House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Rory Stewart)
The distinction traditionally made between development, environment and climate is a false distinction. Unless we tackle climate change, there will be 100 million more people living in poverty in the next 15 years. I returned this morning from New York, where I have been discussing with the Secretary-General of the United Nations our commitment to greening our development spending to ensure that everything that we spend is Paris-compliant, to double the amount the Department for International Development will spend on environment and climate, and to double the effort we are putting into this subject.
Neil Gray
I thank the International Development Secretary for his answer and appreciate his focus on the importance of tackling climate change, but does he accept that it needs to be in addition to traditional development support? To that end, will he examine the Scottish Government’s climate justice fund, which seeks to support those who have done the least to cause climate change but who are to be hit first and hardest by its effects?
Rory Stewart
It is clearly true that many of the people who are suffering most are from some of the poorest countries in the world that emit very little carbon, which is why a great deal of our emphasis is on the question of resilience. I have just returned from Kenya, for example, where we are working with pastoralists whose grassland is being eliminated and with people in Lamu who are losing mangrove swamps. Such countries are not emitting carbon but are suffering from its effects.
Alex Chalk
On that precise issue, what is being done to improve resilience in water security, to ensure that that does not become a source of conflict, or indeed disease, in future?
Rory Stewart
The question of water security is absolutely central. It poses the danger of conflict, for example in the Indus valley and along the headwaters of the rivers that flow into Egypt on the Nile. It is also an area where technology can help, however. We have become much better at preventing water waste. In many developing countries, 50% of the water is wasted; technology is part of the answer to this problem.
Rachel Maclean
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that some of the poorest countries in the world will be the most affected by climate change. I hope to visit Bangladesh in September as part of a delegation; what will his Department be doing to help countries such as Bangladesh mitigate the effects of severe weather, including the monsoon season?
Rory Stewart
The Department for International Development has partnered the Government of Bangladesh for many years, particularly because of the very severe impacts of flooding. We should pay tribute to the improvements in Bangladesh. In floods in the 1970s, more than 100,000 people could be killed in a single event; a similar event today would kill only a few hundreds. That is a huge tribute to Bangladesh’s improvement in resilience and also in emergency management.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I have worked with flood victims in refugee camps around the world; the despair is palpable and tragic, and it is simply inhumane that these same people will be hit the hardest by further extreme weather conditions. This House declared a climate change emergency; will the Government today outline how they will financially support the world’s most vulnerable and plan for dealing with future tragedies?
Rory Stewart
We will be doubling the overseas development fund, which will be spent particularly on climate resilience, and Britain will be co-hosting with Egypt the UN summit on climate resilience in September. That was the focus of my discussions with the UN Secretary-General yesterday, and indeed at the Abu Dhabi summit two weeks ago.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are truly to tackle climate change, we need to ensure that the money that we give—the vital money that we give—goes to the right place where it matters? Will he look at innovations such as digital currencies, especially blockchain, which enables the money to be tracked to make sure that it does not go into a dictator’s slush fund or to train Spice Girls in Nigeria?
Rory Stewart
Blockchain technology has very interesting potential. I recently saw in World Food Programme distribution in camps in Jordan how blockchain is dropping the price by tens of millions of dollars a year. However, there are still some risks attached to such technology.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps the most diligent and committed Secretary of State for International Development that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), who is still in New York with the Select Committee, have had the opportunity to question at the Dispatch Box. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to solidify and embed the new priority of climate change in his Department? Will he commission a Green Paper or a White Paper to keep the Department moving in that direction, irrespective of what happens under a new Prime Minister in the coming weeks?
Rory Stewart
There are three things that we hope will embed the priority. First, this is a whole of Government approach. The Prime Minister announced at Osaka that we would be the first major international development agency to be fully Paris-compliant. Secondly, we have now announced from this Dispatch Box and inserted into our planning that we will double our spend on climate and the environment. The third thing is to ensure that we have the experts on the ground. In Kenya, for example, the focus is on environmental experts, and in Ethiopia it is on forestry experts. It will be funding, Government strategy and staffing that will make the difference.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that agricultural practice and land use are key to mitigating the effects of climate change? Will he say something about the training programmes that DFID pays for and that are doing such good work in helping people to understand the way forward?
Rory Stewart
DFID is doing an increasing amount of work on that issue. For example, its agricultural extension work is helping farmers to work out how to produce crops without depleting the soil or using excessive water. Perhaps the biggest challenge in agriculture is the relationship between pastoralists, particularly people herding cattle and oxen, and sedentary communities right the way across Africa, where climate change and agricultural practices are leading to conflict from Nigeria to South Sudan.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The UK is the largest contributor to the World Bank’s climate investment funds, yet civil society groups say that, compared with UN funds, those funds are undemocratic, opaque and dominated by donor countries. The Secretary of State has committed to doubling DFID’s climate spending, but does he think that the World Bank’s climate investment funds are fit for purpose?
Rory Stewart
The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that there have been significant issues around some of the climate funds. We feel that a lot of progress is being made, and the most important thing is to find real investable projects on the ground. A lot of that relates to issues of governance.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but the truth is that the World Bank knows that it was supposed to phase out its climate investment funds once the United Nations green climate fund was up and running. Labour is clear: we believe in climate justice and we are committed to withdrawing the UK’s support for the World Bank’s climate investment funds and to redirecting climate finance to the UN green climate fund, in which developing countries get a real say. Will the Government now do the same?
Rory Stewart
No, we will not. The reason is that there are issues of capacity in both the World Bank and the UN. The key point here is not the ideological choice of the channel through which we pass the money but the capacity to manage these projects responsibly.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
The UK Government are working closely with the Government of Japan to ensure that next year’s summit secures meaningful and transformational commitments from Governments. We have invested £2.6 billion in this area since the last summit, and we are considering what offer the UK Government will make to next year’s summit.
Greg Hands
Last year, I travelled with Results UK to Zambia, where 40% of under-fives are stunted. That has an astonishing lifelong impact on their social and economic development. Will the Minister go into a little more detail about next year’s summit and about how we will show our commitment to really tackling deficiencies in nutrition on a worldwide scale?
Harriett Baldwin
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight this important issue. I am pleased to be able to tell him that, since his visit, the work we have been doing in Zambia specifically, which has reached more than 1 million people, has reduced the level of stunting to 35%, but clearly that still leaves a lot more to be done.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
We will meet the malnutrition targets only through a strong partnership with the aid community—the voluntary community. Will the Minister update us on what progress she has made on reforms within that community, in the light of the exposés of the past 18 months?
Harriett Baldwin
I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the safeguarding issues. He will be aware of the leadership that the UK has shown in this area and the rigorous way in which we have scrutinised all our suppliers. With regard to the most recent story in the media, we have confirmed that no DFID funding was involved.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The new UN food security report says that global hunger has risen for the third year running, but when the UK should be setting an example by reporting on our own SDG process, the Government’s voluntary national review report to the UN was found by the International Development Committee yesterday to be “gravely flawed”—food banks ignored, inadequate stakeholder engagement, cherry-picked data. The Government were allowed to mark their own homework, but they could not even do that properly. What are Ministers doing to ensure that their colleagues in other Departments start taking the SDGs seriously?
Harriett Baldwin
The UK was very proud to present its voluntary national review at the UN yesterday—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is a strong document and was warmly received. It clearly outlines where we have made enormous amounts of progress and where there is more progress to be made, including further cross-governmental working.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Yemen remains the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 80% of the population requiring humanitarian assistance, which is not helped by the fact that the operating environment for humanitarian organisations is exceptionally difficult. We call on both parties to the conflict to comply with UN Security Council resolution 2451 by facilitating safe, rapid and unhindered humanitarian access.
Clive Lewis
Last month’s ruling by the Court of Appeal that the Government’s continued licensing of the exporting of military equipment to Saudi Arabia is unlawful offers real hope to the people of Yemen—despite the Government’s hypocrisy in calling for peace while selling arms to the Saudis to bomb and to kill, hampering the work of aid agencies on the ground. What representations will the Secretary of State make in Cabinet finally to end that shameful conduct?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman will know that our checks and balances on the export of arms are among the world’s finest—he must know that. He also knows that we apply the EU consolidated criteria rigorously. He will also, I hope, have noted the Divisional Court’s view that our process was “rigorous, robust, multi-layered” and that those advising Ministers were “keenly alive” to the possible violation of international humanitarian law. He will also know that the UK Government intend to appeal against the judgment.
Alison Thewliss
Women and children have been disproportionately affected by the conflict, so what is the Minister doing to involve women in the process? Further, what work is he doing with organisations such as the Mothers of Abductees Association, which points out that 1,496 people in Yemen have been forcibly disappeared, which causes people huge concern about the whereabouts of their relatives?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be concerned about those who have disappeared. Along with multilateral organisations, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of mechanisms geared towards ensuring that we know where crimes are potentially being committed and, in the fullness of time, that we are able to follow up on that. I hope that she will approve of the level of support that this country is giving as the penholder and as a major financial contributor to the humanitarian situation in Yemen.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that humanitarian aid actually reaches the people who need it and is not being held back by the warring factions in Yemen?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend will probably be aware that we have had discussions on that with the World Food Programme, which is a major operator in the situation in Yemen. We support the intent of the World Food Programme, in particular its director David Beasley, to ensure that aid gets to where it is supposed to go, rather than into the pockets of Houthis and others. That process is in its early stages, but it looks like it is being successful and will restore the full effect of the World Food Programme to Sana’a and other areas as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker
The House wishes to hear the Minister’s mellifluous tones, so if he could face the House, that would be excellent.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
The UK is committed to supporting countries to achieve the global goals, including through the development of strong public services. We are working with low-income countries to raise and manage public revenues and to invest in education and health systems to provide essential public services for all.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful for that answer. Building strong public services is crucial to achieving the UN’s sustainable development goals, but countries in the global south are losing out on billions of pounds of revenue each year due to tax avoidance—money that could be spent on building up those services, which are needed by their citizens. What practical steps is the Minister taking to ensure that countries in the global south are supported to ensure that multinational corporations and others who should be paying taxes actually do so?
Harriett Baldwin
I am very pleased to say that we have taken probably the most powerful practical step of all by setting up a specialist tax department—the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the issue—within the Department for International Development. We are spending £47 million to help low-income countries increase their tax revenues, and every £1 we put in has raised revenues by £100.
Chris Elmore
Shockingly, 16 million girls aged 15 to 19 give birth each year in developing regions. Complications during pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death in this age group globally. Therefore, what urgent steps is the Minister taking to ensure that developing countries have better reproductive healthcare services for girls and young women to improve their rights, chances and opportunities internationally?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this important issue, and we continue to work in countries where we can help with some of the sexual and reproductive health interventions he describes. In addition, he will be aware that the Girls’ Education Challenge is helping 1.5 million adolescent girls, who have often had children at a very young age, to stay in education and get the education that will help to improve their lifetime earnings.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Children’s health is also a key issue, and I thank the Department for International Development for its work to fight polio across the world. Will the Minister rise to the challenge set by members of the Chelmsford rotary club, and by rotary clubs across the UK, and confirm that this Government remain committed to ending polio forever?
Harriett Baldwin
I always welcome the opportunity to thank rotary clubs not only here in the UK but around the world for their fundraising. We are nearly there. We have nearly eradicated polio from this planet, and we should thank every Rotarian for their contribution.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Good public services need an effective civil service to supervise them. What discussions has the Minister had with the Cabinet Office and my noble Friend Lord Maude about the provision of an effective civil service in developing countries?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend will be aware that the UK has long-standing partnerships with a range of developing countries. Indeed, it forms part of our work when we award Chevening scholarships, for example, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; scholars have to commit to going back and helping to deliver services in their country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is such a happy and uncomplaining fellow that the temptation to call him is irresistible.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways to support public services, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, is to support the non-governmental organisations that provide clean drinking water in many of the townships across that part of Africa?
Harriett Baldwin
I am glad the hon. Gentleman got to ask his question because, of course, clean drinking water is crucial. We take it so much for granted, and I am pleased that, working with NGOs, DFID has supported over 51 million poor people in Africa and Asia to have access to drinking water supplies or toilets for the first time.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Public services in all countries benefit from the quality of governance and, above all, from democracy, which is why the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is keen for a democracy fund to be established. Following the very useful meeting with the Minister, does she agree it is important that it is taken forward in time for the autumn spending review?
Harriett Baldwin
I welcome my hon. Friend’s bid, and I can commit to him that these are exactly the sorts of issues that will be discussed in the future spending review.
Topical Questions
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Rory Stewart)
The central challenge in international development going forward will be the quality, expertise and number of our permanent staff on the ground. As international development becomes more complex, with conflict and climate, as we have to work more closely with other Departments and, above all, in a world in which developing countries are looking not for money, but for expertise, over the next 15 years we will have to increase the expertise, the quality and, above all, the number of civil servants, moving away from short-term consultants to having British experts on the ground.
Stephen Doughty
I am sure the Secretary of State will be aware that Birmingham this week joined Cardiff, Sheffield and Tower Hamlets in calling for the recognition of Somaliland. Does he agree that diaspora communities here in the UK play a crucial role, not only in Somaliland, but in many other contexts, in providing not only direct assistance, but the type of trading, business and expert links that can help development in so many countries?
Rory Stewart
We are immensely fortunate in the UK with our diaspora communities because they provide both powerful advocacy, for example, with Somaliland on female genital mutilation, and expertise—linguistic, deep country expertise—to ensure that our programmes on the ground are of the requisite quality.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Rory Stewart
I am lucky enough to have just returned from the Congo, where I was looking at Ebola in Beni and Butembo. The situation of Ebola in the Congo is serious; we now have—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State is a cerebral and intellectual fellow, of prodigious brain power, and he deserves a more respectful audience than he is being accorded. Let us hear the words , digest them and learn from them.
Rory Stewart
What needs to be heard is not my cerebral power, but the issue of Ebola in the Congo. The House needs to be serious about that. There is an Ebola outbreak now in the Congo, which has already crossed the border into Uganda. On Sunday, we had an outbreak in Goma, a city of 2 million people. If we do not get this under control, this Ebola outbreak, which is already the second biggest in history, will cause devastating problems for the region. We must invest much more in the World Health Organisation, in developing the public health services in the neighbouring countries. Above all, we must step up to the challenge and be serious as a nation about this deadly disease.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
The provision of water and sanitation is central. It is vital for health. It is also vital in schools, for ensuring that girls remain in school, and it is vital for tackling any kind of water-borne disease. So good investment in water, which DFID prioritises, needs to be one of the three fundamental pillars of development, along with education and health.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Dr Andrew Murrison)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this, and I am pleased to say that the conflict, stability and security fund has been used to help the Turks and Caicos repair its radar, so that it is able to detect boats that may be carrying people trying to access the islands. He may be aware that early in 2018 the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Mounts Bay was also deployed in order to provide a deterrent to those who wish to make that perilous crossing. We will consider other ways of using the CSSF in this region in the future.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the issue of climate is now driving conflict. In the Lake Chad basin there simply is not enough ground for people to feed their oxen or plant crops. We need to invest in climate-resilience projects, which means looking not only at the crops but at the reasons why there are now conflicts, from the Chad Basin and Nigeria right the way across east Africa, between people with oxen and people who are planting. In particular, Sahel is central to DFID’s new initiative. We are opening embassies in Mauritania, Niger and Chad, and much more of our investment is now going to go into the Sahel region.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
I am pleased to add my voice of welcome for the report commissioned by the Foreign Secretary. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight some of the important points made in the report. She will be aware that, in addition to freedom of religion and belief, the UK is, as we heard from the Secretary of State, helping communities with their adaptation to some of the other drivers of conflict highlighted in the excellent report.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I am sure Members will want to congratulate all those who took part in what was a great weekend of sport. In particular, we congratulate Lewis Hamilton on his record sixth win in the British grand prix. On Monday, I was able to welcome England’s cricket team to Downing Street, following their brilliant performance in winning the cricket world cup. As I said to them, they are a team that reflects the very best of modern Britain and a team that plays like no other in the world.
I am sure the House will want to join me in wishing all the best to the home nations taking part in the netball world cup in Liverpool.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Lilian Greenwood
I join the Prime Minister in offering our congratulations, particularly to the England team that won the cricket world cup. We were proud to host some of the games at Trent Bridge in Nottingham. I also extend our best wishes to the netball team.
Notts County, the world’s oldest professional football club, is facing the very real threat of extinction. Under chairman Alan Hardy, the club has reached a financial crisis and could be liquidated before the start of the coming season. Players and staff have not been paid in weeks, and the club is set to make its fourth appearance in the High Court later this month to face a winding-up petition. Will the Prime Minister and the whole House join me in calling on the Football Association, the Football League and the National League to investigate the current situation and help to secure the future of this truly historic club?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. Football clubs up and down the country are obviously of great importance to their local communities. Overall, the financial state of football clubs is better now than at any time, but the Government are certainly not complacent. The hon. Lady referred to various football authorities; we will continue to hold the football authorities to account for ensuring that there is transparency around the ownership of clubs, that sufficient inquiries into the suitability of owners are made, and that financially clubs continue to live within their means. I am sure the whole House will join the hon. Lady in hoping that, as the world’s oldest professional football club, Notts County resolves its situation soon.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I recognise the way in which my hon. Friend has championed a number of cases—he has referenced one of them—over the years in this House. Indeed, I had a number of meetings with him when I was Home Secretary in relation to that case. It is important that our police are able to operate to the highest professional standards. They have operational independence as to who they investigate and how they conduct those investigations, but I am sure the whole House would want to say that we expect our police to conduct those investigations properly and fairly, and to ensure that, when a crime is committed, they are investigating that crime.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I agree with the Prime Minister’s congratulations to Lewis Hamilton on winning on Sunday and to the fantastic cricket team, which ended up winning the world cup. I also thank New Zealand—what a brilliant final it was, and what a great advertisement for the wonderful game of cricket.
“Time is running out” on climate change—that is what the Environment Secretary said yesterday. Why did the all-party Environmental Audit Committee accuse the Government of “coasting” on climate change?
The Prime Minister
The Government have a fine record on climate change, including our recent legislation on net zero emissions, but there is an issue that needs to be addressed in this House. Before the right hon. Gentleman stands up and parades himself as the champion of climate change, the champion of the people or the defender of equality and fairness, he needs to apologise for his failure to deal with racism in the Labour party.
Just today, 60 distinguished members of the Labour party have written in the newspapers:
“The Labour party welcomes everyone*…(*except, it seems, Jews)…This is your legacy Mr Corbyn…You still haven’t opened your eyes…You still haven’t told the whole truth…You still haven’t accepted your responsibility…You have failed…the test of leadership.”
Apologise now.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard. Attempts to shout him down are downmarket, low grade, regarded with contempt by the public and, above all, will not work. Be quiet.
Jeremy Corbyn
This party was the first to introduce anti-racist legislation into law in Britain. This party totally opposes racism in any form whatsoever. Antisemitism has no place in our society, no place in any of our parties and no place in any of our dialogues. Neither does any other form of racism.
Some 60% of Tory party members think Islam is a threat to western civilisation. The Prime Minister has said that she will act on Islamophobia within her own party. I hope she does. I look forward to seeing that being dealt with, as we will deal with any racism that occurs within our own party as well.
Last week, the Committee on Climate Change published its annual report, which described the Government’s efforts on climate change not a bit like what the Prime Minister just said; it described them as being run like “Dad’s Army”. The Government’s target is to reduce carbon emissions by 57% by 2030. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much progress has been made on that?
The Prime Minister
On the climate change issue, the chairman of that committee said:
“The UK is the first major economy to set a net-zero emissions target and intends to host the world’s leaders at next year’s landmark climate conference (COP26). These are historic steps forward and position the UK at the forefront of the global low-carbon transition.”
The right hon. Gentleman, I note, did not apologise in response to my first questions. We deal with Islamophobia in the Conservative party. Any allegations of Islamophobia are dealt with, unlike his way in the Labour party where he is failing to deal with antisemitism. He can stand up and say all he likes about the Labour party introducing anti-racism legislation. Just last week, Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the following:
“Labour today presents like a textbook case of institutional racism.”
Jeremy Corbyn
This party opposes racism in any form whatsoever in our society. And coming from a Prime Minister who encouraged the hostile environment, sent “go home” vans around London, and deported British citizens, which she has now had to compensate them for, I think that she might look to her own party and her own Government’s record as well.
The issue of climate change is obviously crucial, and we support the zero emissions target. The latest figures, however, released in April show that the Government are going to miss that target by 10%—the gap is widening. At the current rate, they will not meet their 2050 target until 2099, and, at that point, it will be too late for our planet and our children. Clean energy investment has fallen three years in a row. Why does the Prime Minister think that that is the case?
The Prime Minister
Still no apology, I note, from the right hon. Gentleman.
We have outperformed in our first and second carbon budgets, and we are on track to meet the third. We have taken the historic step of legislating for net zero emissions by 2050. We have yet to see all the policies and proposals in our clean growth strategy coming into play and having an effect on our target. This is a party that is acting on climate change; this is a party that is delivering for the people of this country; this is a party that is dealing with the issues that matter to people day to day. The right hon. Gentleman needs to start dealing with the issues that matter to the members of his Labour party, as shown in the newspapers this morning.
Jeremy Corbyn
It was a Labour Government who introduced the Climate Change Act 2008. It is the Labour party that is committed to dealing with the issues of climate change. Let me give the Prime Minister a few suggestions on why renewable investment is falling: her Government scrapped the feed-in tariff; they failed to invest in the Swansea tidal lagoon; and they slashed investment in onshore wind. If we are serious about tackling this climate emergency, we need to fully acknowledge the scale of the problem. Labour is committed to measuring total UK emissions—not just what we make here, but what we buy from abroad also—so that we have an accurate figure of what the emissions really are by consumption in this country. Will the Prime Minister match that commitment?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we measure our targets according to the international definitions of those targets, and that is exactly the right thing for us to do. He talks about renewables. Let us just look at the record on renewables: last year, renewables generated a record amount of electricity in this country—33%; and over the past year, we have generated record levels of solar and offshore wind energy. He talks about what the Labour Government did, but 99% of solar power deployed in the UK has been deployed under Conservative Governments.
Jeremy Corbyn
I think that we are actually hiding the scale of the problem by passing the buck to other countries as well. If all emissions are counted, the figures would actually be 69% higher in this country.
Every year, air pollution kills 40,000 in this country. In 2017, the Conservative manifesto promised to take action against poor air quality in urban areas. What actions have been taken?
The Prime Minister
Air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010 under the Conservatives in government. Our clean air strategy is the most ambitious air quality strategy in a generation, described by the World Health Organisation as
“an example for the rest of the world to follow.”
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Those are wonderful words, they truly are. The only problem is, air pollution levels breach legal limits in 37 of 43 areas of this country. Two thirds of our children are growing up in an area where pollution breaches legal limits. This crisis is literally suffocating our children and damaging their health. Once again, this Government are dodging their responsibility while Labour leads the way. For example, the Mayor of London is leading the way on better air quality in the capital city.
The Tories promised the greenest Government ever. They have failed on carbon emissions. They have failed on air pollution. They have failed on solar. The Prime Minister says that she wants action, but she supports fracking and has effectively banned onshore wind. The climate emergency simply cannot be left to the market. We all need to take responsibility to secure our common future. Labour led the call to declare a climate emergency and has pledged a green industrial revolution with new jobs. When will this Conservative Government face up to the situation, get a grip on this crisis and deal with it?
