; we do not think it right to do so at this stage. What I seek—I am optimistic about this after our discussions with the Minister—is an absolute commitment to get the scheme in place in legislation so that no more victims die before they get their justified compensation.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I support the noble Baroness’s amendment. We have discussed this subject several times, and we all recognise that recommendations are in place. The Minister will tell us that things have been added to them, which has complicated the settlement. We are talking about abuse going back to 1922—nearly 100 years ago—and continuing until as late as 1995.
Let us be clear: these abuses have not been confined to Northern Ireland. In the Republic, in Scotland, in England and in the Channel Islands abuses have been unearthed, and Sir Anthony Hart produced a very comprehensive report. When we read about the scale of the abuse it leaves us feeling very angry that people who should have been responsible were perpetrating those acts of abuse. I happened to read a novel last year by Christina McKenna called The Misremembered Man. It is a total fiction, but it is based entirely on the kind of abuse that young children experienced in Northern Ireland and makes a lively dramatic impact, as perhaps a stark factual report does not.
I say to the Minister: people have waited an awfully long time. Many have died and many have suffered. There has been a recommendation, and there are clearly additional things. If he can say something about the timescale on which he feels we can get to a point when action can be taken, the Committee will be very appreciative.
Lord Empey
My Lords, this issue has been raised many times. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, may have deprived the House of 12 minutes of her prepared speech, but the parties in Belfast could still surprise us. It has perhaps been a depressing day listening to these debates, but there is always hope. I hope that they will surprise us and start to deal with this matter themselves. However, I have to say to the Minister that this is a bit like the carrot in front of the donkey: the closer we seem to get the more it keeps moving away, and it never gets to the point when something actually happens. I accept that the fact that there is money involved has its own implications, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that this will happen, and happen on a realistic timescale. Sadly, Sir Anthony did not live to see this, but it would be a tribute to him if it could be introduced as soon as possible.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I think we can make some progress this evening. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling her amendment. There is urgency. The last time the matter was discussed I said that the Government stood ready to move this through Westminster with a degree of urgency. The issue now, of course, is that Sir Anthony Hart’s recommendations have been considered by the parties, which have reached a consensus—but it differs from the original proposals in the Hart recommendations, so there needs to be some redrafting. We anticipate the redraft coming towards the Government in the next couple of weeks.
The route that the noble Baroness has chosen is one that might introduce a delay, and I do not think we need to do that. If she is willing, I will commit, in the absence of a sitting Assembly, to the Government introducing primary legislation on historical institutional abuse before the end of the year—which I believe would satisfy her requirements. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.