The Prime Minister
We have already seen over 400,000 new jobs in the area of renewables and clean growth, and we expect to see up to 2 million more. I am not going to take any lectures from the Labour party on this issue, when the last Labour Government ignored advice that diesel fumes would damage our environment and incentivised diesel cars through the tax system.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about dodging responsibility. The person who has been dodging his responsibility during this PMQs is the right hon. Gentleman. The real disgrace is his handling of racism in the Labour part. Activists protesting, MPs leaving and staff resigning—what would his great heroes Attlee, Bevan and Benn think? Look what he has done to their party. We will never let him do it to our country.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know my right hon. and learned Friend has also been working on this issue for some time, and I thank him for highlighting the work that has been done. There is no place for animal cruelty in this country. When the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, to which he alludes, is passed, those who mistreat or abuse animals, or are involved in animal fighting, will rightly face one of the toughest penalties available anywhere in the world. That will cement our place as a world leader on animal welfare. The new maximum penalty will soon also apply to those who attack our brave service animals such as Finn the police dog, through Finn’s law. I pay tribute to supporters, and to organisations such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the RSPCA, for championing these changes. I wish the sentencing Bill a speedy passage through this House and the other place.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
This week the Prime Minister finally did the right thing. When Donald Trump told women that they should “go home”, she called it out as unacceptable. Let me be clear that Donald Trump’s actions are textbook racism; they are repugnant and diplomatic politeness should never stop us saying so. Will the Prime Minister now, on reflection, also take the opportunity to call out and condemn the racism of the “Go Home” vans that she created in the coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats?
The Prime Minister
I said at the time that that was too blunt an instrument. There is an important issue, which is that the public expect us to have a fair immigration system that deals with those who are here illegally. That is what we need to do. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the comments made by President Trump. As he alluded to, I have strongly condemned those comments.
Ian Blackford
When the Prime Minister implemented the hostile environment policy, her party stayed silent. When she delivered the racist “Go Home” vans, the Tories remained silent. When asylum seekers are deported to places where their lives are at risk, the Tories stay silent, and when faced with the racist columns written by the former Foreign Secretary, they stay silent. Is the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) not correct when he warns that the Tories are
“appealing to the type of nationalism that has seen UKIP grow”?
While the Tory party shares more with the extremes of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, is it any wonder that Scotland looks on in horror?
The Prime Minister
The Conservative party is a party for the whole of the United Kingdom, and the only party in this House that is appealing to blatant nationalism is the party that wants to take Scotland out of the UK.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising what is obviously a very important issue for him and his constituents. I recognise that there are concerns about the Future Fit programme and services in Shropshire. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has referred the programme to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, and the Department of Health and Social Care will study that advice carefully before making a decision. We have the simple view that clinicians should take these decisions, because it is clinicians who know best the services that should be available for his constituents and others.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The issue of carer’s leave is one on which we have been consulting. That is in the system, and I have every expectation that whoever succeeds me will take that forward.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
It has been remarked upon that my right hon. Friend is one of only three Prime Ministers upon whose watch a world cup has been brought home. She and her husband were fortunate enough to be present to watch that wonderful team effort. In the final week of her premiership, will she allow herself the luxury of considering that history is likely to treat her captaincy rather more kindly than it will treat those who have campaigned against her?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments and for the support he has shown me and the Government in our work. I was very pleased to be there for the whole world cup final on Sunday. It was nerve-racking and nail-biting, but our team brought it home, and many congratulations once again to them.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We had a successful £2 million programme in the summer of 2018, and this year we are more than quadrupling this funding. About 50,000 disadvantaged children in 11 local authority areas will be offered free meals and activities over the summer holidays. That is going to be funded by £9 million from the Department for Education. We had a good programme last year, and we are expanding that programme this year because we want to help children, wherever they are, receive the right support in school and out.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
In the week when we celebrate the anniversary of man first walking on the moon, may I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the amazing space cluster that exists at Harwell in my constituency, with amazing companies such as Open Cosmos and Oxford Space Systems? In the last week of her premiership, could she have a conversation with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy? If we can accelerate the decommissioning of the land at Harwell, we can really accelerate the success of this cluster? I will personally invite her back to inaugurate Theresa May Way, when this is done.
The Prime Minister
I was going to say, Mr Speaker, such temptation has been dangled before me, and I thank my right hon. Friend for it.
First, we are very pleased with the cluster in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and the important role that that plays in our economy, in our research and our science development. The Business Secretary is in the Chamber and has heard the points my right hon. Friend has made about accelerating this process, and I am sure that the Business Department will look carefully at his request.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady talks about the northern powerhouse. The northern powerhouse is there: we are operating, we are putting in development and we are putting in funding to the northern powerhouse, including record levels of funding for transport across the north of England. That is the commitment this Government have made. We are not just using words; we are actually putting the money in. We are seeing a difference, and we are making a difference.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Ian Jukes and our local community in Redditch for raising nearly £500,000 for the Rory the Robot appeal to fund the prostate surgery robot in Worcestershire? However, despite all the hard work by the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, the specialist commissioners have not approved the business case yet. Will she use her legacy, in her last week, to help us sort this problem out?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I am very happy to congratulate Ian Jukes and all those who have been responsible for raising the money for—as I understand it—Rory the Robot. I am sitting two steps away from the International Development Secretary, but I gather the reference my hon. Friend has made is to medical equipment. Obviously, I will look carefully at the point she has raised about the business case.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I am indeed proud of the development aid the United Kingdom spends across the world and the role we play not just in helping some of the most vulnerable and poorest people around the world, but in dealing with issues as they arise, such as the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The 0.7% of gross national income target is now in legislation and there was a commitment in the Conservative election manifesto to maintain it, so I am sure it will continue and that it will continue to be an important sign of what the Conservative party believes we should be doing: helping some of the most vulnerable and poorest people around the world.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
On Saturday, I met a group of residents in Harlow, many of them on Government Help to Buy schemes, who moved into homes built by Persimmon Homes that are shoddily built with severe damp and crumbling walls. In the eyes of my residents, Persimmon are crooks, cowboys and con artists. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hold the company to account, ensure that residents receive proper compensation, and urge the chief executive to come to Harlow to meet the families who have suffered so much? Persimmon Homes should not behave in this way.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. As we increase the housing supply, it is important that the quality of new build homes continues to improve. We set out in our housing White Paper an ambition and a target of a housing market that works for everyone. We expect developers to deliver good-quality housing. We have already announced our intention for a new homes ombudsman to protect the rights of homebuyers and to hold developers to account. We expect all developers to build their homes to a good quality standard. These are homes that people will be living in for many years. They deserve those standards.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Government brought forward our shipbuilding strategy to ensure that we support and encourage shipbuilding around the United Kingdom. On the Royal Navy, I understand that the issue he raises relates to support ships. The MOD is looking at future provision and the building of those support ships. We maintain our position on building the ships of the Royal Navy.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
This weekend our sporting heroes, winners and losers, inspired a new generation. Science can also inspire. Sixty years ago, JFK electrified the world and united a divided and fearful nation with the inspiring Apollo moonshot programme, which also helped to defeat the Soviet Union and laid the foundations for US technology leadership. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting our pioneering scientist astronauts, Helen Sharman and Tim Peake, and agree with me that Brexit can and must be a moonshot moment for British science innovation to tackle global challenges?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I am very happy to congratulate and salute our pioneering UK astronauts, Helen Sharman and Tim Peake. One of the first receptions I held in No. 10 Downing Street when I became Prime Minister was for Tim Peake, and it was inspiring to see how what he had done in space had encouraged young people in particular to develop an interest in space and science. We are global leader in science and innovation, and that will continue once we leave the European Union. Leaving the EU will open up opportunities for UK science and innovation to tackle global challenges.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We are committed to providing asylum accommodation that is safe and secure. We take the wellbeing of asylum seekers and the local communities in which they live very seriously. Asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute are provided with free, fully furnished accommodation while their applications are considered. We cover utility costs and provide a cash allowance to cover other essential living needs, but once a person’s asylum claim is fully determined, their entitlement to that support will end. What I understand has been happening is that Serco has been providing accommodation at its own expense to over 300 people who are no longer eligible for such accommodation, either because they have been refused asylum or because they have been granted leave to remain and should move on to mainstream benefits and housing.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Last week, I had the honour of visiting the world’s best transformer factory in Stafford, run by General Electric. It was constructing the first of 72 transformers to go to Iraq, and it is only able to do that through the support of UK Export Finance. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate me—[Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear!”] The last thing she should do is that, but will she congratulate UK Export Finance on backing British business?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done for his constituency and more widely. He is absolutely right: UK Export Finance is an essential part of the Government support that can be provided to exporters. I am very pleased that the Department for International Trade has changed the rules to enable UK Export Finance to provide support for some smaller exporters, which has encouraged them. UKEF provides a vital role in our economy and our exporting around the world, and I am happy to congratulate it on the work that it does.
Mr Speaker
I am always happy to congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), as others will, for one very good reason that the public should know: he invariably plays the ball rather than the man or the woman. He sticks to the arguments, and that is why he is respected not only by his constituents, but across the House.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Entry clearance officers consider applications for visitor visas with the utmost rigour, because our visas are an important way of securing our border and an effective tool for us in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime and protecting national security. The hon. Gentleman references visas for people coming from the countries of Africa. The percentage of African nationals who saw their application granted is up by 4% on what it was 10 years ago and is only slightly below the average rate of the past 10 years. Visa applications from African nationals are at their highest level since 2013.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Three weeks ago, I was in New York for WorldPride—a celebration of equality and love, with 150,000 people marching down Fifth Avenue, cheered on by millions of people. Then we had Pride in London, and we will have lots of other Prides in towns and cities throughout the UK and Europe, but it is such a different story in so many other countries, where millions of people live in fear of prosecution and persecution. Commonwealth countries blame British legacy legislation. What message does the Prime Minister have for them to say that they can change their laws progressively and that everybody in their countries can live in equality, harmony and love?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People will have seen a wonderful Pride parade here in London. I am only sorry that I was not able to be present at the Pride reception in No. 10 Downing Street, but I was pleased that people were hosted in No. 10 once again this year. He raises an important issue. It is one that I raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last year, when I made it clear to countries in the Commonwealth that we want to see them introducing those progressive laws and changes in their legislation and, more than that, that we are willing to help them, provide support to them and show them the legislation that we have used, so that they can adopt it and people can indeed live in true equality.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We constantly look at how we can improve our response to modern slavery. I am very pleased that I had a meeting only a few days ago where I met many people involved in organisations that support victims of modern slavery; I met people involved in the prosecution of perpetrators of modern slavery; and I met parliamentarians who have been involved in the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We are going to take on board most of the recommendations from that review. I make no apology for introducing the Modern Slavery Act. It was a Conservative Government who dealt with this issue, and we continue to deal with it. We took it seriously when other parties were not willing to do so.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
As a distinctly average cricketer who is fully aware of his limitations, I grew up dreaming of an England side lifting the cricket world cup in a Lord’s final in front of a home crowd. How does my right hon. Friend believe we can maximise the opportunity of Sunday’s incredible success to encourage the next generation to get involved and pick up a bat and ball?
The Prime Minister
So many people around the country have been engaged by and taken inspiration from the England cricket team’s success. Crucially, a very significant number of children have also been introduced to the basics of cricket through the work on cricket in the streets. I want to cite a figure that I heard yesterday, but I do so with care: I think something like 1 million children have now seen cricket and been introduced to cricket as a result of the world cup tournament here in the UK. We must build on that for the future.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The Secretary of State has heard the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises. The support that we have given to disabled people and people with health conditions is at a record high, and spending on disability benefits will be higher in every year to 2023 than in 2010. We have also provided support for disabled people to get into the workplace, and we continue to do so. The number of disabled people in work has increased by almost 950,000 over the past five years.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
This year, the school sports premium is worth about half a million pounds to primary schools across my constituency. It has been a key driver in helping more children to establish healthier lifestyles, which we hope they will continue into adulthood. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Government to look closely at extending this funding beyond 2020 to help even more children to become healthier for life and to inspire some of those young people to become our world cup winners of the future?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. We all recognise the importance of sport in schools, and the sport action plan has an aspiration for every child to get 60 minutes of sport and activity a day. That is why on Monday we published a cross-government school sport action plan, which will be taken forward. This is an issue that Conservatives in government have taken very seriously. We have put in the PE and sport premium, which will continue in the 2019-20 academic year. Future questions about spending will be for the spending review, but I think she can take it that Conservatives in government will continue their commitment to ensuring that young people in this country have a healthy lifestyle.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take industry throughout the United Kingdom very seriously. He has referred to the issue of Brexit and leaving the European Union. A deal was negotiated that would have protected jobs and industry across the UK, but, sadly, he and others in the House chose not to support it. I continue to believe that the best way forward for industries in his constituency and throughout the UK is for us to leave the European Union, and to do so with a good deal.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Figures published yesterday show that wages are rising faster than inflation, which means that there is more money in the pockets of hard-working people in Stoke-on-Trent. May I thank my right hon. Friend for the actions that her Government have been taking to help families with the cost of living—reducing taxes on income, increasing the national living wage and extending the fuel duty freeze?
The Prime Minister
That is indeed good news. Yesterday’s employment figures were also good news, showing that more people are in work than ever before. I am pleased that we have been able to help working people with their finances. We have done that through the national living wage; we have done it by cutting taxes; and we have done it by freezing fuel duty. For the lowest paid, the national living wage and the cuts in taxes mean that they take home £4,500 more than they did under the last Labour Government.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 26 June, I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister express sympathy for my 18-year-old constituent Jake Ogborne, who has spinal muscular atrophy. In May, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence posted a press release saying that the drug Spinraza would be made available to SMA patients—the clear implication was that it would be made available to them all—only for Jake to have his hopes cruelly dashed when he was told that he was just outside the hitherto unmentioned eligibility criteria. This is a young man whose future is at stake. The Prime Minister said on that occasion that she would follow up the case. May I ask her if she has yet managed to do so?
The Prime Minister
I do not have a response to the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised again today, but I will ensure that she receives a response before I leave office.
Mr Speaker
Points of order come after urgent questions, of which there are three.
Police Surveillance of Journalists
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the Home Office’s policy on police surveillance of journalists.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It cannot be said often enough that the Government are committed to protecting the free press and freedom of expression in this country. The Government agree—indeed, they forcefully advocate—that confidential journalistic material and journalists’ interaction with their sources must be protected. However, that does not mean that journalists should receive blanket protection from legitimate investigation simply because of their chosen profession. Our security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies will, in very limited circumstances, have a legitimate need to investigate a journalist or that journalist’s source, but there need to be protections in that regard.
We believe that the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides strong protections in relation to the use of investigatory powers for the purpose of identifying or confirming a journalistic source and for the obtaining of confidential journalistic information. This ensures that protections are applied where they are required and that those who commit a crime or pose a threat to national security can be investigated regardless of their chosen profession, and it does so in a way that is compatible with all our ECHR obligations.
For example, where a targeted communications data authorisation under part 3 of the Act is made with the purpose of identifying or confirming a source of journalistic information, section 77 of the Act requires that, other than in threat-to-life situations, the authorisation must be approved by a judicial commissioner before it can take effect. In deciding whether to approve such an authorisation the judicial commissioner must have regard to the public interest in protecting the sources of journalistic information and the need for there to be another overriding public interest before a relevant public authority seeks to identify a source.
The codes of practice under the Act provide detailed and extensive guidance to public authorities when applying the powers in the Act, including extensive guidance on when those safeguards should be applied.
Mr Davis
One of the worst things a Government can do to damage democracy is to undermine the freedom of the press. In the past week, there have been numerous press reports of the police using
“the full force of the state”
to pin down the source of the recent leak of diplomatic telegrams. According to the reports this includes analysing mobile phone data in journalists’ phones, including location data showing everywhere they had been in the previous weeks. If true, this would be an astonishing intrusion on press freedom, because it puts at risk every confidential source they have, not just the one the police might be looking for.
Since the successful court case brought by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) and myself against the Government, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 has been tightened up. Journalists get particular protection under it, and there are only two ways such intrusive surveillance could be legally carried out. One is for the police to have obtained a warrant on national security grounds, in effect. Given the fact that the Government did not even use the DA, or defence advisory notice, procedure to stop publication of the telegram—they did not even use the procedure available to them—it is very unlikely that such a warrant would have been granted or such an agreement have been given by a commissioner. The other way is for one of the state agencies—the secret agencies—to have obtained the data. Given that the leak was embarrassing, but not a threat to national security, this also seems unlikely.
So can the Minister reassure the House that these intrusive surveillance techniques were not used against journalists in this case and that they would never be used unless there was either a serious crime or a real and serious threat to national security?
Mr Hurd
My right hon. Friend is a long-standing champion of civil liberties and press freedom; in fact, there is probably no greater one in this House, and I am grateful to him for the UQ and the opportunity to place on record again—because, as I said, this cannot be said often enough—the Government’s absolute commitment to protect the freedom of the press. That is a cornerstone of our democratic processes, and he has heard that from the Prime Minister, the two men who want to be the next Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and anyone else at a microphone; that is entirely sincere.
My right hon. Friend is also quite right to point out that the Investigatory Powers Act has been subject to a tightening-up process, in large part stimulated by the promptings of himself and colleagues. The point I was trying to stress in my remarks is that we do believe—although this is being challenged and will continue to be challenged by people who take a different view—that the safeguards and protections in place and what our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies are required to go through in terms of, for example, seeking a targeted communications data authorisation are extremely stringent.
As my right hon. Friend said, authorisations in this case need to be approved by a judicial commissioner. A Government of any colour need to be subject to scrutiny and challenge on the robustness of these approaches. I am not going to comment on the specific case; I am here simply to set out the process in relation to the protections that my right hon. Friend and others quite rightly seek to be reassured by, and I hope that I have done so.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Press freedom is an integral part of democracy. We do not have too much freedom of the press in this country; we have too little. Can it be right that the press is threatened for publishing material that is in the public interest? The illegality in leaking the British ambassador to Washington’s thoughts may be tested in the courts, so I shall be cautious about any remarks on that, but surely it cannot be illegal to publish those remarks simply because they are the cause of embarrassment to the Government. Surely, it cannot be right that scanning technology is being used against journalists to investigate the leak. Is it open to the Home Secretary to issue guidance to police forces on this matter, to ensure that there is not now or in the future this trawling of journalists’ phones, laptops and other devices?
In another case earlier this month, the Belfast High Court declared that the warrants authorising the search and arrest of two documentary filmmakers were unlawful and that everything seized from the filmmakers must be returned. The filmmakers had previously released a documentary about a mass killing in Northern Ireland for which no one has ever been charged, “No Stone Unturned.” The Belfast High Court was surely right, but this case highlights the need for greater judicial oversight of the police and the security services, especially in their dealings with the press.
Mr Hurd
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to make it clear on behalf of the Opposition that they entirely support the police having the ability to get on with their work and identify the leaker. The police certainly have our full support on that, because those leaks should not have happened and they have been damaging. I am sure everyone wants to see the leaker identified.
The hon. Gentleman will also I am sure, having done his homework, be aware of what the Official Secrets Act 1989 says, in particular section 5, and that is how the law stands at the moment, but what is critical—I am delighted to come to the House again to make this clear—is that in going about their business on our behalf, the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies need to jump through some very significant hoops and go through very robust processes, including, as I have stated, when they seek a targeted communications data authorisation approval by a judicial commissioner before it can take effect. We are satisfied—but this must always be open to challenge—that those processes, safeguards and checks and balances are robust.
We operate in a vibrant democracy, and we in this place always in my experience have vigorous debates about these balances and the need for safeguards. We have debates about pushing back the powers of our law enforcement agencies—whereas in other countries those debates do not take place—and that is a symbol and sign of the health of our democracy. I am sure that at the end of this UQ, we and the watching public will be in no doubt about this House’s commitment to the freedom of the press.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I commend the Government on the organisation of last week’s excellent global media freedom conference, but does the Minister agree that the UK needs to do a lot more to improve on our present ranking of 33 in the world press freedom index? Does he also recognise that the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) make that harder to achieve and that these concerns risk being exploited by other countries who do not protect media freedom and are only too keen to lock up journalists?
Mr Hurd
I accept all that, coming from the authority of a highly distinguished former Secretary of State. I am entirely sincere, as are my colleagues, in taking this opportunity to reassert the importance of the freedom of the press and the protection of media freedoms, but we cannot in that process allow any sense that there is a blanket protection for legitimate investigation simply because of someone’s chosen profession. The processes need to be robust and open to criticism and debate, but the primacy of the free press and freedom of expression in this country is absolutely central to our democratic processes.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this question. It is indeed ironic that we are discussing these matters the week after the British Government hosted the first global conference on media freedom. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about convening a panel of experts to advise countries on how to strengthen the legal protection of journalists. On the evidence of some of the statements made over the past few days, the convener of that panel might be best advised to start close to home.
The Scottish National party has made it clear that we deplore diplomatic leaks as unacceptable and that they should be investigated. However, in times of crisis we need to remember that we must uphold human rights, and particularly press freedom. I wonder whether there were any official secrets in the ambassador’s leaked comments. After all, it is hardly a secret that Donald Trump is inept, and the police really ought to understand that the Official Secrets Act 1989 is not there to protect the Government from embarrassment. I am sure that they do understand that, but if they do not, I am sure that they will be reminded by those who give them legal advice. Will the Minister tell the House who escalated these investigations to the police, and why? Was it Downing Street, as some newspapers have reported? If an offence has been committed and the police are to be involved, would they not be better employed catching the leaker rather than shooting the messenger?
Mr Hurd
The hon. and learned Lady is right to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said earlier, and it is something to be proud of that a British Foreign Secretary has chosen the championing of media freedom as one of his core campaigns and chosen to take that message around the world. The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect the Government from embarrassment; it is there for all the reasons that we know. My desire is for the police to be able to get on with their job and identify the leaker. That is their primary objective.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I add a little more to the point that has just been made? Why were the police brought in? As a former journalist of some 17 years, I know that journalists rely on sources to give the news to the public. Let us face it, there have been leaks before and there will be leaks in the future, and this leak was embarrassing but it was nothing to do with the defence of our country. If the police are to be called in every time there is a leak, every journalist in the country is going to fear that their newsroom will be full of officers in blue every time a story with the potential to hurt someone in power is published.
Mr Hurd
I understand the point my hon. Friend is making, and I understand that the comments from the Met have generated ripples, but this was a serious leak and it is entirely appropriate that the police should look at it seriously. I hope he will support me in wishing them every success in doing their job, which is to find the leaker. I do not interpret what has been said as anything other than a clarification of the law as it stands, and I hope that he will join me in my determination to identify the source of this damaging leak.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
There is a big difference between the targeted collection of evidence in the pursuit of serious criminal offences and a fishing expedition in which Government embarrassment is a factor. This seems rather too near to the second of those. Never mind journalists—the general public are concerned about the way in which the state and other agencies are now able to collect data on them. Should we not be on the public’s side? Should not the Government be publishing information, in readable and accessible form, on people’s rights to privacy and on the right of the state to intrude on them?
Mr Hurd
I am all for more transparency, and I hope we are all on the side of upholding the law. What I have been trying to set out, in what I hope is a reassuring way, is that there are robust safeguards in place for when our law enforcement agencies seek specific powers. The guidance and the codes around that are explicit and extensive in regard to protecting journalists.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the answers he has given thus far. The balance between the duties of the police and the freedom of the press is clearly vital, but can he reassure the House that the police are not interpreting their role in a widespread manner and therefore snooping on journalists who have nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation of this particular leak?
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I was on the Investigatory Powers Bill Committee, and one of the most contentious areas of debate in that period was public interest. When the Judicial Commissioner makes a judgment based on public interest, what do the Minister and his Department do to ensure that that interpretation is the correct one and that it is appropriate to the time and accountable to this House?
Mr Hurd
There is a great deal of guidance around this subject, but the hon. Gentleman is right and I thank him for his work on that scrutiny. I am happy to repeat the point that, in deciding whether to approve an authorisation—for example, a targeted communications data authorisation—the Judicial Commissioner must have regard to
“the public interest in protecting a source of journalistic information, and…the need for there to be another overriding public interest before a relevant public authority seeks to identify or confirm a source of journalistic information.”
That is explicit.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister must surely agree that part of the problem is the application of technology, particularly automation, to police powers without appropriate protections or even public debate. We might understand the need for a particular warrant for specific documents in the case of criminal activity, but the automated blanket trawling of all emails, locations and conversations for all journalists is clearly inappropriate. It is not only journalists who could be targeted; the rest of us also deserve protection from digital surveillance, video and voice recognition. Does the Minister agree that we need a charter of digital rights for all of us, as Labour is advocating?
Mr Hurd
If the hon. Lady is talking specifically about the examination of data under a bulk acquisition warrant, I would again point to the whole set of codes, guidance, processes and safeguards that relate to that. If she is talking about the broader issue around the application of technology and artificial intelligence to the working of our law enforcement agencies, she is entirely right to suggest that, as we stand on the brink of a revolution in what technology can enable our law enforcement agencies to do, we as citizens need to feel comfortable and confident with that, and that we need to have the appropriate legal and regulatory environment for it, which is what we believe we have.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Mr Newlands, I thought you were seeking to take part in the debate.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I would be delighted to take part, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
You are on my list as someone who was interested in doing so, but perhaps you were resting your knee muscles.
Gavin Newlands
I certainly was, Mr Speaker, but I was going to bob up again in a second. I am grateful for your observation.
I was also on the Investigatory Powers Bill Committee. During the progress of that Bill, the then Solicitor General, the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), said:
“We are absolutely committed to the preservation and protection of a free press and freedom of expression in our democratic society. That includes the ability of sources to provide anonymous information to journalists, which is absolutely vital if we are to have throughput of important information that needs to be in the public domain.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 12 April 2016; c. 193.]
Given the events of recent days, can the Minister tell me what has changed in Government policy?
Mr Hurd
I hope the hon. Gentleman’s knees are all right.
I honestly do not think that there has been a change in policy, and I have set out the processes around the Investigatory Powers Act, which he and other colleagues helped to shape and toughen. He will know better than me that those processes are now robust, and the police are complying with them.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for bringing this vital matter to the House’s attention. The Minister has said on more than one occasion that, while he values press freedom, an individual should not have protection from legitimate inquiry simply because of the profession they chose. However, the very purpose of the journalistic profession is to scrutinise Government and to ensure that human rights are adhered to and that Government procedures are followed. Does the Minister therefore accept that we need something from the Government to ensure that, given advances in scanning and tracking technology, journalists are protected when providing that valuable public service?
Mr Hurd
Journalists provide an incredibly important service in our democracy, and I have been entirely sincere in everything that I have said. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that someone should be above the law or receive blanket protection from legitimate investigation in limited circumstances simply because they are a journalist. The right processes, safeguards and checks and balances need to be in place. Frankly, we need the right challenge on law enforcement agencies when they seek authorisations to pursue investigations. I have set out what is in the Investigatory Powers Act, which I believe is a robust process.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The problem is that the police and security services were given these powers to allow them to prevent and detect serious crime, but there is absolutely no suggestion that those now being put under random widespread surveillance committed a crime. If a crime has been committed, it was committed either by a civil servant or a Member of Parliament. We obviously cannot know for certain whether the reports referred to by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) have any accuracy to them, but if they do, they point to the police using their powers not to prevent serious crime, but to intimidate and harass journalists, whose job it is to hold the police and us to account. Will the Minister undertake to carry out a review, reporting in Privy Council terms if necessary, into the Met Police’s actions, so that this Parliament can be the final arbiter of whether the powers that we agreed to give to the police are being abused?
Mr Hurd
It is wrong for the House, and certainly for Ministers, to speculate on the outcome of this particular investigation. We need to let the police get on with their work, but they and others will have heard clearly the House’s messages of concern. I return to the fact that this Parliament has set up a robust process of checks and balances on the police.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to provide an update on the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s family have told us that she was admitted to a psychiatric ward in the Imam Khomeini public hospital on Monday. Her family have yet to be allowed to visit her or to make a phone call. We are lobbying the Iranian authorities to ensure that her family are able to visit as soon as possible, as well as continuing to lobby for consular access, so that we can check on her care as a matter of urgency. We remain in close contact with her family in Tehran and with Richard Ratcliffe in London.
The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister on Saturday 13 July and raised Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case and those of other dual nationals detained in Iran. The Foreign Secretary made it clear, as he has in public, that innocent people in prison must not be used as diplomatic leverage and called for their release. I also raised the case on a recent visit to Iran. The Foreign Secretary exercised diplomatic protection in March 2019, and we will continue to do all we can to reunite Nazanin and her family. The Government lobby strongly on the behalf of all our dual national cases, including Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, at the highest levels. The welfare of British nationals in detention is a high priority for us. We have made it clear that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe must be treated humanely and in line with international standards and norms.
If I can say something on a personal note as a parent, this case has rightly gripped the hearts of the British people. I hope that this development is the first step towards a brighter future for Nazanin and her family. I hope that Iran will be generous and humane in their approach to this family, who have been separated for far too long, that we can rely on elements within Iran that we know are decent and civilised, that they will apply international norms and behaviours in respect of this sad case, and that Nazanin and her family can be brought together as soon as possible.
Tulip Siddiq
Mr Speaker, thank you for granting this urgent question and for taking the time to visit Richard Ratcliffe, Nazanin’s husband, while he was on hunger strike outside the Iranian embassy two weeks ago. Indeed, I thank the more than 100 Members of this House who visited Richard, sending a strong message to Iran that while it may continue to abuse Nazanin’s human rights, we will be listening and protecting her. I am pleased to say that Richard is in the Gallery today.
I sought this urgent question because my constituent’s plight is urgent and desperate. On Monday, handcuffed and shackled at the ankles, Nazanin was taken from her cell in Evin prison to a psychiatric ward in the Imam Khomeini hospital in Tehran. The reason for the move has not been made clear to her family or her lawyers. She has not been allowed to update her family by phone or by visit, and we have no idea how she is being treated. Her family have been shut out, her ward sealed off, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are not allowing any human contact. The family fear that she is being drugged or tortured and may be forced to sign a confession to unnamed crimes.
Nazanin is a young mother from West Hampstead. She was on holiday in Iran when she was abducted and illegally imprisoned, spending many months in solitary confinement before her family was allowed to visit. She has lost three years of her life to this hell, and with her sentence having been increased due to extra charges brought against her, her future seems bleak.
With all that in mind, what urgent steps are the Government taking to establish what treatment Nazanin is receiving? What protests have the Government made regarding the fact that Nazanin was shackled like a caged animal on her way to receiving urgent medical care? The Government have offered Nazanin diplomatic protection—the first such case in 100 years—and have escalated her case to a country-to-country dispute, for which we and her family are grateful. What further steps have the Government taken to secure Nazanin’s freedom?
Finally, a week ago, the Royal Marines impounded the Iranian tanker Grace 1 off the coast of Gibraltar. What is the Minister’s assessment of the Iranian Supreme Leader comments that Iran’s
“committed forces will not leave this evil without a response”?
Does he share my concern that that retribution may be targeted at Nazanin? I ask those questions not because I doubt the current Foreign Secretary’s sincerity when he says that he cares about my constituent’s freedom—I know that he has made time to meet Nazanin’s husband and family and has spoken to me as well—but because the time for sentiment is over. This situation has gone on for too long, and we need decisive action right now.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady’s question and the way in which she has put her remarks today do her great credit, and the work she does for her constituent is admirable.
We are, of course, seeking consular access. We have sought consular access from the beginning of this case. We believe that, as circumstances have changed, consular access now needs to be granted urgently. More importantly, we want to ensure that Nazanin gets access to her family. The hon. Lady will be in contact with the family, as are we, and it is the best way we have of determining Nazanin’s status right now. Indeed, it would be cruel to deny this lady, in a psychiatric ward of a public hospital, access to her family, which must happen immediately.
I deplore the maltreatment of prisoners, wherever it occurs. The hon. Lady’s description is completely unacceptable, and it is completely contrary to any international norms. She will understand that the Iranian system is multifarious, and we are concerned about exactly who is controlling the situation as far as Nazanin is concerned. I appeal to the better nature of people in Tehran to do what is right for Nazanin—that is vital.
The hon. Lady touches on Grace 1, and she will anticipate my answer, which is that this is primarily a matter for the Gibraltarian authorities, who are exercising a matter of law under EU sanctions. I do not believe the two cases are directly linked. However, we certainly need to ensure there is de-escalation in relation to our interaction with Iran, in Gibraltar and in the Gulf. When I visited Tehran recently, de-escalation was absolutely my message. Were we to approach something that looks like normality in relation to our access to this particular piece, all sorts of things would be possible.
I sincerely urge our interlocutors in Tehran to approach this on the basis of decency and humanity so that Nazanin can be given the treatment that she undoubtedly requires, but in a proper setting and using proper norms and practices.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Two weeks ago I was humbled to host a conference on human rights in Iran, and Richard Ratcliffe was one of the speakers. He said that all he wanted was for his wife to be returned so they can be a family again. We also heard from the UN rapporteur on human rights in Iran, who talked about the widespread human rights abuses in Iran. This weekend I was at a conference where I heard at first hand the human rights abuses that many people have suffered in Iran.
Can my right hon. Friend therefore outline the action we can take, as a country, to restore Nazanin to her family? The reality is that the Iranians only understand one thing, which is firmness, and we are currently seen not to be taking a firm enough stance.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend will understand that the tools in our toolbox are somewhat limited. Iran is an independent and proud nation that has its own view of its place in the world, and it requires us to show some respect, but we need to deplore the things it is doing in respect of the victims of human rights abuses, which are particular acute in Iran.
The UK Government clearly use every opportunity to impress upon Iran how unsatisfactory we regard its approach to human rights to be. However, we also need to ensure that Nazanin comes home, which is our principal priority in this matter. I appeal to Iran, not least because its reputation in this country is being severely damaged, to do the decent thing.
Iran must look at this in a sympathetic light and do what is right, proper and humane in respect of Nazanin, particularly as she has now been moved to the Imam Khomeini Hospital, where she is being treated. We want to know how she is being treated, and whether she is being given the right treatment and in what context. Above all, she must have access to her family, but she must also have consular access, through which we will be able to make a better judgment on where we are.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I not only congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing it, but join the Minister in applauding and thanking her on behalf of the whole House for the outstanding passion and persistence she has brought to the fight for Nazanin’s freedom—she is an outstanding Back Bencher.
For all of us who have taken part in this fight, and for all of us who visited Richard Ratcliffe during his recent hunger strike outside the Iranian embassy, the developments we have seen over the past 24 hours are deeply troubling. The fact that Nazanin is back under the control of the Revolutionary Guard, being held in isolation and denied access to consular staff and to her father, has rightly raised concern that she may be being pressed to sign a false confession.
We all know that the hard-line theocrats around Khamenei who have been responsible for Nazanin’s arrest and detention, and her appalling treatment in custody, do not care about the truth of Nazanin’s case, the reality of her innocence or the mental and physical cruelty that has been inflicted on her. They care only about exploiting her and lying about her to support their doctrine of embattlement and isolationism, and to undermine the Rouhani Government’s strategy of engagement. They are the same individuals who have revelled in the collapse of the Iranian nuclear deal, and who are wilfully risking conflict with their actions in the Strait of Hormuz. On a practical level, can the Minister tell us today what is being done to engage with the figures around Khamenei, not just the Rouhani Government, on Nazanin’s case?
Finally, on a wider level, does the Minister agree with the veteran BBC correspondent John Simpson, a man with better insight than most of us put together on matters of diplomacy and foreign policy, that there are two villains in this terrible situation? As John tweeted this morning, Nazanin is both
“the victim of a campaign by political extremists in Iran, and of the carelessness of @BorisJohnson as foreign secretary.”
Does the Minister agree with that verdict, and will he condemn the former Foreign Secretary—our next Prime Minister—for handing Iran’s hard-liners their biggest excuse, their biggest piece of propaganda, to justify this horrific injustice to one of our own citizens?
Dr Murrison
The right hon. Lady has elegantly dissected the Iranian state in a very few minutes, and she probably puts her finger on it. Of course, anybody with any experience of Iran will know that there are many Irans, as I touched on in my opening remarks.
We are, of course, concerned by any access that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has to this particular case. I would say, though, that the IRGC does care about its reputation. It certainly cares about its country’s reputation, and so does the supreme leader. That reputation hangs in the balance.
The generosity and humanity with which Iran has historically been associated would be amply demonstrated if Iran were to do the right thing in respect of Nazanin. I urge it to do that, if not on Nazanin’s behalf, on behalf of Iran’s reputation, which is rightly important to it.
The right hon. Lady asks how close we are to the supreme leader and, again, she well knows, because she is a student of these things, that access to the supreme leader is exceptionally difficult. We have spoken to President Rouhani, and we routinely engage with our ministerial interlocutors, Minister Zarif and, in my case, Minister Araghchi, and we will continue to do so.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Iran, of course, is somewhat separate from the IRGC, and it is important to reiterate that we are ensuring the IRGC gets the message that the eyes of the world are on Iran in respect of this case and, if it continues to behave in this way, it will trample all over the good opinion that international observers might have, even now, of Iran—it will do Iran and its people no good at all.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn on securing the urgent question and you on granting it, Mr Speaker. She and the family will know that they have the full support and solidarity of Scottish National party Members. It was indeed a privilege when I met Richard when he was campaigning outside the Iranian embassy, as did many of my colleagues, including our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).
This move into hospital is a worrying turn of events, which raises serious questions about Nazanin’s wellbeing and a particular concern about the risk of her being forced into signing some kind of false confession. So, as other Members are asking, are the UK Government satisfied that they are exhausting every possible avenue to rectify this situation? What is the point of diplomatic protection if it cannot prevent this kind of development? Will the Minister state unequivocally that the UK Government’s commitment to freeing Nazanin goes beyond any particular set of personnel or Ministers, and that freeing Nazanin must be a top priority for the next Prime Minister, whoever that might be?
Dr Murrison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Nazanin has been transferred to a public hospital. Nazanin certainly does need medical treatment, and we have been calling for that for a very long time. If she does not get the treatment she requires, if she is abused in hospital or if the purpose of transferring her to hospital is to abuse her further than has been the case already, that would be a cause for utter condemnation, as would any forced confession. We have flagged that up pretty well today. In the event that a confession is obtained from Nazanin, the international community is perfectly entitled to question it, to put it mildly.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to establish the top priorities of the incoming Prime Minister. He can be sure that, one way or the other, Nazanin will be at the forefront of the mind of whoever is successful in this contest next week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Further exchanges will unfold, but at this point I would like to say that all Members who visited you, Richard, when you were outside the Iranian embassy on your hunger strike will have regarded it as a great personal privilege and honour to have done so. Although people tend courteously to say, “It is good of this Member or that Member to find the time in a busy schedule”, I do not think we view it in those terms. As I say, we saw it as an honour to visit you. I am going to say to you very publicly what I have said to others and what I said to you: I was struck by your extraordinary stoicism and forbearance, a standard to which, in such circumstances, any of us could aspire but, I suspect, none of us would attain. It really was a very humbling experience. In my case, of course, I had the pleasure of not only meeting and engaging with you for the first time, but meeting your sister and your mum to boot. I want you and all of your family, and your precious daughter, to know that you will never be forgotten. The Minister has treated of these matters already in the most sensitive terms, as have other colleagues. For as long as it is necessary for this matter to be raised, as it has been by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, with persistence and passion, it will be raised. This matter, the Iranians need to know, will not go away until mother and daughter, mother and wife and husband, are reconciled so that they can live as one.
I also want to mention what I have just been told by the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), which is that 13 of her constituents, 13 wonderful women, who, it is said, wholly implausibly to me, are of an average age of 80—I cannot see any such people in the Gallery–have made a special visit to the House today to observe our proceedings. They, together with everybody else, should be warmly welcomed. I hope you are witnessing the House at its best, treating of an extremely serious matter, on a cross-party basis, because it is not about party politics; it is about humanity and the requirement for the display of humanity in the conduct of public affairs.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn on securing this urgent question and on the powerful way in which she has been an advocate for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, her constituent. I thank the Minister for his efforts and those of the current Foreign Secretary in trying to secure Nazanin’s release. We can only imagine the anguish caused by the way in which this mother is separated from her daughter, and we hope this can be swiftly resolved so that the family can be reunited. What can the Minister do to bring that about? I also want to ask him about the wider issue of the disturbing trend of Iran arresting people on trumped up charges, with them effectively becoming hostages to geopolitical disputes they have nothing to do with. That behaviour is entirely unacceptable as a tactic. As the Minister says, it risks huge reputational damage to the state, so what more can this Government, perhaps through the auspices of the United Nations, do to raise that wider issue, and to crystallise to the Iranian state and any others that wish to undertake this tactic that it is counterproductive and not acceptable?
Dr Murrison
We have made it very clear that this is not acceptable, to put it mildly. I do not think the international community can be left in any doubt as to the importance we place on this and the views of like-minded countries in respect of it. I appeal to Iran just to consider what this is doing to its reputation. Nazanin has been wrongly imprisoned. She has been maltreated in an extremely serious way, as have her family. The right thing to do now is to reunite her with her family, as a minimum, to ensure that they have immediate access to Nazanin and that they are able to make phone calls to her, so that we can try to get to the bottom of exactly what is happening and whether she is getting the treatment we have long been calling for. Of course, other issues prey on the minds of those in the UN right now in respect of Iran, and its behaviour and destabilising actions in the wider Gulf region, and I rather suspect that in further questioning this morning we might return to those.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the Minister in advance of tomorrow’s meeting with me on behalf of a constituent who is in a similar position to Nazanin. On the wider implications question, is there any movement on the issue of the deal and the notion that the European Union could help with the INSTEX—Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges—approach in providing some kind of outlet for some of this frustration, so that there is a way for Iran to fix some of its economic problems and therefore have more of a dialogue with countries such as the UK?
Dr Murrison
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I look forward to meeting her tomorrow. I hope that the JCPOA—Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—is capable of being advanced; I hope that we are not seeing the end of it. It is a credible mechanism for encouraging Iran to trade properly with the west, and a lot falls from that. She will know that the special purpose vehicle, INSTEX, created by the E3, which was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with our interlocutors at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, is about to go live. I discussed it when I was in Tehran recently with my interlocutors. They have a sense of frustration in respect of this needing to be up and running, so that we can start doing business through it and they can get some of what they want, based around the necessities of daily life, which people in Iran at the moment are being deprived of because of sanctions. I am hopeful that this will work and that in the next few days and very few weeks INSTEX will be up and running. Iran will therefore see that good behaviour can be rewarded and in the fullness of time this can be used to perhaps reintroduce, in a small way, Iran to a proper international discourse and dialogue, which at the moment I am afraid is severely bruised.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I think you, Mr Speaker, spoke for many of us, if not all, who visited Richard Ratcliffe during his hunger strike and met possibly even more of his family than you did—I think his brother was there on the day I was there. I thank the Minister for the tone he has adopted in tackling this issue, and I obviously congratulate Nazanin’s Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), on raising the issue again.
Surely the difficulty is that this case is wrapped up in a complicated scenario that involves so many different things that have nothing to do with the particular issues that Mrs Ratcliffe’s case involves. My right hon. Friend the Minister will of course know that she is not the only British prisoner currently in Iran, nor are there only British prisoners in Iranian jails. Will he confirm that, in respect of the widest possible issue, the way in which some elements in Iran appear to be damaging that country’s reputation—not just with us but with other countries—by using hostages as a sort of political weapon is very sadly letting down Iran’s reputation around the world?
Dr Murrison
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He refers to other dual nationals whom we are concerned about; we have to be a little careful, because not all the families of those dual nationals seek to advance cases publicly, and we must be led by them and their desires in how we approach this issue. It is a sensitive and individual matter, and we need to ensure that our approach to each of those cases is bespoke. That is what we will continue to do.
On Iran’s overall reputation not only in this country but in other countries, because this will involve other countries, too, I would say that now is the time to take a different approach to this particular case. It is very high-profile—much more so than the other cases we are currently dealing with—and if Iran can make progress with this case in the way I have described, its reputation, which is sadly not great among the international community at the moment, will improve significantly. It can do itself a whole lot of good by adopting a far more positive and humane approach to this particular case, and I urge it to do so.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Occasionally, people say, “What do MPs actually do for the money we spend on them?” May I say that this is exactly what MPs should be doing? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on continually raising this case. I, too, had the privilege of spending time with Richard and his mum and sister. After speaking to them, I can only understand that every hour that goes by when your child is separated from you, undergoing who knows what, must feel like a week.
The Minister has given a reasoned and determined reply to the urgent question. Will he reassure us that the changes at the very top—in respect of the Prime Minister—will not affect his Department’s determination? Will he reassure us that, with the long recess approaching, work will continue at the pace at which he wishes it to?
Dr Murrison
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I do not anticipate moving—touch wood—and she can be absolutely sure that this issue is right at the top of my list of priorities. Like the Vicar of Bray, come what may I hope very much that I will be here ensuring that this remains absolutely top priority, along with other dual national cases. For the reasons I have described, this case has particular poignancy, and the hon. Lady can be sure that I will continue to do what I can with my Iranian interlocutors to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am not sure that the Vicar of Bray is the right person to cite, because he changed his religion whenever the regime changed, as I remember it, and the Minister has proved himself so far to be remarkably measured and sensible in everything he has said today.
Despite all the human rights abuses in Iran, the truth is that Islam at its best can be a religion of phenomenal humanity, generosity and magnanimity, and I think that is what we are hoping for at the moment, is it not? I just wonder whether there are not other envoys that we might send from this country—perhaps from the Church or on an interfaith basis—who might be able to speak of that humanity, compassion and magnanimity and be able to bring about the result that we all earnestly hope for.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is far better qualified to talk about the Vicar of Bray than I am—
Dr Murrison
Believe me, it is a compliment; I am paying the hon. Gentleman a compliment, noting his previous occupation. He makes a serious suggestion that is worth considering by all involved in this case. We have lost no opportunity to raise these dual national cases with those to whom we have been given access, at ministerial level and other levels, over the course of this sorry saga, and we will continue to do so. Of course, people need to articulate their concerns, and that is not confined to Ministers. National leaders of various sorts have commented on this case, and if they used any influence they can with their contacts in Tehran, that would be a very positive thing. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister might not know that I am a man of faith—I have personal faith, and in days gone by I have been the parliamentary churchwarden, a lay canon at Wakefield cathedral and an active member of Christians in Parliament. I do not want to say anything that would give Nazanin any more problems than she has. I snuck into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) the other day, and I just stood, as a silent vigil, outside the Iranian embassy. I found that useful for me, but I would like other Members of Parliament to join me and go back to do that regularly, in a quiet, respectful way, just to keep it going after the hunger strike has finished.
We must appeal to the Iranians in terms of faith. Why do we not persuade the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead an all-faith group to Iran, to appeal to the better natures of very religious people to see that this is a travesty of faith and a travesty of justice?
Dr Murrison
I hope very much that the Archbishop of Canterbury is listening to the hon. Gentleman, and that perhaps he might consider whether he or other faith leaders have a role to play in this matter. I am not sure whether the established Church is the best vehicle, but it is universally recognised as being positive and capable of talking to people of all faiths and none. My view on this matter is that dialogue is necessary, notwithstanding the nature of the individuals who we know are intimately connected with this case in Tehran and who have not in the past shown themselves to be the masters of dialogue.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this urgent question and for the way she champions her constituent’s case.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) both made a really important point about looking at other ways of trying to put pressure on the Iranian authorities. The Minister is a very good Minister, but what more can the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do to co-ordinate not just the diplomatic pressure that needs to be applied, but the wider pressure that can come from society, the Churches and other faiths? Why is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not doing that? From the answer that the Minister just gave, it sounded like that co-ordination was not under way.
Dr Murrison
I am always open to suggestion; however, having considered the matter in respect of the Church of England in the few minutes I have had to do so, I think we need to be a little bit careful, because Iran is inherently suspicious of this country. If the hon. Lady doubts that, perhaps she might like to refer to Jack Straw’s excellent book that has just been published; I commend it to all right hon. and hon. Members who take an interest in these matters. There is a long-standing suspicion of this country in Tehran, and there will be a suspicion of any initiative that is prompted or engineered by the UK Government. It would certainly be open to organisations that are held in some esteem in Tehran to speak to any interlocutors they are able to identify and have access to in Iran, in order to put pressure on where they can and to bring their good counsel to bear in respect of this case and other cases relating to dual nationals.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This case is clearly of deep concern to the whole country, particularly the developments we have heard about in the last 24 hours. It is particularly heartbreaking for Richard Ratcliffe and his family. I can describe Richard only as a very gracious individual after meeting him. I ask the Minister not just what his office is doing, but how the Prime Minister’s office is responding. She has just one week left in office. Will she mobilise all the forces of her office, including, if necessary and if possible, making a diplomatic visit to Iran in the time that she has left, and make it her priority to see the release of this mother and wife?
Dr Murrison
I am confident that the issue has been a high priority for the Prime Minister. She has spoken to President Rouhani about it. It is a high priority for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is frequently in touch with his interlocutors in the matter. It is also, and will continue to be, a high priority for me, as I have explained.
Often, the issue with Iran is getting access. It cannot be taken for granted that access will be automatically welcomed, or indeed provided. I very much hope, however, that we will continue to be able to press the case with those who are in a position to influence the outcome. I have described how it is sometimes difficult to identify those who are in a position to make a decision or determination on the matter. It is not as if one were approaching a western liberal democracy; I fear things operate very differently in Tehran.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I send my solidarity, and that of my constituents, who contact me regularly about the issue, to Nazanin and her family. I have a number of constituents who are Iranian nationals awaiting decisions from the Home Office on asylum and other issues. I ask whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has given any updated advice to the Minister’s colleagues in the Home Office about how those cases should be treated, in the light of the serious situation emerging in Iran. I would not want any of my constituents to be returned to Iran by the Home Office to face a situation similar to the one that Nazanin and others have faced. If he has not, I ask him to speak to his colleagues in the Home Office to make sure that something is in place to protect everybody in those circumstances.
Dr Murrison
As the hon. Lady will know, each asylum case is treated on its own merits in the light of prevailing circumstances, so I obviously cannot comment, because I do not know the individual cases to which she refers. I do know, however, that each one is treated individually by the Home Office and that a determination is made according to the perceived risk that they face, which will clearly alter with time.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Minister for his tone this afternoon, but may I press him to agree, no ifs or buts, that when the incoming Prime Minister joins us, he must make Nazanin’s release an absolute priority? I ask, gently and genuinely, should that Prime Minister be the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), how we can ensure that he is appropriately briefed on Nazanin’s situation. I hope the Minister agrees that it is imperative that we avoid any repeat of earlier blunders.
Dr Murrison
I know that my right hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) are greatly exercised by this case. I assure the hon. Lady that they are extremely well read into it now. I am absolutely confident that, whatever the outcome next week, the Prime Minister will treat the case with the priority that I think it deserves. I reassure her, however, that I shall be there, inshallah, prompting them to ensure that the matter has the highest priority.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I, too, stand in solidarity with Richard and his family, and all hon. Members in the House today, to say that we need Nazanin home now.
When Nazanin’s father rushed to see his daughter in her hospital bed, his access was blocked by the revolutionary guard, which is a shocking turn of events that has affected us all. All of Nazanin’s family, including her sister-in-law Rebecca, who lives in my constituency, are going through hell as her situation deteriorates. When will the Government explore new ways to get Nazanin home safely as quickly as possible?
Dr Murrison
I share the hon. Lady’s frustration—I really do. I want this brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. She has to appreciate, though, that the United Kingdom has a limited number of tools in its toolbox, which is part of our frustration. I would love to be able to resolve it tomorrow, but all we can do is what we do diplomatically, which is to put pressure on our interlocutors and try to explain to them what the benefits are, not only for the individuals concerned, but for the country concerned, of bringing it to a satisfactory resolution. It is truly a win-win situation—it is clearly a win for Nazanin and her family that she should be released as soon as possible, and it is a win for the reputation of Iran.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has conducted his response to the urgent question. There is widespread support across the House for the humanitarian challenge that is before us, and particularly before the Ratcliffe family.
Does the Minister agree that this is not the time or place for any attempts across the House, however gently put, to seek party political advantage or division as a result of the changes to the Conservative leadership? We should all focus on ensuring that Nazanin can be returned to this country and on doing whatever we can to make representations to the right people in Iran to secure her release, irrespective of other political events surrounding our relationship with Iran.
Dr Murrison
Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend. I recall the remarks that you made a few minutes ago, Mr Speaker, about how this sort of issue sees the House is acting at its best, that we are not being partisan and that we are clearly focused on the interests of Nazanin and other dual nationals. That is where we need to be focused. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to approach these matters in that light and in the manner to which you rightly alluded, Mr Speaker.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is good to know that the Minister feels secure in his post. With all respect to him, however, Nazanin’s fate has been tied to the person of the Foreign Secretary, current and previous, for good or ill. I am not asking him to predict who will be the Foreign Secretary in a week’s time, but will he assure us that all eventualities are being planned for in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that the matter remains at the top of the agenda and we do not have any more confusion and delay?
Dr Murrison
I am not sure I would associate myself with the sense of security to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I assure him that the matter is right at the top of the priorities of the Department that I have the honour of being a Minister in. That will endure. I have sought to explain to the House that, whatever the outcome next week, I am confident that it will continue to be a high priority for No. 10.
Tulip Siddiq
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have already indulged me today, so I hope you will indulge me a little further while I read out a message from Richard Ratcliffe, my constituent. He says:
“On behalf of Nazanin’s whole family, I want to thank the Speaker and the House from the bottom of my heart for the support, compassion and empathy that you have shown us in these troubled times. We won’t stop fighting for her release, and I hope the House won’t stop either.”
Mr Speaker
It was unsolicited, but it is greatly appreciated. We won’t let go. I think there is a pact between us on this matter.
ROYAL Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No.3) Act 2019.
Immigration Detention: Victims of Modern Slavery
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on immigration detention and victims of modern slavery.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
Modern slavery is an abhorrent crime, and the Government are determined to stamp it out. In my role as Immigration Minister, I am especially aware of the shocking exploitation of vulnerable individuals from overseas who are duped by the promise of a better life in the UK, only to be trafficked and sold into modern slavery. Identifying and protecting victims of such crimes is a priority. In October 2017, we announced an ambitious package of reforms to the national referral mechanism. As well as improving the support on offer, these reforms are intended to provide quicker and more certain decision making, in which victims can have confidence.
I must make it clear, however, that being recognised as a victim of modern slavery does not automatically result in being granted immigration status in the UK. There may be victims of modern slavery who have no lawful basis to remain and for whom support is available to leave the UK voluntarily. It is important that we recognise the important role of our immigration policies. Although we are committed to supporting individuals to leave voluntarily, including with reintegration support, there may be occasions when they have exhausted all options and are refusing to leave, and we are faced with the difficult decision of detaining people to secure their return.
I want to reassure the House that we do not take these decisions lightly, but it may be necessary to detain individuals, even if they are vulnerable, to effect their removal. When that is the case, we seek to keep the period of detention as short as possible and place their welfare and safeguarding at the heart of what we do. The Home Secretary made clear his commitment to going further and faster with reforms to immigration detention, including by reducing the number of people we detain, increasing the number of voluntary returns and working with partners on alternatives to detention. We have made real progress in delivering these commitments. A number of women who would otherwise have been detained are now being managed in the community. Other pilots will begin later this year.
As we approach the first anniversary of Stephen Shaw’s second independent review of immigration detention, it is important to take stock of how far we have come, while acknowledging that there is much more to do to ensure that our approach to immigration detention is fair and humane.
Ms Abbott
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. On 19 June this year, the Immigration Minister provided a written answer on the possible immigration detention of persons who are in fact victims of slavery. The written answer read as follows:
“there is no central record”
of such persons, and
“The Home Office therefore does not collate or publish the data requested”.
However, we now learn from a freedom of information request by The Independent that that is not the case: 500 victims of enslavement or trafficking were held in immigration detention. I have myself visited Yarl’s Wood detention centre and met such persons.
In response to an earlier written question on 20 December last year, the Immigration Minister said:
“in cases in which it has been found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual may be a victim of trafficking or modern slavery, the appropriateness of their being detained, or of their detention continuing, is governed by the Home Office’s modern slavery policy. This means that such individuals will not be detained”.
How many people who are victims of trafficking or modern slavery have been held in previous years? How many such people are currently held? Are the Government not in breach of their own stated policy on detention? How many of the 400 detainees were assessed as being a threat to public order and on what grounds? Does the Minister accept that when she responded to the written question saying that no data was available, she was in fact misleading the House?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure the right hon. Lady that I certainly was not misleading the House: there is no central record of those who have received a positive, conclusive grounds decision and are detained under immigration powers. While that information may be obtainable from the live Home Office case information database, otherwise referred to as CID, the information would be for internal management only. For example, some data may be incomplete and freedom of information requests are heavily caveated as such.
Releases of data from CID are always caveated and sometimes it is possible the data is not always accurate; there may be instances where individuals are counted twice. It is standard practice in parliamentary questions that we do not provide information that does not form part of published statistics. CID will show only those individuals who have been referred into the NRM from immigration teams and would not cover those referred to the NRM from other first responders, such as the police, social services or, potentially, medical practitioners.
The right hon. Lady asks specifically about the 507 individuals referred to in the After Exploitation report. I want to be very clear on this point: those were not 507 individuals detained after getting a positive reasonable grounds. As stated very clearly in the freedom of information response, the figure relates to people who had a positive reasonable grounds when entering detention or while in detention.
Further analysis of the figures shows that, of the 507 people in question, 479 received the positive reasonable grounds decision during a detention period—and of those, 328, or 68%, were released within two days of the decision and in total 422 were released within a week. Of the 57 detained for eight days or more following a positive reasonable grounds decision, 81% were foreign national offenders.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What is particularly terrible about immigration detention is its indeterminate nature and the fact that detainees have so little information about their own cases and, indeed, about their rights. Habeas corpus is still one of our fundamental principles, isn’t it?
Caroline Nokes
Individuals in immigration detention are entitled to a free legal advice surgery of 30 minutes within the first 24 hours of their detention and to have as many of those surgeries thereafter. As part of the Shaw re-review of last year, we piloted automatic bail referrals after two months instead of four months, as previously.
I must correct my right hon. Friend: it is not lawful to detain individuals indefinitely. They may be detained only when there are realistic grounds for removal within a reasonable timescale.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Immigration detention is a hellish thing to inflict on anybody; that is especially true of victims of modern slavery and trafficking. Will the Government accept that the supposed safeguards, particularly the gatekeeping process, are just not working? Signs of trafficking and enslavement are not being picked up, as those 507 cases show. Even when they are, immigration enforcement factors are given greater priority.
What will be done to improve the malfunctioning gatekeeping process and when will an overhaul of the rule 35 process be completed? More fundamentally, for as long as we continue to detain people indefinitely in these awful institutions, should not decisions on whether to detain any individual and on who should be released be made entirely independently of the Home Office? At the very least, we need much stronger and faster independent judicial oversight.
Caroline Nokes
The Government are committed to ensuring that the rule 35 process operates effectively. In March this year, we launched our targeted consultation on the overhaul of the detention centre rules within which the operation of rule 35 is a key element; of course it is closely linked into the operation of the “adults at risk” policy. We continue to keep the detention gatekeeper function under close review, but I certainly think that it has shown an improvement on the situation before its introduction.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Many victims of modern-day slavery are young and many are women. What support is given to such victims if they are identified as victims of modern-day slavery in a detention centre?
Caroline Nokes
As my hon. Friend will know, it is through the national referral mechanism that potential victims of modern slavery will be referred, and then support will be available to them. She is absolutely right to point out that many victims of modern slavery are young and many are women. I am sure that she will be pleased with our introduction of the pilot scheme currently operating in Newcastle; we have released women, who would otherwise be detained at Yarl’s Wood, to be supported in the community. I am very much looking forward to the possibility of introducing further pilots later this year. They will include not just women but men.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Is there not something shocking about the Minister’s reply today? You may remember, Mr Speaker, that you allowed me a point of order on the factual inaccuracies that the Minister gave in a parliamentary answer when she said that she had no idea of the number of people who had escaped slavery and were now in detention centres. If it were not for After Exploitation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, we would have no idea what those numbers were. Since those parliamentary interventions, it is quite clear that the Minister has now been briefed on what is happening. Given that, in her answer to my right hon. Friend, she said that large numbers of people were now not in detention centres, may I ask her where they are, because when these people, largely women, are released like this, without any help, they are often scooped up by the slave owners.
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Gentleman will know that, at any one time, 95% of those liable to detention are actually in the community and not in immigration removal centres at all. It is important to emphasise that a freedom of information request will elicit different data to that which is available in parliamentary questions. I reiterate the point that no central record is held and that the information from the FOI has been collated from a variety of sources and may well give an inaccurate picture. If there is one thing that one learns as a Home Office Minister it is to be very wary of numbers at all times and not to seek to give numbers that may be inaccurate.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In my constituency, there are two immigration detention centres: Tinsley House and Brook House. May I seek assurances from the Minister that the staff who operate those centres receive correct and adequate training to ensure that they are identifying and detecting those who may have been victims of modern slavery?
Caroline Nokes
It is still very much the case that it is the Home Office and Home Office staff in the widest sense who identify the greatest number of victims of modern slavery. Training is provided, and it is important that training is not only provided, but refreshed and is an ongoing process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made her commitment clear on this issue, and it has been a driving force in the Home Office to support her in the mission to stamp out this terrible crime, to identify the victims and to ensure that they are given the help that they need as victims.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Government’s refusal to put a firewall between the police and labour inspection agencies and the Home Office for immigration purposes means that victims of modern slavery will continue to be at risk of detention and deportation. That is wrong, and it will deter victims from coming forward, which means that slavers and traffickers will get away with what they are doing. Will the Minister finally accept that data sharing for immigration enforcement must stop?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady is simply wrong to suggest that data sharing is always bad. In fact, in many instances, data sharing between the Home Office and the police can identify people who need to be safeguarded, and it is crucial that we have systems that will enable people to be correctly identified and then referred through the appropriate mechanisms. As I said in response to an earlier question, it is still the Home Office that identifies the highest number of victims of modern slavery.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), is it not the case that keeping numbers centrally might be a good idea? I understand that the Minister said that that number is not kept centrally, but part of my right hon. Friend’s point was that, perhaps, it should be.
Thangam Debbonaire
May I ask the Minister if she will reconsider the possibility of keeping such numbers centrally, including breaking them down, for instance, by how many victims of torture are kept in detention. I know that she will say that the number is low, but the rule on adults at risk surely suggests that that number should be kept as low as possible, and we cannot know if it is unless we know what those numbers are.
Caroline Nokes
The Home Office is making good progress in replacing antiquated case-working systems and data platforms, much of which will be complete by March next year, but it is a complex change process and although it will provide us with modern tools to protect and utilise data effectively, it is not an instant fix and will require further investment in the coming years. The changes will also mean that we will be able to act more swiftly to update systems to provide better organisation and granularity of data once they are deployed, but it does not negate the risk that data can be easily misinterpreted and each individual’s journey through the system is different, and aggregated information does not always represent the work undertaken. None the less, we will continue to focus on individual needs.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My constituent Joel White, from Pollokshields, emailed me 20 minutes ago to say that he is a regular visitor to Dungavel immigration removal centre. He asked me to raise the case of a man that he spoke to recently who said:
“The Home Office don’t tell me nothing—they don’t tell me what’s going on. When I sit down here, I don’t know what is going on. Time is just rolling down the road. You just lose your mind. I just need any help.”
This man has been in Dungavel for six months. He does not know whether he is being removed or whether he is likely to be released at any time. Will the Minister take on such cases and end the scandal of indefinite detention?
Caroline Nokes
I reiterate the point that detention can only be maintained where there is a realistic chance of removal within a reasonable timescale. The hon. Lady will have heard me comment earlier about auto-bail applications at two months. An individual in detention can apply for bail at any time. I urge her constituent to provide that advice to the individual concerned.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Every Child Protected Against Trafficking has worked with child victims of trafficking who have been detained in immigration detention having been incorrectly considered to be adults. Despite displaying indicators of having been trafficked, these children can struggle to prove their age. They may not have identity documents or they may have been given false identity documents by their traffickers. What efforts is the Home Office making to ensure that no child who is a victim of trafficking is being held in immigration detention?
Caroline Nokes
The UK ended the routine detention of children in immigration removal centres in 2010 and enshrined that in law under the Immigration Act 2014. It is worth noting that, in the last year of the previous Labour Government, 1,100 children were held in detention. However, in some cases, individuals without documentary evidence of their age who are detained as adults subsequently claim to be children. When that occurs, our revised interim policy states that they will be afforded the benefit of the doubt and released into the care of social services until a further assessment of their age has been made, unless their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are over 25 years of age. Home Office policy means that such cases may be counted as under-18s for the purposes of data collection, but the hon. Lady is right that we should not be detaining children, and we have put in place steps that will prevent that from happening. Where there is an age-dispute case, the benefit of the doubt will always be afforded to the individual.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (IGC)
I have repeatedly raised issues regarding victims of torture in immigration detention and asked questions on the number of Sri Lankan nationals granted refugee status after having previously been removed to Sri Lanka. Last November, the Minister said that there was no specific information available. It was only by pressing the Minister during a meeting in May that I was finally provided with the data requested—seven months after I asked the initial question. Why do we have to go to such lengths to pry information from the Home Office? Why do the Government withhold important data from public scrutiny? Where is the accountability and transparency in this situation?
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Lady will have heard my previous answers about the importance of relying on published statistics that can be properly verified. Relying on information that turns out to have come from aggregated sources, which then transpire to be inaccurate, is a very dangerous route to go down.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I think that the Minister has rather missed the point of what we are all saying. There is genuine shock across the House at the fact that it is Government policy to lock up victims of modern-day slavery as immigration offenders. What everybody is saying in different ways to the Minister is that that is unacceptable, and when is it going to stop?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman might have missed the comment that I made at the start of this urgent question. Just because somebody is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking does not mean that they have immigration status in this country. It is important that we reflect on the fact that our first port of call is to offer a voluntary return, so that somebody may go back to their country of origin and receive support there. There are reintegration packages. We must not assume that we are best placed to assist those people who have been trafficked.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
A system which detains people to whom the state has a duty of protection, which regularly separates parents from their children, which results in people being denied access to food and medicine and living in appalling conditions, and which incarcerates people indefinitely who present no risk to public safety in the UK, is a system of which we should all be ashamed. Does the Minister accept that the current immigration detention system is a pillar of the hostile environment, and that the time has come for radical reform?
Caroline Nokes
I remind the hon. Lady that the detention estate is significantly smaller than it was when the last Labour Government left office. She is wrong to suggest that people in immigration removal centres are denied access to food and medicine. They have 24/7 access to healthcare and it is absolutely right that they must do so. We take the vulnerability of detainees incredibly seriously, which is why we commissioned Stephen Shaw to do his re-review last year and are implementing his recommendations. It is absolutely right that we have chosen to shrink the detention estate and that we are seeking to pilot schemes where individuals can be better supported in the community. We will continue down that road.
Points of Order
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair at the time, but the word that the Minister heard was “indefinite”. My recollection is that the word that I used was “indeterminate”. Thank you for indulging me so that I could get that on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his brief and precise point of order. He has corrected the record. There is a distinction between the two words, and I am sure that his point will have been taken into consideration.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (IGC)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister’s answer to my question just a few moments ago regarding the unreliability of statistics was actually misleading. I accept that she may inadvertently be misleading the House, but she will know that I only got the answer on the numbers because I pointed out to her that a previous Minister had been asked the very same written question and gave the answer. As I said, I waited seven months, but the Minister did not give me an answer because she was unsure of the statistics. I do not know whether it is incompetence, inadequacy or what.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s point, but she will know that it is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of debate. The right hon. Lady has asked a question and the Minister has given an answer. It is not for the Chair to adjudicate as to whether any answer is acceptable or pleasing to the Member who asked the question. It is the Minister’s answer and I will give her the opportunity to expand on it if she wishes to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister does not wish to expand on it; she has given her answer. The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) is not satisfied, but c’est la vie—that’s life.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a very important matter for my constituents. Two in five pensioners do not claim the pension credit that they are due. My elderly constituents are now contacting me to tell me that the telephone line provided by the UK Government through the Department for Work and Pensions to apply for pension credit over the phone is not properly staffed. Some people are kept on hold for over 30 minutes to speak to an adviser, before giving up. I tried to find online application forms to download in order to allow my constituents to apply for this benefit by post, but it turns out that no application forms are available, except for those living in Northern Ireland. That means that many of my elderly and financially challenged constituents are facing considerable obstacles to claiming the support for which they are eligible, which would go some way to explaining why two in five pensioners do not claim pension credit. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice and guidance as to what action I can take to ensure that the Government make it as easy as possible for pensioners in my constituency and across the UK who are eligible for pension credit, and who need this important support, to claim it without encountering these obstacles.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me notice that she intended to raise that point of order. She raises a very important and serious matter about which the House has shown its concern on at least two occasions in the past few weeks—that I can recall—in the form of an urgent question and a debate. It is a matter of significant importance. I cannot give her any further advice from the Chair today, except to say that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and I am quite sure that the appropriate Minister will be informed of her concerns. Of course, there are various ways in which the hon. Lady can bring this matter to the Floor of the House once again. If she cares to visit the Table Office, I am sure that she will be given the appropriate advice. I look forward to hearing her raise the matter with the Minister on the Floor of the House in due course.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that yesterday the National Records of Scotland released the drug deaths figures for Scotland, which stand at a record high of 1,187 deaths—souls lost to drug addiction—in the past year. There is nothing to this effect on the Order Paper today, but have you been given any indication whether a Home Office Minister will come to the House and make a statement on this issue? Some of the responsibility lies with the Home Office, as these matters are considered to fall under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so it may be helpful for a Minister to enlighten the House on what their part may be in dealing with this crisis.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The answer to the first part of her question is that, yes, I am aware of these very worrying and serious statistics, which I am sure all Members will take very seriously. On her second point, I am not aware that a Minister is at this moment planning to come to the House to make a statement. I will say to the hon. Lady what I said to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) just a moment or two ago, which is that there are various ways in which she can bring this matter to the attention of the House in a formal way, and if she cares to visit the Table Office, I am sure that she will be given advice on how to do so. I look forward to hearing her raise these matters with the appropriate Minister in due course, because I am sure that it is a matter about which the House would like to hear.
Reservoirs (Flood Risk)
Wednesday 17th July 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Reservoirs (Flood Risk) Bill 2017-19 View all Reservoirs (Flood Risk) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to grant the Environment Agency additional powers to require water companies to manage reservoirs to mitigate flood risk; and for connected purposes.
Calderdale—which comprises my Halifax constituency and that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker)—was devastated by flooding on Boxing day 2015. Storm Eva followed Storm Desmond, and wreaked havoc on parts of Cumbria, Lancashire and Yorkshire. My constituency, particularly Sowerby Bridge and Copley, was badly impacted by the floods, with the storm bringing extreme weather events, compounding a prolonged period of heavy rainfall. However, it was the total devastation further down the valley in Mytholmroyd and Hebden Bridge, with further damage in Elland, Todmorden and Brighouse, that brought Secretaries of State and the national press to Calderdale to see the unprecedented damage for themselves.
The River Calder was described as having become “weaponised” over Boxing day, picking up everything in its path and using it to smash its way through the valley, taking out bridges, roads, homes and businesses. In total, 2,781 residential properties and 1,635 businesses were affected in Calderdale alone. I hope this gives some sense of why flood protection is still a massive priority in our area. Residents are genuinely fearful every time the forecasts suggest that heavy rainfall is on its way. Since the flooding in 2015, many different initiatives have begun to help ensure that that level of destruction cannot be inflicted again. My Bill proposes to add the role of reservoirs to that package of initiatives. We need all these measures to work if we are truly to get a grip of flood risk in Calderdale.
The hard infrastructure work is currently ongoing across the borough, including a major remodelling at the centre of Mytholmroyd, with a new bridge and widened channel. Similar works are scheduled to start shortly in Hebden Bridge, providing that the funding gap can be closed. Natural flood management has also been a significant part of our response, with local organisation Slow the Flow deploying its team of energetic volunteers to such great effect. Since 2016, they have been working with the National Trust, the Environment Agency and Calderdale Council, using the natural environment to build leaky dams across streams, and to stuff deep gullies and channels. This work seeks to spread the water as it makes its way down the valley, to prevent it from coursing rapidly through channels to the valley below—delaying its journey to hold as much water up in the crags as possible. Managing the upper catchment in this way is essential if we are to do all that we can to mitigate flood risk for those in the valleys below.
Also in the upper catchment above Calder valley are six Yorkshire Water reservoirs, and conversations about their role in mitigating flood risk have been under way for some time. The Bill seeks to formalise that process and demonstrate parliamentary support for its aims. In the winter of 2017-18, Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency started a trial to manage the Hebden Water reservoirs down to 90% of their usual top storage level, with the aim of assessing the potential of utilising the reservoirs as a more long-term flood risk management option. Maintaining the reservoirs at 90%, instead of the usual 100%, created the extra 10% capacity to hold more water in the upper catchment during periods of unusually heavy rainfall.
While the reservoirs were placed under nothing like the pressure of the 2015 Boxing day weather during the trial period, the report was able to conclude that:
“The lower reservoir levels did provide a significant impact on peak flows in Hebden Water for the largest events observed during this period”.
The report proposed that next steps might include trialling 85% capacity, as the levels in the reservoir had been restored faster than expected during periods of rainfall. The report was clear that the scheme had a positive impact on flood mitigation and that this managed and collaborative approach would be complementary to ongoing flood protection work in the area. This approach is not just happening in Calderdale. Similar conversations and trials are under way across the country, including at Thirlmere reservoir in Cumbria, reservoirs in the Upper Don valley and Watergrove reservoir in Rochdale—I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) in the Chamber.
So why do we need legislation to make this happen? There are still challenges that need to be ironed out before water companies have the confidence to commit to these types of scheme more routinely. Currently, the legislation that underpins water companies and the regulation of them has a focus on mitigating drought risk, rather than flood risk. We know that extreme weather will increase in frequency in the years to come, and reservoirs will be key in ensuring resilience within our water infrastructure if we are to manage both drought and flood risk. Right now, we need to give reservoir management of this kind a statutory thumbs-up, explicitly giving the Environment Agency the powers to instruct a water company to manage down the levels on pre-designated reservoirs, where the evidence suggests that doing so would reduce flood risk and protect communities.
To be clear, it would not be a case of drawing those reservoir levels down at speed at the point when we are faced with extreme weather, as that would place dangerous pressures on the watercourses and, if anything, contribute to flood risk. Instead, the Bill would set out a framework for having agreements in place long in advance of that for the EA and water companies to have identified which reservoirs, what capacity level is appropriate and when that reduction would be in place, with the evidence base to support those decisions.
Water companies are currently regulated by Ofwat, and inevitably there is a strong focus on preventing over-abstraction of water sources, particularly in the context of fears that climate change will bring about prolonged periods of hot, dry weather. However, the Environment Agency warned in May that entire communities might need to be moved away from rivers if we are to prepare for a predicted, terrifying average global temperature rise of 4°C. Again, regulation must find the appropriate balance between the two threats of drought and flooding.
The water industry in England and Wales is diverse, and pressures in one area are not the same as those in another, so regulation needs to allow for water companies and the EA to respond to the local risks and react accordingly. The Bill would set out the transfer of powers to the EA and the framework in which such arrangements between the EA and water companies, in consultation with local authorities and communities, would work.
For the Bill to be as effective as we would all hope, further considerations might be needed. For all the reasons set out, resilient water infrastructure will ensure that reservoirs can assist in alleviating both drought and flood risk, and increased capacity would only be a good thing. To allow us to respond in real time to changes in our climate that mean we can face both drought risk and flood risk within months of each other, we need a more automated means of doing that. Reservoirs involved in the recent trial required an operator to alter the water levels manually using largely Victorian infrastructure. While the Bill focuses on the powers and framework required, it goes without saying that investment in automation and resilience in water infrastructure would be hugely beneficial.
In an ideal world, the ability to transfer water between reservoirs, and even across the country, would enable the release of excess water to mitigate flood risk, which could be sent elsewhere without wasting a single drop. Yorkshire Water is currently exploring the possibility of directing the water released from its trial reservoirs into its nearby treatment works, which is exactly the approach we would like to see.
With that in mind, I hope it is clear to Members why my Bill is needed and why those of us from flood-affected areas feel so passionately about getting this right. I want to take this opportunity to thank both Adrian Gill at the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water’s Granville Davies, who strive to reduce flood risk every day in the Calder valley and who have been incredibly helpful in engaging in constructive dialogue.
I am not naive about the nature of ten-minute rule Bills, but I hope that the Environment Minister and her team have heard the details of my Bill and will reflect on its merits. I also want to stress that, just because the Bill will not become law tomorrow, it does not mean we are not looking to water companies to undertake this work on our behalf in the meantime. They have my full support and that of many MPs and our communities in doing just that. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Holly Lynch, Louise Haigh, Rachael Maskell, Diana Johnson, Hilary Benn, Paul Blomfield, Angela Smith, Rachel Reeves, Philip Davies, Trudy Harrison, Gill Furniss and John Mc Nally present the Bill.
Holly Lynch accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 424).
Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 17th July 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 View all Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 175-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (14 Jun 2019)
The Minister without Portfolio (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to present the Bill, the purpose of which is simple: it will remove the criminal penalty for not responding to new census questions on sexual orientation and gender identity, which means that these questions will be voluntary. The Office for National Statistics recommended that these questions only be asked of those aged 16 and over and, importantly, that they be voluntary. The Bill enables that by following the same method used to make the question on religion voluntary in the Census (Amendment) Act 2000, which is by removing the criminal penalty for not responding to census questions on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Following consultations with the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, we have extended the Bill to Northern Ireland. The Bill does not require either question to be asked in the 2021 census, but it does extend the voluntary nature of the questions should Northern Ireland decide to include either question in the 2021 census.
The 22nd national census is due to be carried out in March 2021, and that will be provided for by secondary legislation in the normal way. This Bill is distinct from that secondary legislation. It simply ensures that, in delivering on the White Paper’s proposals, the ONS can include these new questions on a voluntary basis. I want to make a couple of brief points on how that voluntary nature is guaranteed.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I support the thrust of what the Bill is designed to achieve. However, many of my constituents are concerned that the Bill does not seek to achieve more wide-ranging change by allowing both Jains and Zoroastrians—both internationally recognised religions—to be properly recognised in the forthcoming census, which would end the historical under-reporting of the number of people who subscribe to those religions in the UK.
Brandon Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but I would just say that everybody who wishes to identify, for example, as Jain in the census will be able to do so. They will be able to use the write-in option and a new search-as-you-type facility. The Jain populations are concentrated in a small number of local authorities, which we know, and the ONS has committed to work with local groups and organisations to ensure that anyone who wishes to identify as Jain knows how to do so.
First, the ONS has committed to ensure that the voluntary nature of the questions on sexual orientation and gender identity are made clear in its design for the census forms in England and Wales—both on the front pages of the forms, and alongside the questions themselves.
Secondly, respondents will be provided with a unique access code to the online census, and anyone aged 16 years and over will be able to request a code, or paper form if answering offline, who wishes to respond privately. This will enable people to answer the census, including these two questions, without having to tell the person completing the household form that they have done so. Any individual answers will override any submitted on the household form. That is vital to protect people’s privacy.
Thirdly, census confidentiality remains of the utmost importance. All personal data collected by the census will be stored confidentially and not released for 100 years. This Bill delivers on the White Paper’s proposals to include new questions on sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2021 census, and on a voluntary basis. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this simple and worthwhile legislation, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his introduction, and I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for his willingness, once again, to work with me and our side openly on this important legislation, which is greatly appreciated. I have to note, when I look across the Atlantic and see the difficulties the racist President Trump is having about his citizenship question in the United States census, that the Minister here has surely shown how to get a census Bill through the House by working, as they say in the United States, across the aisle.
The aim of this Bill is to provide for voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity to be asked in the England, Wales and Northern Ireland censuses. Crucially, this Bill renders questions concerning gender identity and sexual orientation voluntary, as the right hon. Gentleman has outlined. I think we can all agree that it would be totally inappropriate to compel someone to answer a deeply personal question about their sexuality or gender identity in the census. However, at the same time, these are vital questions that reflect better the modern UK and how we address the needs of a long discriminated against section of society.
Labour supports this Bill on the basis that any census must be LGBT+ inclusive. Recognising gender identity and sexual orientation as core aspects of personal identity in official statistics is a step forward in the fight for LGBT+ equality. It gives individuals the opportunity to identify themselves however they choose in this important civic event. Indeed, the Opposition support this change as a point of principle. This tick box clearly demonstrates that, as a society, we value LGBT+ inclusivity. As a party, we have always fought for minority rights. Progressive equality legislation is part of Labour’s history. Labour brought in the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2010, and we introduced the minimum wage and Sure Start. We support this Bill in the spirit of inclusivity and equality, strengthening a proud history within Labour of fighting for minority rights.
This change is not only symbolically important, but practically necessary. Gathering the required data to properly understand and support the LGBT+ community is vital. Information derived from the census helps us to inform policy, plan services and distribute resources effectively to local government and health authorities, and enable these resources to be directed where they are needed.
Of paramount importance is the acquisition of accurate data to address inequalities facing minority groups. Accurate data about the size and characteristics of the LGBT+ community are currently severely lacking. Small-scale surveys struggle to grasp the whole picture, producing significantly varied estimates of the size of the LGBT population. Without an accurate picture of the size or nature of any minority community in society, how can we provide the necessary targeted support and services they need?
We are talking about a community that is in particular need of support: LGBT+ people have worse mental and physical health outcomes on average than the rest of the population. In particular, suicide rates for gay and bisexual youth are significantly higher than for their heterosexual counterparts. It is not just the youth who are suffering; older LGBT people suffer disproportionately from social isolation and a lack of social support networks. It is only through accurate data about minority populations that agencies can begin to properly address the inequalities faced by LGBT people. The census has the advantage of being a whole-population count and can therefore build a representative and accurate picture of the whole country.
Privacy is always a matter of concern when discussing these topics. I commend the work that has been done by the Parliamentary Secretary, his officials and the ONS to consider people’s privacy when a family member is completing the census form. Any member of a household will be able to request their own individual census form if there is information they do not wish to disclose to the householder, such as gender identity, sexual orientation or a change of religion. These are clearly issues that we must be aware of and sensitive to when carrying out a census.
Labour has a proud record of championing the fight for LGBT equality. We abolished section 28, equalised the age of consent and created civil partnerships, and it was with Labour votes that equal marriage became law. The Opposition are committed to taking radical steps to improve inclusivity in our society. The inclusion of a gender identity box in the census is an important step in this direction, but there is still a long way to go, particularly in the area of LGBT inclusivity. We are still not free from bigotry as a society. Issues such as lack of education, unequal access to public services and levels of LGBT hate crime and mental health remain barriers to full equality.
By way of illustration, recently in my own county, Bob Fousert, the chair of the police and crime scrutiny panel, attacked our deputy chief constable, Julie Cooke, for wearing a rainbow lanyard in support of LGBT rights. He said it was a political statement. Well, if standing up against hate crime is a political statement, then yes, it was a political statement. His appalling comments were condemned, including by David Keane, the police and crime commissioner. I wrote to Deputy Chief Constable Cooke, who leads nationally for the police on LGBT issues, to offer my support. Mr Fousert had to resign as chair—and good riddance. I recount this story because, in the same week that those comments were made, there was a well publicised attack on a lesbian couple on a bus in London and a vicious homophobic attack in Liverpool. We may have made progress in the last couple of decades, but we are not there yet.
The Opposition have been calling for a particular focus in this census on homeless LGBT+ communities. The position of LGBT+ homeless people warrants particular attention in this discussion, not least given the shocking statistic that up to 24% of the youth homeless population are from the LGBT+ community. Clearly, we are far from solving the issue of LGBT+ discrimination. Young homeless people continue to be one of the most disenfranchised and marginalised groups in society, but young LGBT people are particularly isolated. The Albert Kennedy Trust reports that LGBT homeless youth are highly likely to have experienced familial rejection, abuse and violence, leading to their state of homelessness. In many cases, homophobia is the reason why they became homeless. LGBT+ homeless people are regularly at the receiving end of shocking levels discrimination and abuse.
Homelessness in any form makes people more vulnerable to other risks, such as mental health problems. The unprecedented rise in homelessness under the current Government is a national disgrace, yet more and more people continue to be forced on to the streets by the Government’s policies—from welfare cuts to a lack of investment in social housing. Homelessness charities have reported a rise in homelessness of up to 169% since 2010. The Government hold a direct responsibility for the perpetuation of this national crisis. It is time the Government looked to the root causes of rising homelessness, and invested in more affordable homes and stronger rights for renters.
What is more shocking is the direct ramifications that austerity cuts have had for the LGBT+ voluntary and charity sector, given that public funding provides such a large proportion of overall income. This in turn further isolates LGBT homeless people. Not only do the Government need to support specialist LGBT services to allow greater access to more safe, accessible and affordable accommodation, but, above all, to fight for wider recognition of the issues that LGBT homeless people face.
Labour has pledged to tackle the bullying of LGBT young people by ensuring that all teachers receive initial and continuous training on LGBT issues experienced by students and how to address them. Furthermore, we fully support changes to the new guidance for relationships and sex education to ensure they are LGBT inclusive. Therefore, we believe that this census must make a particular effort to give LGBT homeless people the opportunity to contribute to this important civic exercise. Their inclusion will enable us to build an accurate picture of the number of people from the LGBT community living without a permanent address. It is only through an awareness of the scale of the issue that support and aid can be effectively targeted towards the most vulnerable communities.
Furthermore, there is a particular danger that all homeless people, whether rough sleepers, sofa surfers or, especially, LGBT+ people, could be undercounted. There must be a particular effort by the ONS to ensure that those communities are reached on the day of the census. There are dangerous consequences of an undercount, which would play into the hands of those who would prefer to ignore the LGBT+ community and reverse progress towards equality.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech, which I strongly support. Will he join me in encouraging the ONS to look again at the representation of Jainism and Zoroastrianism in the religion section of the 2021 census? Notwithstanding the slight movement in progress alluded to by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), in relation to the provision of a drop-down box, there is a genuine concern among the leaders of both faith communities that there will continue to be a significant under-reporting of the number of Jains and Zoroastrians living and adhering to their faith in the UK.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend has been pushing this issue with perseverance and resilience. Representations have been made to the Minister by those and other religions and ethnic groups. It may well be that this issue is considered in Committee or on Report, or, if it is not included in the scope of the Bill, then later on when we come to the census. I look forward to reading any proposals my hon. Friend brings forward.
Returning to the homeless count, I am grateful to the Minister for assurances that the ONS will work with organisations representing LGBT people and charities, to locate hard-to-reach communities and ensure they are given the opportunity to complete the census. I understand that the ONS is organising both national and local campaigns to highlight that everyone in England and Wales should complete the census. Community engagement programmes will allow field teams to specifically target hard-to-reach communities and help minority groups with census completion.
Working with stakeholders throughout this process is vital, particularly when it comes to drafting specific questions for the census. The drafting of the questions and the accompanying guidance must be subject to extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders from across the LGBT community and women’s groups. I understand that my noble Friend Baroness Hayter made that important point via an amendment in the other place.
We are pleased to support the Bill, which is a step forward in the fight for LGBT+ recognition, and to ensure that the mirror we hold up to ourselves in the form of the census portrays an accurate reflection of all parts of our nation. It is vital that thorough consultation follows the passage of the Bill to ensure that these words are carried forward into action. Given the richness and range of data provided by a survey of this size, the 2021 census provides us with an exciting opportunity to gather accurate data about minority communities, and to plan services and distribute resources accordingly.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I welcome the introduction of the Bill to ensure that the census is up to date and accurately reflects the country as we go to seek its views.
There was another census that took place about 2,000 years ago, possibly the most famous and most significant census ever undertaken. It was a census where people returned to their homeland, to the place they were from, to register. There was a recently married couple at this time who left the town of Nazareth and undertook an arduous journey of about 100 miles on foot—maybe with a donkey, but probably on foot—to their home town of Bethlehem to register that this was the place that they belonged to, that this was their homeland. The journey was particularly gruelling because the wife was heavily pregnant. As is well known to us all now, when they got to Bethlehem the woman gave birth to a son, the most famous human to have ever lived and the founder of the Christian faith. I am sure Sir Cliff Richard is eternally grateful that they made it to Bethlehem, because “O Little Town of Nazareth” does not have quite the same ring to it and he would probably have been one Christmas No. 1 short.
Why did they make that journey? Because they had a strong connection with a place and its people. They wanted to demonstrate that this was the place that was bound up in their identity. This was the place that they were from; this was their homeland. That desire to identify with a place and its people remains as strong in many people today as it did 2,000 years ago. In fact, I would argue that in recent times there is a growing sense, with a more mobile population and globalisation impacting on communities, that the desire to have a strong connection and identity with a place is stronger today than it has been. Today, thankfully, we do not need to travel to our homelands to be able to identify where we are from. Modern census methods allow us to do that by way of a simple tick—well, that is true of almost everyone, as I will come on to explain.
The right to demonstrate which of the national identities within the UK we choose to identify with is not currently protected by legislation. Currently, it is down to the ONS to recommend to the Minister which national identities should be included in any census. I find it quite astonishing that it was only in the most recent 2011 census that the Welsh were given the opportunity to identify their national identity by way of a tick-box, and only in 2001 that the Scottish were given a tick-box. I find it incredible that those developments took place so recently. There is nothing that currently protects that status, and it could be removed in subsequent censuses by a recommendation from the ONS. I am sure many Members of this House would find that completely unacceptable.
Let me say that I have a great deal of respect for the officers and staff of the ONS, who provide a very important service to our nation. I do not believe, however, that it should be down to the ONS, using statistics and data, to decide which national identities should and should not be included in any given census every 10 years. The right to demonstrate one’s UK national identity should not be a matter of data or statistics. I believe it should be a right established in legislation. That right should also be a matter of equality across the whole UK. No one national identity should be considered more important or be recognised more than any other. All the national identities in the UK should be given equal status and equality of opportunity to be recognised as such within any census. We could never countenance one UK nationality being given less status in a census.
I, along with a number of my colleagues, will be looking to add a clause to the Bill to establish in legislation the right for all UK national identities to be treated equally in all future censuses. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) is well aware of this issue. I want to put on record my thanks to him, and to the Minister he is currently filling in for, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for their positive and constructive engagement on this issue.
The Minister is aware that there is a particular matter in this regard that I want to address. As matters currently stand, there is one UK national identity that is not being given equal status in the census. In 2014, the Cornish were recognised by the Council of Europe under the framework convention for national minorities. That status was not just accepted but enthusiastically embraced by the UK Government, who declared that this would now gave the Cornish equality of status with the other Celtic nations within the UK, the Scottish, the Irish and the Welsh. The ONS, however, does not recognise that status. It is treating the Cornish as a minor local difficulty restricted purely to Cornwall. We are being told that we can have a write-in option for our Cornishness and that there will be an advertising campaign in Cornwall to make people aware of it, but that misses the point that there are many thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of proud Cornish men and women across the UK who would like to identify as Cornish, if they were given the same opportunity to do so as the other Celtic parts of the UK.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am listening with increasing fascination to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. To take forward his point about the Cornish, which I totally accept, is there not a parallel case to be made for the Gaelic-speaking highlander in Scotland, who does not regard himself as a lowlander and, in fact, views them with considerable suspicion?
Steve Double
I will come on to why I believe that, at this time, the Cornish have a unique claim on the matter. In future, this may apply to other peoples, but I suspect that it does not at this time.
Eddie Hughes
I thought I had better get in before my hon. Friend moves on. I did not come to the Chamber today expecting to hear the Christmas story in the middle of July, but as we have inadvertently touched on religion, I want to say that I have 3,500 Sikhs living in my constituency. The idea that they would have some sort of write-in box to identify their ethnicity is not appropriate either. It is not too much to ask for Sikhs to have a box specifically to identify their ethnicity on the census.
Steve Double
I would say the same thing in reply to my hon. Friend: I believe that the Cornish have a unique claim in this regard, because it is the only UK national identity affected that is formally recognised by the Council of Europe under the framework convention for the protection of national minorities, which has been fully accepted and endorsed by the UK Government. I therefore think that there is a unique case for Cornish that perhaps does not apply to other ethnic identities. I say that in no way to belittle or denigrate other national identities, but—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and various hon. Members who have intervened on him over the last few minutes have very genuine concerns, but we must stick to the purpose of the Bill, which is about sexual orientation and gender identity. I have allowed some illustrative points about religious belief, ethnicity, geographical attachment and so on, because I have a lot of sympathy, but we must stick to the purpose of the Bill.
Steve Double
I am grateful for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am raising this because I think that the Bill is an opportunity to address an issue that otherwise may be missed, but I take your point and will seek to wind up my comments quickly.
Gareth Thomas
Back Benchers should stick together and, therefore, I strongly support the hon. Gentleman’s desire to amend the Bill to enable a longer debate about Cornish identity being included in the 2021 census. If I am sympathetic to him, will he be sympathetic to me and help me to find a way to amend the Bill to ensure that Jains and Zoroastrians, who are recognised as world religions by the United Nations—not merely by the Council of Europe, which he prays in aid—also have their concerns properly recognised?
Steve Double
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I return to the fact that I think that the Cornish case is unique, in that within the UK, it is the only national minority identity that is not being included as a tick-box on the census.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I am conscious of your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, but is this Bill not really about equality of treatment for people? My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the Council of Europe framework convention. The UK Government have been criticised by the Council of Europe for failing to live up to their legal obligations on Cornwall, as undertaken when we signed that convention.
Steve Double
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and Cornish colleague for making the point very well that the Government made this commitment in 2014. They have been criticised by the Council of Europe for not living up to that commitment and obligation under the framework convention. This is a very simple and straightforward way for the Government to go some way to rectifying that and fulfilling their commitments.
By saying that the matter of Cornish identity is primarily a geographical issue that is restricted to Cornwall, and that there will be an awareness campaign in Cornwall, we are effectively treating the Cornish around the country in the same way as Mary and Joseph were treated 2,000 years ago. We are saying, “In order to identify yourself as Cornish, you really should live in Cornwall and return to your homeland.” That is completely unacceptable, and it is definitely not equality of recognition for the Cornish, as the Government promised and made a clear commitment to in 2014.
Any argument that to extend this opportunity to the Cornish would open the floodgates for other minority groups who are also seeking some sort of recognition is, I believe, misdirected. The Cornish people’s claim to national minority status in the UK is unique. We are the only group who have been given this status by the Council of Europe, which the UK Government have accepted and endorsed. I believe that the unique claim for the Cornish means that we should be given equality with the rest of the UK.
Do people today still desire to identify themselves with their homeland? If so, should they be given equal opportunities in the forthcoming census to do so? Should that right be enshrined in legislation? I believe that the answer to all three questions is very much yes, and I trust that we can use the Bill to establish the right of national identity within the UK in law.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been inspired to speak in the debate by the contribution of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I agree with him about two things. The first is his strong support for the Bill; as I indicated in my two interventions on the Front-Bench spokesmen, I think they are right to bring in and strongly support the Bill. I also echo the praise from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay for the tremendous job of work that the Office for National Statistics and all its staff do. However, I share his frustration that, with one or two questions that have faced the ONS in preparing for the 2021 census, its temptation has been to see them as a little local difficulty and perhaps not to take them as seriously as it might. I recognise that concern.
At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman retold the Christmas story in his own unique way—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have made it very clear that this is a very narrow Bill. I have allowed considerable leeway, and I have allowed the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) to make three very long interventions—[Interruption.] Oh, was it only two? I have allowed him to make two very long interventions, because I thought that he was not going to make a speech. Now he is making a speech on a subject that I have said is not within the scope of the Bill. I hope that he will not seek to go further down that line. The Bill is about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Gareth Thomas
For the record, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not querying the number of interventions that you were gently chastising me for, but merely the accusation that they were long. I thought that they were entirely appropriate points to make.
Finally, I hope to follow the inspiration of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay in looking for an opportunity, perhaps on Report or in Committee, to explore the under-representation of Jains and Zoroastrians in the census.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is probably worth noting that much of the debate on this Bill has not been about its content, which concerns inclusivity for LGBTQ people in the census. That is a good sign that the issue is not controversial and that common sense has been used and a consensus has been reached across the House. I hope that the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) have the opportunity in Committee to pursue the issues that they have raised during this debate.
I am proud of the steps that the House has taken to strengthen LGBTQ equality, including the amendment tabled to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill last week by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) to extend marriage equality to Northern Ireland. I am proud of the record of the last Labour Government, who were at the forefront of advancing progress for LGBTQ people with the equalisation of the age of consent, the repeal of section 28, the introduction of equalities legislation covering things such as access to goods and services, and the introduction of civil partnerships.
We cannot pretend, however, that LGBTQ people do not face disproportionate discrimination and prejudice in their day-to-day lives, including in schools, in employment and in access to goods and services. The number of homophobic and transphobic hate crimes, including stalking, harassment and violent assault, has more than doubled in England and Wales over the past five years. LGBTQ people have worse health outcomes and are more likely to suffer from poor mental health than are the population as a whole. That is particularly true of the trans community, with roughly half of trans people in Britain having attempted suicide at least once. It is vital that the Government match their commitment to visibility for LGBTQ people in the census with a commitment properly to fund our public services, which provide essential support to marginalised groups across the country. The addition to the next census of the new questions on sexual orientation and gender identity is a welcome step, and it represents a significant victory for the LGBTQ community.
When it comes to statistics, the LGBTQ community are a hidden population. In the absence of comprehensive national population data for these groups, charities such as Stonewall are forced to rely on little more than estimates. Those estimates are frequently derived from smaller-scale surveys, and as a result, they vary widely. The data collected under the census will be vital to local authorities and other services in providing accurate estimates of the overall size of the LGBTQ community and providing geographical concentrations, which will be crucial for service planning. At a national level, it will have a significant impact on policy development, equipping regulators and Government bodies with accurate data to develop programmes of work that have a positive impact on LGBTQ people.
In a society where many LGBTQ people struggle with their sexual orientation or gender identity, there are challenges involved in ensuring that the data collected by the census is accurate. Given the personal and sensitive nature of the questions, a proportion of respondents will always prefer not to disclose their sexuality, even on a confidential form. We must be cognisant of the risks associated with an under-count of the LGBTQ population, because it could play into the hands of those who would attempt to reverse progress towards equality.
Furthermore, the fact that census responses are often completed by one member of the household represents a real barrier to disclosure for individuals who are not out to their families or those they live with. I understand that the Minister has thought about that and informed my Labour Front-Bench colleagues in recent meetings that he wants to establish a process whereby people in that position can fill in the census separately and privately, overriding the household response. We support that proposal, and I urge the Minister to ensure that such an arrangement is accessible to everyone, given that the privacy concerns will be felt by people of all ages and in a range of settings.
It is crucial that statistical agencies continue to engage with organisations that represent LGBTQ people to ensure that robust solutions are found and communicated. Privacy concerns must be fully addressed, and officials must work with LGBTQ communities to convey the importance of being counted and build trust in the census process—what is counted counts.
The drafting of the questions and the accompanying guidance must also be subjected to extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders from across the LGBTQ community and women’s groups. The Minister has informed the Opposition that the ONS is consulting, and we welcome sight of the draft guidance, but if he could provide more information to the House, it would be very much appreciated. As I have made clear, the Opposition welcome the Bill and believe it is an important step towards building a society in which LGBTQ people are truly accepted, included and counted.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to wind up this debate. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team for their support and their kind words; I was almost blushing at times during their speeches. I confirm that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) said when he opened the debate, anyone who wishes to disclose a particularly private matter will be able to apply for a number and make a separate census return that overrides the household census. That information, in a non-anonymised form, will be held for 100 years. I want to make it very clear that that opportunity will be available.
It is clear from the debate that there is strong support for the Bill, and there is widespread recognition of the importance of the census as an event. As you have confirmed, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill is designed solely to enable the next censuses in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland to ask questions about sexual orientation and gender identity on a voluntary basis. The Bill does not prescribe that those questions should be asked, or how they should be asked. That is a matter for secondary legislation, which Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise later this year.
On that subject, I recognise the passion with which some Members of the House—especially the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double)—support additions to the census. Those are matters for the census secondary legislation, rather than for this Bill, which is purely about making the questions voluntary rather than compulsory.
Steve Double
Leaving aside the question of Cornish identity, does the Minister not think that there is a case to be made for protecting national identity in law, rather than leaving it to the data and statistics of the ONS?
Kevin Foster
In deciding the questions for the census, the Government will be guided by the technical recommendations of the ONS. Of course, the House and Parliament will need to decide on the questions in the census via the orders that will be introduced later this year, but the Government will continue to be guided by the ONS.
Gareth Thomas
Will the Minister ensure that the orders to which he has just referred, which would allow the inclusion of questions about national identity and about Jainism and Zoroastrianism, are debated on the Floor of the House? If they are debated upstairs in Committee, the vast majority of Members are likely to be excluded.
Kevin Foster
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman after a discussion via the usual channels. We are talking about a hybrid order of a unique nature, some of which will be amendable and some not, but we will certainly make sure that that is discussed. I thank him for the constructive meeting that we had about his concerns relating to his constituency.
When it comes to Cornwall, I can understand why we had a religious story—not least because Cornwall is located next to God’s own county, Devonshire. We will have an opportunity to debate that further in secondary legislation, but the Government are guided by the ONS.
I turn to homelessness, which was one of the main issues raised during the debate. The ONS is working with stakeholders such as Homeless Link, Shelter and St Mungo’s to develop plans to allow those who are experiencing homelessness to take part in the census. That will include work around census day, because not everyone will necessarily be in a particular shelter on the evening of the census. It will also include engagement with those connected with the LGBT sector to make sure that the census is thorough and counts everyone in.
This is a very simple piece of legislation, which does not direct that any questions should be in the 2021 census; it merely sets out that questions on those two subjects should be answered on a voluntary basis. That will ensure that vital information on both issues is captured, but that no one is forced to disclose it if they do not wish to. I therefore urge colleagues to support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
CENSUS (RETURN PARTICULARS AND REMOVAL OF PENALTIES) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Bullying and Harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary Staff
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Gemma White report on bullying and harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary staff.
Let me begin by thanking Gemma White QC for her report, and paying tribute to all who came forward to share their personal experiences with her.
Each of us is directly responsible for the staff whom we employ. Without them we would not be able to carry out our duties effectively, and I am sure all Members will want to join me in expressing our immense gratitude for the hard work, support and loyalty that those who work in our offices provide for us day in and day out. We would not be able to serve our constituents without them, and, as such, they matter not just to us as Members of this House, but to the millions of constituents up and down our country whom we are here to represent.
I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will share my concern about a number of the matters to which the report refers. It highlights statements alleging deeply inappropriate conduct on the part of some Members towards their staff, and between staff. It contains serious allegations, including those relating to Members who
“shout at, demean, belittle and humiliate their staff on a regular basis, often in public.”
Reference is made to
“staff being subject to unwanted sexual advances, often accompanied by touching, sometimes forceful.”
We should not hesitate to condemn any occurrence of that kind as completely unacceptable, and as a failure to uphold the standards that we expect in our Parliament. The report constitutes a call to all Members of all parties to continue to act together to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to prevent and deal effectively with bullying, harassment and sexual harassment, and I reiterate that call today.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has made an appropriate point, but may I ask for clarification? A number of external members of the Labour party have been severely bullied and harassed, allegedly by people who are paid with Short money. Given that they are paid with parliamentary money, would they too be eligible to make complaints by means of parliamentary procedures?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific and interesting point, to which, I am sorry to say, I do not immediately know the answer. I always like to know all the answers. [Interruption.] I am being told by Members sitting behind the hon. Gentleman that the answer is yes, but I will clarify that one way or the other and write to him accordingly.
None of the points that I have made are intended to suggest that progress has not already been achieved, or that serious shortcomings in the management of, and behaviour towards, members of staff have been universal. Indeed, in her report Gemma White says:
“Most Members of Parliament treat their staff with dignity and respect”.
She says that she
“received a number of written contributions from people who wrote only to tell me about their positive experiences in Parliament.”
As she points out, that was despite the fact that her remit did not extend to inviting people to do so. She also says that during her work on the report, she heard or read of MPs who were
“MPs who were “a model employer”, “a fantastic boss”, “the best employer I have ever had”.
The report draws attention to areas of slow progress, but recognises that important progress has been made. The independent complaints and grievance scheme is praised as being
“an appropriate and relatively sophisticated means of investigating allegations.”
I echo the report’s praise for the dedicated implementation team who have made the scheme’s introduction, in the report’s own words, “a success”. Its operation is a clear improvement in the support that it offers to victims of bullying and harassment, and is also a firm indication of the seriousness with which Parliament views these matters. It shows the will and determination in the House to take strong and effective steps, working across the parties with the unified purpose of addressing inappropriate behaviour wherever it is found. It is important not to forget that before the introduction of the scheme, most complainants typically had recourse only to the Member about whom they were complaining, or to party political processes.
There has, of course, also been the Cox report. The White report calls for the implementation of Dame Laura Cox’s key recommendations, which include the removal of the June 2017 cut-off for historical complaints. That will be the subject of the motion that I will move shortly after this debate. If the motion is agreed, it will be a significant and important step forward. It will open up the ICGS to those who, for example, may have been bullied or harassed as recently as just before the last general election, and/or are no longer in the employ of a Member.
Although I recognise that there has been progress, there should be absolutely no cause for complacency, and Gemma White makes a number of important recommendations. Some appear relatively straightforward to consider and, potentially, implement, such as the recommendation for a review of confidentiality clauses within the standard contracts of employment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; the recommendation that IPSA should send out staff exit surveys; and the recommendation that the House Service should address the
“fair recruitment and management of staff with disabilities”
in its training. Other recommendations will require more thought, and present significant further questions. For instance, there is the recommendation that a new human resources department should be set up to cover Members’ staff, and to include HR personnel located both centrally and out in the regions.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do not understand why there is any debate about this bit. I think that the vast majority of Members, when they arrived in the House, would welcome with open arms the idea of a good HR function here, providing them good training, because many of us were never employers before we came here. I just do not understand why it is difficult for us to put that together. It seems to me to be the simplest thing of all.
Mel Stride
I do not think that anything I have said has suggested that we should not go ahead with this recommendation. The point that I am making is that it is a quite a major proposition which needs to be thought through carefully, as does any proposal of this magnitude. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That rather implies that he does not think it should be thought through carefully, which I am sure is not what he is intending to communicate.
Chris Bryant
I am not questioning the integrity of the Leader of the House, and I am sure that he is not questioning mine. It is just that this debate has been around for quite a long time, and the House of Commons Commission probably needs to meet more frequently and be able to transact business more expeditiously so that we can get on with this. The Finance Committee stands ready to do its share of the work, but honestly, some of us have been arguing for HR for a very long time.
Mel Stride
I know that some Members have been arguing for various aspects of the approach that we should take to addressing harassment, sexual harassment and bullying, and I know that there have been issues around the time that it has taken to put into place various aspects of our appropriate response to that. What I am saying from the Dispatch Box this afternoon is that we are now moving with pace. Directly after this debate we will have, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, a motion to bring in and broaden the scope of the ICGS, and that in itself is an example of how we are now moving forward with pace.
However, while recognising the progress made, there should be absolutely no cause for complacency on the various recommendations I have highlighted that have been brought forward by Gemma White. Consideration of the recommendations is of course a matter for the House, and today’s debate is an important part of that process. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that this debate has been brought forward so shortly after the release of the White report is in itself a very healthy sign. We need now to continue to proceed at pace, to come to our conclusions on the recommendations of the report as soon as possible, and to bring forward further much-needed change at the earliest possible opportunity. We owe that to those who do so much to support us as Members of Parliament, but we owe it also to those who send us here and who in turn rightly expect the highest possible standards of each and every one of us.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for opening this debate, and I, too, want to start by thanking Gemma White QC for all the time she has put into talking to Members and Members’ staff. As she said in her report, she spoke to 220 out of 3,200 people—Members’ staff. I will look at her report in detail, but I first want to mention Carl Sargeant. Perhaps we should pause for a moment to think about the stresses that resulted in him taking his own life; I am sure there are lessons to be learned from the inquest, although it had a narrow remit and did not look at everything. We must be aware of the stresses and strains people are under and the effect of accusations on them.
Gemma White outlined the testimony in an extremely accessible way in what is an accessible report, but it does not make for pleasant reading. It must have been very debilitating to have had to go through those experiences, and I say sorry to those who had a terrible experience. However, the White report also says that staff took time to relate their positive experiences, as the Leader of the House said, and at paragraph 26 it says that Members wished to share their experiences as employers and also expressed concern about current levels of support for them and their staff. But the ICGS is in place and any system requires refinement. Paragraph 118 cites the Alison Stanley report’s finding that the experience of first users of the ICGS has been mixed, with much of the input being negative. Gemma White said that she shared that view.
Alison Stanley reviewed the first six months of the operation of the ICGS and her report was published on 12 June. I want to pull out some of its recommendations, because it is important going forward that we look at them. She suggested creating a fully resourced bicameral ICGS team with the requisite skills and experience to ensure effective implementation and streamlined operation; it is important that both Houses are able to access this excellent team. She also suggested proactively using the behaviour code to improve ways of working in teams, for example as part of the wider cultural work being led by Julie Harding, the new independent director of cultural transformation here in the House.
The Stanley report said also that the solid start of the training programme should be built on, ensuring that the principle of the equal importance of training for all members of the parliamentary community is addressed. It is compulsory for House staff to go on the training, and I think it should be compulsory for all of us. I think the Leader of the House has already been on the training or is about to go on it, and I have been on it. It is not a very onerous task, although not many people have signed up to it, as mentioned in the White report. The training is in groups of 12, and it might be difficult for the trainers to provide the training in one whole day. I know that it has been changed to two sessions, so I wonder whether later on when Parliament is sitting we could look at having a training session specifically for Members and Members’ staff, perhaps in a Committee Room, and have that rolled out over a long time so that we ensure that everybody takes part.
The Leader of the House was right to pull out Gemma White’s recommendation that there should be fair recruitment and that the management of staff with disabilities should be specifically covered in future training. I would add that that should also apply to visible minorities. Parliament needs to become a more diverse place. We know that the Bank of England has undertaken unconscious bias training, and it may be available here. A really good report has been produced about this place entitled “Stand in my shoes: race and culture in Parliament”, and it is available on the intranet. I certainly know that people sometimes feel uncomfortable about being around people from ethnic minorities and certainly they do not want to take instructions from us, because we are in an unusual position. A bit of training along those lines might be useful.
On page 47 of her report, Gemma White refers to a “collective centralised solution”. In paragraph 166, she talks about having a body that she calls an “HR department” to support both Members and Members’ staff. In setting up such a department, it would be vital to ensure that staff felt that they had access to their own HR advice, which might be different from the HR advice given to Members.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Representing my party in the Chamber today, I wish to associate my party entirely with the thrust of what is being said. I have yet to do the training course, but I will be doing it in the early autumn. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for a number of years, and I believe that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) would agree with me when I say that the Scottish Parliament has made some good moves in this direction. May I ask two things of the Government and perhaps of all of us? First, can we look at what the Scottish Parliament has done in this regard? Also, as we develop best practice, can we share it with the devolved Administrations across the UK? Bullying and sexual harassment are no respecters of national or political boundaries, and if we can get a good policy, it should be for all of us, wherever we are in the UK.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. There is a lot to be learned from different organisations, including the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Government, the BBC and the Bank of England. There are a number of public service bodies that may have gone through this process, and we can look at this again.
The White report talks about an HR department, and I want to dwell on this slightly. She talks about a regulatory role in terms of documentation and of support. I believe that as the department is being set up, we need to look at separating those two functions, possibly within the same Department. It is a matter for the Commission to direct the House authorities to get the HR director in place first, and the HR director would then get his or her own staff, but it would be useful to ensure that there was no crossover between those two functions.
I know that hon. Members will have read the report and seen the helpful diagram on the last page, page 55, in which Gemma White talks about “Who”, “What” and “By when”. This gives us a useful timetable. The Commission has already issued a statement and indicated that it will set in train her recommendations. It has already started the consultation on those recommendations, but will the Leader of the House set out a timetable for the consultation and possible implementation of the proposed changes? As he said, we have lots of reports, and I hope that all the threads of those reports will be pulled together. I know, because I have had contact with them, that we have a dedicated and hard-working team currently working on the ICGS, and I have every confidence that Parliament will be an exemplary environment that is both inclusive and supportive.
Could I ask the Leader of the House how we will measure this cultural change, and what steps for immediate action the Government will take to promote these new policies? As many hon. and right hon. Members know, we have dedicated staff who are committed to democracy and public service, and I know that the House staff and our own staff do, and will, serve us well as we serve the public with the highest commitment to democracy in this extremely interesting and challenging time.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate today, following the publication of Gemma White QC’s report last week. I would first like to pay tribute to her for the incredibly detailed independent inquiry that she led. Her report into the historical allegations of bullying and harassment of MPs’ staff adds greatly to the work done by the independent complaints and grievance scheme working group and will drive much-needed further reforms in the way we treat and value all those who work for and support us in our roles as MPs.
I also want to acknowledge all the current and former staff members who contributed their experiences to the inquiry and helped to expose behaviours that have clearly gone on in this place for far too long.
I met Gemma White during my time as Leader of the House and found her to be both knowledgeable and determinedly constructive in supporting Parliament’s desire to modernise our practices. Her report highlights the need for everyone working in or visiting Parliament to be treated with dignity and respect, but she also highlighted some truly unacceptable employment practices. I was appalled, as I am sure were colleagues from both sides of the House, to read some of the comments from staff. As part of my work in chairing the ICGS working group, I heard some pretty harrowing testimony from several individuals, and I want to pay tribute to them for their bravery in coming forward to speak with the group. It is clear that we in Parliament must bring about long-lasting and positive institutional change without delay, and that change must come from the very top. Only then can we truly restore confidence in how Parliament works.
The report acknowledges that the ICGS provides MPs’ staff for the first time with a mechanism for having complaints of bullying and harassment independently investigated. Feedback from some of the first complainants is that turnaround times under the new procedure can be too slow. My first observation is that the scheme is still developing, so it is important that we allow it time to become fully embedded into the fabric of Westminster. The staff working for the scheme are all fully committed to continuous improvements in its processes. Secondly, I am glad that the White report agrees that employment relationships should continue to sit with individual MPs, and I fully agree with the recommendation for a centralised human resources function for MPs’ staff.
However, the question of where the responsibility for a new HR function would lie must be considered further, although the two obvious candidates would be either IPSA or the House authorities themselves. The former—I am sorry to say—currently suffers from fairly widespread feedback from Members’ staff about a lack of confidence in its practices and hence in its ability to be the supportive voice that staff members need. The other alternative provider of HR for staff would be the House authorities themselves. During the working group, they raised concerns about taking on an HR role for themselves, because that could create an unhelpful secondary employment relationship, but it would be worthwhile looking again at whether that could be the best way forward.
A key aspect of the White report is that many current staff still feel uncomfortable making complaints, and to assure them the working group must focus specifically on ensuring that, as far as possible, an individual’s career will not be affected in any way if they come forward with a complaint. That is why the ICGS carries out any investigation in strict confidence. I urge anyone with a grievance or a complaint to be encouraged to come forward via the helplines that have been widely advertised around the estate.
As part of the scope of the working group, it was recommended that a wide range of training should be available to MPs and their staff. The White report recommends making some of that training mandatory in order to bring about institutional behavioural change, and I totally agree. All MPs and all staff working for MPs should now be required to undertake at least the Valuing Everyone training that was implemented as part of the ICGS. I call on each of the Whips Offices to ensure that their MPs have completed their training within six months of the report’s publication.
Chris Bryant
When someone arrives here—perhaps straight out of university—to work for a Member of Parliament, that MP may be their first employer, so all the bad ways that they learn from them then become the bad ways that they may get into in later life, perhaps when they later go on to become an MP or work elsewhere in the civil service. Is it not therefore all the more important that new Members of Parliament are trained in human resources best practice from the moment they arrive here?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has followed this closely, and he will recall that, during the working group’s investigations, it was clear that we needed to take things slowly and not to push for too much change too quickly, but it is also apparent that Parliament has come to value its progress and its modernisation of practices, and so on. We can now move much faster than was thought back in late 2017. It is right that people should undertake mandatory training, particularly if they will be employing staff who may be coming into their first job.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend have a view as to why so few MPs have taken up this training opportunity? Thirty-four of 650 MPs, and 135 of 3,200 staff—these are tiny numbers.
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad my hon. Friend raises that point because, of course, the truth is that the training has been properly up and running for only the past couple of months. An awful lot of work went into procuring the training provider, as we needed to find a provider that could deal with the sheer volume of people who need to undertake the training. The training course itself was written specifically to be relevant to our working practices in Parliament.
I and a number of other people who are closely involved with the independent complaints procedure establishment went on the training only six or seven weeks ago to test it and to make sure it is entirely relevant and will be useful and welcomed. That has been done, so it is a bit unfair to say, “Well, why hasn’t everybody done it?” There genuinely is a capacity issue, but if all Whips were now to encourage Members to go on the Valuing Everyone training within the next six months, and all staff to undertake it within a year, it should be doable and would certainly be valuable.
I also believe that, with so many people working on the parliamentary estate, the centrally organised induction course that already exists should be made mandatory for all new starters and should be completed within three months of joining. No other major organisation would allow a new member of staff to come into such a huge and complex institution, let alone a building that is semi-falling down, without being compulsorily trained on things like health and safety, cyber-security and fire safety, let alone the behaviour code and how to raise a complaint or a grievance.
It would be easy to implement compulsory induction training, and the Director General and the Clerk of the House of Commons are keen to oversee that. It could be easily done by simply giving any new joiner a parliamentary pass that lasts for three months and is then renewed subject to their having completed the induction course.
As Leader of the House, I was proud to host visits from the Canadian and Australian Parliaments and to meet the Scottish Presiding Officer and the Llywydd of the Welsh Assembly to answer their questions on how we are determined to achieve culture change here in Westminster.
We should be ambitious to be a role model for all Parliaments around the world, confident in our determination always to treat everyone who works here or visits here with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), the former Leader of the House, and I acknowledge the significant amount of work she has done to drive this forward.
I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is travelling with the Scottish Affairs Committee. He, too, has been part of the process for some considerable time.
Most of all, on behalf of the SNP, our parliamentary group and our parliamentary and constituency staff, I thank Gemma White for her thorough and challenging report, which marks an important milestone on the journey towards culture change in this place. It is welcome that the Government have made time for this debate and for the motion on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme so soon after the report’s publication.
I also thank, in particular, Emily Cunningham from the SNP’s central staff. She has been on several of the workstreams as a staff representative and has helped to inform a lot of this.
I will briefly address the report, which we are happy to endorse, and what it means in terms of culture change and the professionalisation of Parliament, with some best practices from elsewhere. As the opening speakers have said, the report makes for sobering but not necessarily surprising reading. It is important to note, as the Leader of the House did, that Gemma White says
“there are very many MPs who are good employers and who treat their staff with the dignity and respect that they deserve”.
We should also not be blind to the occasional possibility of vexatious or malicious complaints—we are in a high-pressured, high-profile environment—but overall the report presents a picture of a culture that badly and urgently needs to change. Sadly, it contains accounts of behaviours that many of us will have heard about and perhaps some of us will have witnessed. Bullying, harassment, and a toxic culture of insecurity and under- mining have been found to be commonplace, and they are all perhaps manifestations of deeper-rooted cultures and behaviours associated with the abuse of power.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) hinted at, eventually that can become embedded and it becomes a form of learned and normalised behaviour that others either pick up or openly embrace. Challenges arise from the fact that we work in a particularly fast-paced, rapidly changing environment, where employment can be precarious and opportunities for advancement can be limited. When it comes, advancement can be massive, involving significant leaps in responsibility. So this is a huge challenge that requires each and every one of us to go back to the start and question our own behaviours and assumptions.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he is saying, but there is a greyer area at the edge of this issue. He has outlined the obvious cases of shouting, bullying and so on, but I would also argue that when an MP asks a member of staff to babysit a child or go to the MP’s flat to wait for the gas man to come that, too, is an abuse of that member of staff.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Gentleman is touching on an important issue—these little grey areas where relationships can become very close, because of the intense environment, and we ask for things that perhaps we would ask a friend to do, but not necessarily a paid member of staff. It is important that boundaries are established, and some of this is covered in that Valuing Everyone training. I will say a little more about that later, but I cannot recommend that training highly enough. The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, will be pleased to hear that a significant number of the Scottish National party group took part in that training last Thursday, coincidentally just as this report was being published, and everybody came away with things to think about and having found it a very worthwhile experience.
As well as the Valuing Everyone training on respect, dignity and understanding boundaries, there is definitely a need for further training on employment best practice. It is worth thinking about when and how some of that training takes place. There is a role for the political parties to play here, even at the candidate selection stage. Doing what we are doing now, sitting on the Green Benches and standing to make speeches is the most visible part of the job, but it is a tiny part of what is involved in the work of a Member of Parliament. People putting themselves forward for election—and I count myself in this—do not necessarily realise everything that comes with the elected responsibility. So at the selection stage prospective candidates have to be fully aware of the responsibilities they will be taking on as employers and the standards that they will be expected to adhere to. There is also perhaps a more formal role for returning officers to play during that nomination stage or shortly after the election. Then, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, very early in the MP induction process the advice and support on being an effective employer must be available.
That is why the proposal on a fully resourced human resources department is crucial to all of this, and we warmly welcome it. The system would probably be better sitting under the auspices of the House or the Commission. If it was to be somehow independent, it should be clearly so, even if staff continue to be funded through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. This is not what IPSA has been set up for and I do not think it is fair to IPSA, let alone to the people who would have to live with the consequences of it.
A new-form HR department also leads on to the recommendation that MPs be required to adopt and follow employment practices and procedures aligned to best practice found in the public sector and elsewhere. We also fully support the recommendation that former members of staff be allowed to access the independent complaints and grievance scheme, and will support the motion to implement that following this debate.
As I said, underlying any structural and procedural changes that are put in place must be a wider cultural change. Politics and political considerations should never be allowed to take precedence over principles of dignity and respect. That means that Members of Parliament and staff must be active in calling out and working to eradicate unacceptable behaviour. It comes through in the training that I mentioned that as Members we all have a duty to recognise our privilege and power and not abuse it. When complaints are made, staff and MPs should be properly supported. Nothing should discourage staff members from coming forward through the proper channels if they have concerns about their own experiences or those of others. We must work towards creating an environment in which everyone feels empowered to speak out if they feel they are being affected by bullying or harassment, and in which everyone in the parliamentary community feels that they work in a safe, comfortable and professional environment, supported by a robust system of human resources and a complaints and grievance procedure.
It was not strictly part of the remit of either Gemma White or Laura Cox, but perhaps we need to look a bit deeper into where some of these practices and behaviours have come from and how they are perpetuated. We work in a building that was designed to promote power and hierarchy—to establish a culture of “them and us”. In previous debates, we have heard new Members of Parliament speak of how on their election they felt intimidated by signs on toilets and tea rooms that say “Members only”. That was certainly my experience back in 2015, and it sometimes still is today. Quite why a staircase or a toilet is only for the use of Members of Parliament is somewhat beyond me. I know that moves are afoot to drive some change in that regard.
Once upon a time, I worked as a researcher in the Scottish Parliament. Although by no means was everything perfect there, there was an openness and transparency that undoubtedly shaped a different culture of tolerance and respect. In Portcullis House and on the Terrace, we still have tables that are clearly marked as for Members only. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) will know, in the Scottish Parliament canteen one will see Cabinet Secretaries sitting down next to the team from the mail room and special advisers sitting next to the cleaning staff. There is no sense of deference and no sense of particular entitlement based on obscure notions of seniority or grading.
Jamie Stone
I am always terribly glad when a colleague makes a good advert for the way we did things in Holyrood. That level society is a reflection of the fact that in Scotland we ourselves are all Jock Tamson’s bairns.
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. That is not to say that everything there is perfect—I do not pretend for a minute that everything is perfect—but when the Scottish Parliament was set up 20 years ago, it was designed with a completely different culture in mind, and that has led to very noticeable differences.
Here at Westminster, we work hours that push everyone to the limits of tolerance. Massive uncertainties, even on quiet days such as this, as to exactly when things are going to finish only contributes to the stress and tensions. Perhaps it would help if we had fixed times for voting and if we were not locked into crowded rooms to vote, which again promotes hierarchy and literally divides us. None of it is massively surprising. Another report that ought to be factored into this discussion is Professor Sarah Childs’ “The Good Parliament”, which is in many ways about driving a wider cultural change. Perhaps if more of her recommendations were put in place, that would go a long way towards driving that change forward. None of these reports should be left to sit on the shelf; we all have a responsibility to drive them forward.
This is not and should not be a comfortable debate for any of us. Nobody is in a position to claim the moral high ground; if the dignity of any individual member of staff has been violated, in some way we are all diminished by that. Perhaps, on reflection, some of us will recognise our own behaviours, although hopefully not the more extreme examples and hopefully not things that are intentional. In the heat of the moment, in a stressful situation, we can forget our privilege and project our frustrations on to a member of staff or on to colleagues who are not really the cause of a problem. That is something I have taken away from the Valuing Everyone training which, as I said, I cannot recommend highly enough.
Since many of these accusations and reports of bullying, harassment and unacceptable behaviours first began to surface, there has been a strong and commendable consensus throughout this process. In the SNP, we want to continue to be part of that consensus, and I assure the House that we will happily support any and all efforts to implement the recommendations of the White report, and anything that we can do to drive change of the toxic and outdated culture and practices that are experienced in this place.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I join other hon. Members in welcoming Gemma White’s report. The Leader of the House is right that we should never fail to condemn the sort of bullying or harassing behaviour that is so carefully set out in the report. Everything needs to be done to ensure that we do not have a culture that would in any way perpetuate that. It is also right to recognise that, as Gemma White has clearly said, the severe criticisms are levelled at a minority of hon. Members. As in any organisation, however, regardless of whether it is Parliament, a public institution or a private sector company, we need to deal with that behaviour head on.
I cannot believe that many MPs do not want to work in a modern workplace or have the most modern workplace practices. Although some might not have employed people before they came here, many did, so they know what a good workplace is and what good workplace practice is. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, we should start at the beginning with our candidate selection process. I have the privilege of being involved in candidate selection for my party and I am impressed by what my party does to look at the qualities of the individuals who are accepted to stand for election. There may be more that we could do, however, to ensure that people have experience of running organisations, because that is what we expect them to do if they are successful in being selected and elected to this place.
Enormous strides have been made—no pun intended with regard to the Leader of the House—in recent months and years, which is in no small way attributable to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). She brought a vigour to addressing the issues that was second to none. I pay personal tribute to her and reinforce the tributes from across the House to her tenacity in navigating a minefield of interests to get the independent complaints and grievance scheme in place. We will be forever in her debt for that.
The Leader of the House talked in his opening remarks about his intention to introduce an instrument to ensure that non-recent cases could be heard. I say amen to that; it is vital that it is introduced immediately. My only question is, why delay until the autumn? Why can those non-recent cases not start to be heard from the moment the instrument is laid, so they can be brought forward in the summer when it is perhaps more convenient for people, and so there is no delay to his intention to make sure that everybody can be held to account?
I also note the introduction of the helplines and the training programme, which I have been on. I was very impressed by the quality of the training that was given and of the individuals giving the training. I do not care who someone is; everyone can get something out of the training, however experienced they are. I was the head of graduate recruitment in the firm that I worked for and I recruited many staff over my years in the private sector, but I learned an enormous amount about self-awareness, particularly in a digital age, which has come midway through many of our careers. The use of electronic media can unintentionally create tensions that none of us would want to exist.
There is also the behaviour code and the code of conduct. An enormous amount has been done in this space to address some of the issues that Gemma White raised in her excellent report, so I have only a few questions. I have huge respect for the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, but I note that the report was commissioned by the House of Commons Commission. Although I believe that they are both members of the Commission, they are not responsible for it. Why, oh why—I have raised this issue before—are we talking again about an issue wholly in the remit of the House of Commons Commission, without the House of Commons Commission leading the debate on it? It asked Gemma White to produce the report and it has responded to it; indeed, as Gemma White clearly points out, it is the organisation most responsible for delivering on the report. As a Member of the House of Commons, I want to know where the accountability is so that we know how the House of Commons Commission has stuck to what Gemma White has set out and that it is being delivered on.
The House of Commons Commission is the most archaic bit of the House of Commons structure, and it is long overdue for reform. Unlike almost any other of our Committees, it is not chaired by an elected representative, or at least by somebody elected to that position; its membership is appointed, and it is not able, it appears, to come to the House of Commons to explain what it is doing. However, it is instrumental in making this a better place of work, a better parliamentary democracy and a better Parliament. Why is how the Commission operates still so opaque?
I can go on to the website and find details of the Commission’s meetings, although that is not always easy—and they are actions taken, rather than minutes of discussion. It is difficult, even for someone such as me who is interested in these issues, to stay abreast of what is going on. Is the biggest elephant in the room the need to understand who is accountable for implementing the Gemma White report? We have, of course, already had a debate about the Cox report, when the Commission had made very slow progress on the implementation of a number of recommendations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire was right when she was Leader of the House to forever tell us that it is for Members to decide these things. The Commission, however, is the body that enables Members to have a collective thought and collective way of implementing things. Perhaps the current Leader of the House will be able to comment on that when he replies to the debate. I feel strongly that there is still opaqueness about how these things are handled. Why is that important? If we are to achieve the sort of institutional change that the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Glasgow North have spoken about, we must have clarity about accountability. At the moment, that clarity is not there.
We have not yet picked up on the fact that Gemma White did not receive any reports from Members about harassment and bullying by other Members. We should be concerned about that; as a body of 650 people, we will have such instances. Clearly, however, Members still feel that they are not capable of talking even to somebody independent. The Conservative party has a strong Whips Office that has changed radically in the past 10 years. We need to make sure that Members feel that they can talk about these things. I was concerned that Gemma White had no examples of Members wishing to talk to her about bullying and abuse from other Members. We need to address that.
I also wish to pick up on the fact that non-disclosure agreements were discussed and highlighted in the report. Will the Leader of the House discuss that when he responds to the debate? The recommendation is:
“IPSA should consider amending the wording of the standard confidentiality clause to make it clear that it does not prevent employees bringing a claim of bullying and harassment.”
I say clearly that all my members of staff already have a standard confidentiality clause. If they were to exit my employment, I would have absolutely no requirement to reinforce or reiterate that, because it continues to stand. It is already there in our employment contracts. Why are we allowing IPSA to assert that it is a requirement on Members to have a further confidentiality clause when people leave their employment? I know from the work of my Select Committee, the Women and Equalities Committee, that this can cause considerable confusion in people’s minds and a feeling that they are being muzzled from ever talking about adverse experiences in an employment setting. That requires a little more thought and consideration before we take it as read that IPSA should view confidentiality clauses and exit contracts, or exit agreements, as being standard, because legally that is not correct.
My final point concerns the independence of Members of Parliament. We jealously guard our independence, and we are right to do so. Our employment relationship with our staff has to be independent of interference from others—that is the right of MPs—but with that right comes a responsibility to act as a sensible and a good employer. Every employee here has the right to expect their MP, whoever they are and whichever party they represent, to act in a responsible manner. I absolutely agree with others who have made the point that that has to be a relationship of which we are in charge. The idea that IPSA would become the employer of my staff, potentially imposing conditions on their employment that are inconsistent with the way in which a particular constituency office is run, would be entirely unacceptable. MPs are right jealously to guard their independence, not because of any personal gain but because, if our democratic Parliament is to work in the way that our constituents expect it to work, we have to have MPs independent of interference from outside.
This is an important debate, and it is important for every Member to engage in it and to understand that treating our staff well is a hygiene factor in being a Member of Parliament, not an added extra. I hope that even Members who are not in the Chamber today can recognise that and make sure that they take part in the training, that they raise awareness among their staff of the helplines that are available, and that they adhere absolutely to the behaviour code and the code of conduct, so that we can be truly proud of this House of Parliament.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
My colleague next to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), has just reminded me of a point that I had omitted, but that I am now going to make. Let me clarify. From information that I have seen recently, it seems to me that, if a tribunal case were taken against an MP, the MP could use legal insurance to defend that case, and the only way that anyone would know would be the £500 excess that has been paid, which would be itemised as an expenditure. In other words, could a Member of Parliament use the parliamentary insurance system, and therefore very expensive lawyers, against an employee who had taken a case to tribunal? In particular, if the tribunal were to rule in favour of the employee, would the Member of Parliament be required to pay those legal costs back to the taxpayer?
The Leader of the House might like to clarify that point in his closing remarks, because that seems to tip the balance in favour of the employer and the Member of Parliament against the employee. The employee could, of course, attempt to get union representation. That used to be rather more difficult. It was the last Unite general secretary election when, mysteriously, just before the nomination process, I got removed from my local branch, where I have a little bit of influence, and put in the Westminster staff branch. The matter was not resolved until after the nominations were done. Having been a member for 40 years, I cannot imagine what administrative change led to me being moved out of one branch, in which I have influence, to a branch in which I have none.
There was a positive conclusion, however: I was able to demonstrate that I had found a whole range of MPs in the same union branch as staff in this building. That was clearly a total nonsense and it had been going on for decades. I managed to get that resolved by protesting about being placed there myself, and MPs were then excluded from that branch—reputed to be the largest union branch representing employees in this Parliament.
Even though these problems have emerged very publicly in recent years, the unions have not quite caught up, although one has. I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), which were very appropriate, regarding the processes for selecting potential candidates for Parliament. I have previously given a bit of detail to the House about the exemplary role of the GMB in the east midlands in addressing sexual harassment. Following some press commentary, perhaps I ought to give a little more detail. In the recent past, David Prescott—a member of the Labour leader’s office—went for selection in Mansfield, and the GMB east midlands decided to give him an interview about sexual harassment to see whether he understood the issue. He did not pass that interview, so the GMB withdrew its nomination of him.
It seems that trade unions might have this remit within the Labour party because they have a significant role in the potential selection of Labour MPs, but this is an exemplary principle that should be the case everywhere. It ought to be a requirement for political parties to ask and interrogate their candidates about issues such as sexual harassment to ensure that they are up to the mark; as the GMB east midlands withdrew its nomination, it obviously determined that the individual I mentioned was not.
Last week’s shocking “Panorama” programme featured eight mainly young former members of Labour party staff, who went through the traumas of harassment and intimidation that they had been involved in. The allegations are primarily against people who are employed by Short money through Parliament. I have a list with me, so I can see that large numbers of them are employed by Short money. Now, it is essential that these former members of staff, who are external to the building, can use our independent complaints and grievance procedure if they have complaints against individuals employed through Short money who have allegedly been misusing their power to pressure people in relation to various activities. It is essential that we clarify and confirm that position, because that route could then be open to these people.
The situation is similar when it comes to external sexual harassment allegations. This report is very helpful in strengthening the systems, but it is still noticeable how reluctant people are to pursue issues. I have spoken to people who work in this place and have very specific complaints against Members of Parliament or other staff. Some have been prepared to go out there, but I hesitate to use the word “brave” because there is no less bravery from someone who is not prepared to go public about their situation but is prepared to say things about it. The role of the political parties remains the Achilles heel—the weakness.
We have cases in the Labour party where people—I have met some of them—have made allegations but no action has been taken for two or three years. Where is the decency in that? What about the rights of those who say they have been inappropriately treated or harassed, whether it is sexual harassment or any other form? If there is no resolution one way or another for years, what message does that give to people working here about how seriously the political parties take this?
Nothing exemplifies this more than the House of Commons Commission. The Whips have never suggested that I should sit on such a body; I wonder why. That is the problem with it. I would have been more than happy to submit myself to the will of other Members of Parliament. I might get zero votes to sit on such a body—fine—but there would be accountability built in.
Things are done behind the scenes. There are time bombs in all the political parties. I am not aware of any political party that does not have them ticking away, and there are some big, very serious ones. The political parties love to cover these things up and try to manage them, especially if it relates to Members of Parliament. They do not want a Member of Parliament having to resign in scandal and shame, because that is not the best way to fight a by-election.
The norm now seems to be, “Let’s wait until we get to a general election, then we can quietly drop people, and no one will notice because it’s in the general hubbub and excitement of a general election.” There is nothing wrong with dropping people. I can think of one Conservative who was mysteriously dropped in a recent election. I was delighted to see him dropped. It was done very discreetly and effectively, and I commend those running the party for doing so, but that has become the system—in other words, sending the message, “Hang on and hope for the best.”
There is no question but that it is shameful how some of the Whips have dealt with this in my time here. Obviously, I only know my own party, but I do not think that this is particularly a Labour problem, as opposed to a cultural problem here. I will give one example. I was told in a meeting, unequivocally, “If anyone’s got a complaint about sexual harassment within the Labour party, they can go to the police.” If someone wanted to go to the police, they would have done so already. I deal with a lot of people when it comes to sexual assault and child abuse who have come to see me and had my assistance and advocacy and who do not want to be named and be in the public eye.
There was an exposé in The Sunday Times two or three weeks ago about an MP who went to their party leader—my party leader—and he did nothing about it. He did nothing whatsoever. We found out about it because emails were leaked that exposed what was going on. Is that leadership? It is not my definition of leadership. It is exactly the opposite.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I pay tribute to the brilliant speech he is making. I recognise much of what he is saying from my experience in my own party. The Liberal Democrats have been through an incredibly painful process of coming to our own independent complaints procedure, which enables many of the issues he is raising to come to the fore. Most importantly, it was co-created by activists and, in particular, young women in the party who felt that the current processes were not working. I believe that the procedure is now much more robust. It is by no means done, and he is right that the buck stops with MPs and that we have to lead from within our parties. I commend him for his words.
John Mann
The Liberal Democrats have had problems, like every other party, but my specialism is dealing with antisemitism, and I will say that the only political party I have met in the last three years that has a robust process for dealing with antisemitism at the moment is the Liberal Democrat party. The reason why I can say that it is robust is that there are ways in which an external person—someone not in the party, and who may be an opponent of the party politically or electorally—can actually go in, make complaints and hold the party institution to account if it fails to take action. That does not mean it will necessarily draw the right conclusions in my judgment and it does not mean people will be coming forward, but it does mean people are far more likely to have trust in the system. It is a transparent system, and that is the key—it is not an opaque system—and it is impressive. The fact that it is transparent and that I and others were able to go in and say, “Well, you could perhaps change this, do it this way, consider this, speak to that person,” was also very healthy indeed.
Such a system would strengthen any political party. To be honest, it is in the electoral interests—in the medium term, not the short term—of political parties actually to get their act together, because it means they will keep far more young people, particularly women, and encourage more to stay. It will be easier for young people, and especially for women and minority groups, to progress within that party and feel confident in being able to do so. It is a sensible approach for any party that wants to be in power or expand its political base.
The “Panorama” programme shows where these things can end in terms of the impact on individuals. That could just as easily have been an exposé of members of staff in here about what has happened to them—just as easily. If all the emails, the WhatsApp messaging and the secret ways in which people deal with things, such as recordings from Whips Offices of meetings that I and others have unfortunately had to be in—not that they were recorded; I did not record them, anyway, but I hope that they were recorded—were put out there, such transparency would be of significance.
My appeal to this House is to speed up the processes, not to be scared of independence inside it and to get rid of the antiquated structures that are a blockage. We must make sure we have the widest possible definition of who can raise grievances, how complaints can be taken to the independent body and how they will be heard. We should be confident, if necessary and as necessary, in saying to people, “Well, the judge and jury has determined on you: out you get. We’re not having you in here as a Member of Parliament. You are not suitable because of the way that you have treated people.”
That would be a very good thing for democracy, because far too many people—brave people—are suffering anonymously and in silence, but they remain brave because they are refusing to be cowed by what has happened to them. There are far too many of them in here, and we need to think that we will get on top of it, which needs our action and our honesty and, for the political parties, leadership. Perhaps some political parties might be prepared to show some.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to welcome this report and to speak in support of it. It is reassuring that the report shows that the majority of staff who responded have not experienced any harassment or bullying, but it is absolutely unacceptable that any of them have; we should really have a zero-tolerance approach.
As many Members have already said, one of the most shocking things I found as a newly elected MP was that there was absolutely no support or training in taking on staff. I had worked for many years in the NHS as a research sister, leading a team and being responsible for the staff of the team. I had had extensive experience of advertising for staff, interviewing and recruiting; doing staff appraisals and staff development; taking on disciplinary proceedings and dealing with conflict management within the team; looking at the staff budgets; looking at sick leave and maternity leave; looking after the temporary staff; and doing the payroll returns each month. I was therefore pretty experienced in staff management, but if I had not been, how on earth would I have learned how to take on a team of staff and look after them? We elect MPs on the basis that they will be good constituency MPs and good legislators, who bring their knowledge to this place when we make laws. We never give a moment’s thought as to whether they will any good at employing and supporting a team of people.
Language is important. It is not by chance that we do not have a staffing budget, but are termed to have an “expenses budget” for staff. In any other institution or big workplace, we would not treat our staffing budget as an expense. That demeans the staff we employ. It suggests that they are seen as a little bit extra, an add-on, of no real significant structural value to the team. That term should be changed. It should be a staffing budget, which has procedures, policies and guidelines for how it is managed. The current term is unacceptable.
When I was a nurse with a team of staff, I had protected time to look after them. I had protected time to do their appraisals and training. I had other professionals to ask for support. I could phone up the HR department and say that I had someone going on maternity leave and had forgotten how to do the paperwork, and could ask for up-to-date guidelines? I could contact the payroll department if I wanted to look at giving someone a pay rise, or if someone needed to take sick leave. I had senior managers. If I was having a difficult time, I could ask for their support and some guidelines. We get none of that as an MP and we wonder why we run into problems.
My big difficulty with the report, which makes some excellent recommendations, is that it does not go far enough. It is all about dealing with bullying and harassment. We need to encourage a culture of staff welfare, because by the time we have got to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, it is far too late. From day one, or when a person is even applying for a job here, there should be policies and procedures that safeguard their welfare. If they are then employed, those structures and processes would be in place.
Layla Moran
I recognise much of what the hon. Lady is saying, but there is a Members’ HR service which has been dealing very professionally with some issues in my office. That service is available, although not enough. It should be much more structured in the way she suggests, but it does exist. I want to take a moment to thank the staff for their work; they probably just need a lot more resource.
Maria Caulfield
I have used that service, and its staff do provide a fantastic service. The point is that as an MP we have to approach them and know that their services are available. I recommend them to any MP because they are fantastic, but they are not available to staff. When I was working in the hospital and I had an issue, I could go to the HR department whether I was a team leader or an ordinary member of the team. That is the difference. Our staff do not have access to that wonderful support, advice and experience which could make a huge difference. The report recommends that they do have access to it.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) that MPs should remain as 650 small individual businesses, but changes do need to be made. We are treated as if we have autonomy over our staff, but there are some subtle things in the way that stop us. For example, I have a south-east constituency and my staff budget—it is not an expense, it is a budget—is £11,000 less than that for a London MP. Some of my staff live in London and some live in the south-east, which is as expensive as London. Some have to commute to London, spending £4,000 or £5,000 to do so. As I have £11,000 less in my budget, I cannot pay them as much or I cannot take on an extra member of staff. My small team, which does the casework and everything else that other staff members do, is under extra pressure from day one because they have the same workload as a London MP but without the same financial recognition. How is it fair that from day one the staff of non-London MPs already feel the pressure of being in a smaller team or of being less valued financially, while doing exactly the same work?
I have an office manager to whom I delegate responsibility for looking after some of the other members of the team: taking on appraisals, looking at staff leave, conducting staff training and working with them. Most of my staff work in the constituency office. They do not work in Parliament, so they cannot nip to the office next door in Norman Shaw North and say, “I have a difficult case; can we get some advice on it?” They are completely isolated as a team, and my office manager has the responsibility for looking after them. We have had members of the public come into the office in tears because we are the last port of call when the jobcentre has let them down, when they cannot get their housing benefit or when they have been made homeless on a Friday evening. They often land in tears in my office, and my staff, many of whom have just left university and do not have a huge amount of life experience, have to pick up the pieces.
Ultimately, I am responsible for my staff, but I am not there every day of the week. My office manager has to support them as a team. What training and support is available for those staff? I cannot do it all as their employer, so it is incumbent on the House of Commons to help MPs to provide that support for their staff—whether that means the senior staff who are delegated to look after them or the junior staff who have to do some very difficult work on a daily basis.
Mrs Miller
I apologise for not hearing the start of my hon. Friend’s speech. Does she not agree that there needs to be accountability for who is looking at that? This process needs to be led by Members, and therefore there is a role for the House of Commons Commission to be doing such things, although we do not really know whether it is doing that.
Maria Caulfield
I completely agree. Such things are part of our role, but I do not think they are treated seriously. We are seen as legislators and caseworkers, but our duty as an employer is seen as an expenses add-on. Until that is seen as a crucial part of our role, for which we need training on how to support our staff, including junior members of staff, a culture of staff welfare will not be created.
That brings me to my point about how we support MPs. I have been a MP for over four years. This is not a criticism of the Whips Office in any way—I do not think this is necessarily their job—but in that time, I have never had anyone sit down and ask me what my strengths and weaknesses are and what interests I have in policy. I have had health problems this year and I can get a slip any day of the week, but sometimes it would be nice for someone to sit down with me and say, “Can we give you extra support?” There is not the culture in this place to look after Members of Parliament, and that filters through to their staff. If we are dealing with a problem at the point at which it has become harassment, bullying or a sexual problem in the workplace, it is too late. We need to change the culture overall, and that starts with us looking after one another.
I come from an NHS background where training was ingrained in us. We all found that the fire training and so on was not what we wanted to be doing, but we had to do it; it was mandatory. Even as a bank nurse now, when I do shifts in the NHS, I get learning and development phoning me up to say, “You are not registered for your mandatory training. You will not be able to do any bank shifts until you have done it for this year.” I get HR telling me, “Your registration is due for renewal.” I have people checking on me.
We are busy people and we do not have someone to oversee what happens. That is exactly what is in the report. It says that we should have a body responsible to oversee us that can say, “Do you know your staff appraisals are overdue? Have you had those conversations with them? Have you looked at their annual leave? Are they taking their annual leave, or are you working them so hard that they feel that they cannot ask for it? Are they taking too much annual leave? Is there a problem with health and wellbeing?” We have no one.
We all know what it is like as busy MPs. I am just a Back Bencher—I do not have any other responsibilities—and I struggle to sit down with my staff every few months to go through some of the issues that they have. I absolutely agree, therefore, with the report’s recommendations that we need uniform policies and procedures, so that every MP’s office is the same; that assistance is provided with recruitment; that there is proactive contact with MPs’ staff; and that probationary periods are checked, because they can just go on indefinitely, with people on temporary contracts when they should be employed in substantive posts. We should ensure that appraisals are in place, because these are talented people. They are often graduates of universities, who could be getting good jobs anywhere else, but they can get stuck working as a caseworker, not getting a pay rise or staff development, which is absolutely criminal. Why? Because as MPs—as their employers—we are not there to support them.
There are lots of recommendations in the report that I strongly support, but I go back the point made by the former Leader of the House that when training has been provided—I know that the training on valuing people only started a few months ago—very few of us take up the offer. I think there needs to be more publicity around it. This week, we had a very good email from the Clerk of the House of Commons about the Valuing Everyone training, Members’ HR support, the health and wellbeing service, the sexual misconduct advisory service, the bullying and harassment reporting hotline and the employee assistance programme. There are great measures in place, but I put my hand on my heart and say that I have used none of them, and I have told my staff about none of them. If we do not read our own emails and act on them, no one oversees whether we use those crucial services.
I conclude by saying that I completely agree with the report. I believe we should have autonomy over our staffing, but we need support to be able to support our employees properly. I do not think we recognise how much is expected of MPs. We are members of probably one of the most hated professions in the country, and sometimes we need to give ourselves a break. We may be great constituency caseworkers or fabulous legislators, but there is no shame in saying that we are not sure how to employ people or how to look after those we employ. I urge everyone to read the recommendations, and to ensure that we and our staff take up the training and support that is available.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who gave an interesting speech. The Committee on Standards, which I chair, will be discussing Gemma White’s report at its meeting next week, and I do not want to anticipate the Committee’s views ahead of that meeting. Speaking personally, and like other Members who have spoken this afternoon, I very much welcome her report. I put on record my thanks to her for her work on it and pay tribute to the staff, past and present, who spoke to her, often about very painful experiences.
As with last year’s report by Dame Laura Cox—indeed, as with last week’s report to the House of Lords by Naomi Ellenbogen QC—Gemma White’s report does not make comfortable reading for us as parliamentarians, but we must pay heed to what it tells us. The White report reinforces Dame Laura’s message that abuses have taken place in the dark corners and closed offices of our institution. Of course, that does not mean that all, or even a majority of, Members or senior staff have been abusers or complicit in abuse—Gemma White acknowledges that many are seen as good employers—but there have been enough documented cases of bad behaviour where the House authorities and the political parties have been unresponsive to cause us significant concern.
The Standards Committee is determined to play its part in evolving a better standards system for Parliament. As we have heard, that has proven to be a complicated and very protracted process. That is partly because of the complexity of parliamentary structures, but there is no doubt that the sheer number of alternative and competing centres of authority—including, as we have heard, the House of Commons Commission, the political parties, the Government, various teams in the House administration, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the ICGS helplines and investigation services and the Standards Committee, as well as their duplicates in the House of Lords—have all made it much more difficult to capitalise on the political will that I believe exists in this place to deal with the problems that we face. The number of separate reviews that we have had, and the lack of co-ordination between them—not necessarily the fault of the individual reviewers—has not helped either. I hope that clarity is now slowly emerging and that Gemma White, like Dame Laura Cox before her, will assist us in moving forward rapidly.
I am pleased that Gemma White welcomes the Standards Committee’s current work on reviewing the range of sanctions available to the Committee, the House and the Parliamentary Commissioner. She notes that this development
“has been a long time coming.”
That is a fair comment, although we have not been short of other tasks to keep us busy in recent months. She has given us a deadline of December this year to put in place a package of reforms to the sanctions system. I assure the House that the Committee will use its best endeavours to meet that deadline, and I am confident that we will be able to put proposals to the Leader of the House, and the House as a whole, in time to do so.
I should add that the Committee’s work on this subject is without prejudice to any decisions that the House may make in response to Dame Laura Cox’s recommendation that Members should play no part in determining complaints about bullying and harassment against other Members. A working party of officials has been set up to put proposals to the Commission, and I am pleased that one of the lay members of the Committee has been appointed to it. I hope that the Committee will recommend an updated set of sanctions which are fit for purpose and can be implemented no matter who the decision-takers on sanctions are in future, whether they are MPs or not.
Other work by the Committee includes formulating a framework for considering ICGS appeals, on which we published a report in March. We have set up a formal sub-committee on ICGS matters to deal with that important and sensitive work. I am pleased to see that Gemma White comments favourably on the progress that the Committee has made in this area. As promised, we are keeping the appeal arrangements under review, and if necessary we will report further to the House on any modifications that we consider desirable. We have also set up an informal sub-committee to review the Code of Conduct and the associated Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members, which we are required to do in each Parliament. The sub-committee, which is dominated by lay members of the Committee on Standards, has been doing good work, and we intend to launch a public consultation in the autumn on proposals for revisions to the code and guide.
Our seven lay members continue to play a very active role in the Committee, and to provide an independent perspective from outside the Westminster bubble. I want to place on record my thanks to them. The House will recall that it conferred full voting rights on the lay members in January this year. Because the Committee has equal numbers of lay and elected members, and because I, as Chair, only have a casting vote, they now have, in effect, a majority vote on the Committee. However, I am glad to say that in the six months since we made that decision, no formal votes have taken place in the Committee. We are working very much as a unified team, following the consensus-seeking approach of all Select Committees.
We also plan to report to the House soon on the subject of confidentiality in relation to complaints, in the light of early experience of how the ICGS procedures have been working in practice, as well as reflecting some of the concerns of both the Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about the recent extension of confidentiality to non-ICGS cases. I can assure the House that Committee members, including me, have also undertaken the Valuing Everyone training, and I endorse the comments that we have heard about it this afternoon. I should add that I will be supporting the proposals in respect of non-recent allegations on which the House will be asked to vote later today.
I thank the House for giving me an opportunity to update Members on the work that the Committee on Standards has been doing in order to play our part in making Parliament a safe and respectful place for everyone who visits or works here.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I shall speak very briefly, because so many of the points made during last month’s debate on the Cox report apply to this debate, and so many further points have been made so effectively by Members on both sides of the House today.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said earlier, many of Gemma White’s findings, and the evidence with which she was presented, were simultaneously shocking and, sadly, unsurprising. It is with sadness that we must reflect on that, and consider what measures we can take to ensure that those who work for us, those who work with us, and those who support us and allow us to perform our functions as representatives here in Parliament can be sure that they will be treated with respect and dignity, and with the basic decency that we would expect from any other employer in the country.
The basic issue in the Gemma White report is the balance to be struck in terms of the role of individual MPs: the extent to which we are independent Members and employers and the extent to which we are part of a collective. Of course we are effectively 650 small businesses in this place, each operating our own shop, but like all small businesses our offices work best when they work as a team, and well performing teams are built on a strong culture of respect. It is very rare for an effective team to be founded on fear; a team is rarely strengthened by abuse and bullying. That principle clearly applies in our own offices.
I have previously worked for Members of Parliament, although in constituency rather than here in the Palace, so I have seen and know about many of the demands from both sides of that employer-employee relationship. I know the flexibility that is offered so freely by many of our staff, and it is offered so freely because they usually see themselves and us as part of a team—as engaged in a common endeavour, working in the same direction for the benefit of constituents and seeking to achieve the same things. In a good environment that is working properly staff are happy to be flexible. I know I was very happy to go well beyond what I was contracted to do; I never felt pressured to do work, including the kind of work referred to by Gemma White of a personal nature in terms of making sure MPs’ wider parliamentary activities and life are functioning smoothly. But we must also be mindful that, as other Members have said, there is a risk that the flexibility that we value so much can be taken advantage of, and not always consciously. It would be far too easy for us to get into a routine whereby we start to expect things of our staff that are clearly well beyond what they are employed to do and what it is reasonable to expect.
It is important that Members of Parliament are autonomous and, as Gemma White recognises, there is a need for MPs’ office structures to differ to reflect the needs of each different Member, but that should be an autonomy within common standards. We are autonomous, but we are not separate. We as Members cannot allow ourselves to become effectively chiefs of our own fiefdoms—judge, jury and executioner of our own parliamentary office. It would clearly be wrong and entirely unacceptable if behaviour that we would not stand for if any of our constituents came to us complaining about their own employer was allowed to happen here, under our noses and in our own offices and those of our colleagues, on very little basis other than that that is the way things have always been in Parliament. While respecting the autonomy of parliamentary offices, as Gemma White’s report does, we need to ensure that the common standards and the common framework for protecting our employees’ rights, decency and dignity at work are protected, whoever they happen to work for. The only way in which we can move on from the cases raised in this report is to embrace its recommendations and implement them. We need to establish those common standards and practices across the House, regardless of a Member’s or staff member’s length of service, apparent seniority or junior position.
Like those in other public sector workplaces, we need to ensure that there is a properly resourced HR department that can support our staff as well as supporting us as employers. That would go a long way towards providing the support that our teams need and deserve. It would provide an impartial eye, so that any difficulties could be corrected before they became serious problems. Everyone in all parts of the House should come behind this report and invest all the time and effort needed to ensure that we end the culture of harassment and bullying that has clearly been common in a small number of, but still too many, cases in parliamentary offices in recent years. As I have said, we would expect any employer in our constituencies to follow these standards of decency. We need to set that example and to lead.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am sure none of us thought we would be surprised to read Gemma White’s report, given that there were reports of bullying and harassment of MPs’ staff in the press as far back as November 2017, but even though we knew there was a problem, the report has been no less shocking. It is shocking to know that in the place where I work, some staff have been and are still being subjected to an
“unacceptable risk of bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, at work”
from their employers. Those employers are Members of Parliament, not some backstreet employer. They are people elected by this country to lead, not to have an attitude to staff that belongs to a bygone era.
No one reading the report could fail to be moved by the testimonies of those who have suffered at the hands of some of our colleagues. Like many others who have spoken today, I want to pay tribute to the former and current members of staff who have been brave enough to come forward and participate in this inquiry. I am sure that their stories were not easy to share, and I want to assure them that I and others will listen to what they have to say and do our best to put in place measures to ensure that those in the future do not go through what they have gone through. I want to read out the words of some of those members of staff. One talked about an MP who
“would intimidate, mock and undermine me every day”.
Another stated:
“After I resigned I suffered a breakdown which I have never recovered from”.
Another said:
“My entire sense of self was crushed, and by the end, I felt incapable and incompetent”.
No one should be made to feel that way when they go to work.
Grown men and women have been shouted at, sworn at, belittled and humiliated. Some have been relentlessly picked on, day in and day out, and worn down by the drip-drip nature of the abuse that they have suffered. Others have been the victims of unwanted sexual advances or banter. This is nothing short of sickening. It might not be something that many Members have personally been on the receiving end of, but we all know people who have received appalling treatment at the hands of their employer. These are people who wake up each morning with a knot in their stomach, or worse, because they do not know what they will face when they go into work. However, they know that what they will face will be unpleasant, harrowing and debilitating.
Staff are already expressing their concern that the number of Members here today does not send out the right message about the importance that we should place on the way in which our staff are treated in this place. This has happened right here under our noses in these buildings, in the corridors and the offices. It is like something from a bygone era: staff feeling bullied and abused and, most importantly, feeling powerless to do anything about it. Talk to any member of staff and they will almost certainly know someone who has been involved in such issues. Unsurprisingly, that will have had a detrimental effect on them, with some becoming too anxious or ill to work. Some have been forced to resign, often following a period of sick leave, and some have been sacked. Some have left Parliament altogether with promising careers ruined while the perpetrators get off scot-free.
Eddie Hughes
I recognise so much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He used the word “banter”—he was referring to the report—so I googled it, and it seems to imply some sort of friendly, playful exchange. However, the impacts that he is describing are far from friendly and playful. We should get away from the idea that abuse can sometimes be acceptable because it is casual.
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. People may sometimes feel that they are being amusing or engaging in banter, but they have no idea of the effect that that is having on the individual. Many sexual harassment cases over the years will have the same characteristic. That is why training is important, because we all must understand that some of the things we say can have a negative effect on people.
This behaviour has been happening for a long time, and perpetrators have been getting away with it, enabling them to carry on the cycle of abuse with the next member of staff, a problem that we absolutely must end. It is unsurprising that one contributor to the report states that staff have come to believe that there has been
“general disregard for the dignity, wellbeing and employment rights of MPs’ staff”.
I agree with that, and Gemma White agrees with that. She concludes that
“bullying and harassment in MPs’ offices is widespread and cultural”,
and it would be impossible for anyone who reads her report to conclude otherwise.
As has already been said, a minority of Members are involved in this kind of activity, but it is important to say at this point that Gemma White explicitly stated:
“Some Members were the subject of contributions from a number of different contributors.”
In some cases, we are talking not about isolated incidents, but about the same MP repeating a pattern of abusive behaviour with successive members of staff. The fact that this is just a minority must not stop us treating the matter with the utmost urgency. If the same names keep cropping up in reports, without any acknowledgment of wrongdoing or any action to put things right, we know that something is not working.
The majority of us, of course, are perfectly able to be fair and reasonable employers, but that is not an excuse for a small number who behave inappropriately. People have got away with that for too long, because we have not had the right procedures in place. We must now collectively find a way to deal with the situation, or we will all be responsible for what goes on in this place.
There is no place for bullying and harassment in any workplace, but we should be the exemplar of best practice. We should be the place that people look to for positive behaviours. We should set the standards for others to emulate. If we cannot get our own house in order, how can we effectively challenge the employment practices of others? We are failing badly to get our own house in order, because we have here another publication with yet more cases of bullying and harassment, but we have not properly implemented the recommendations from the last one.
We must stop dragging our feet. We must at least implement changes to employment practices to give our staff the same protections that we would expect from every other employer and that we would expect our constituents to have. We must ensure that the necessary steps are taken so that staff can report incidents without any fear of reprisal or retribution, because many who took part in the inquiry were clear that they felt unable to raise a complaint against their MP because, until July of last year, those complaints had to be made directly to that MP. In many cases, they were complaining to the boss about the boss’s behaviour, so who could blame them for concluding that there would be literally no point in doing so because the same person being complained about would be the judge and jury over that particular complaint?
Staff now have access to an independent complaints and grievance scheme, but it is clear that, even though the new system is in place, they still do not have confidence that it would not be career suicide to refer complaints to it. Indeed, Gemma White concludes that, even now, it is
“unlikely that the majority of bullying and harassment suffered by MPs’ staff will be reported under the ICGS.”
We must consider that seriously today.
Staff are simply not convinced of the process’s independence, so it is vital that we move to a fully independent process in which MPs are not able to sit in judgment on their colleagues in any way, shape or form. No longer should an employer be a judge in his or her cause. It really is not good enough for the Commission to recommend the non-involvement of Members in determining bullying and harassment cases. We have to move away from it altogether.
It is not good enough that there is a complete lack of clarity on the sanctions that can be imposed on an MP. The Women and Equalities Committee heard at the beginning of this month, in evidence on a gender-sensitive Parliament, that sanctions against MPs appear to amount only to an informal quiet word with a dozen or so offenders. If that is all that happens, who can blame staff for feeling that there is not much point in going through the system?
Mrs Miller
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. The Select Committee’s concern is that, even though there is now a formal grievance procedure in place, it appears that some senior members of staff still think it is the right procedure just to have a quiet word. If they are not recording who they are talking to, there is no ability to monitor repeat offenders. We are quite concerned that that procedure and practice still seems to be embedded in this place.
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. I find it incredible that we are still in that place. I cannot imagine that the contracts of employment of those staff do not make it explicitly clear that bullying and harassment are considered gross misconduct. A quiet word following an allegation of gross misconduct is not good enough, and it deters people from making valid complaints in future. That really has to change.
Even if we get to a truly independent process, we still need to think about why staff feel inhibited in making a complaint against their employer. The employer might have to write them a reference, or they might still share an office. Until recently, staff could not pursue a complaint at all if they left Parliament. I think that will change with the motion on the independent complaints and grievance scheme, but it was a ridiculous distinction to make—it would not be allowed in any other workplace—because a lot of people, for valid reasons, will not make a complaint until they have left their employment.
I am pleased that we will finally have a chance to extend the independent complaints and grievance scheme to cover non-recent cases of bullying and harassment. I do not know why we need to wait for the autumn, as has already been mentioned, and we have to be clear that this is not the final point on our journey but is a step towards it.
From what Gemma White has said, it is clear to me that, without effective sanctions and a truly independent complaints panel, we will not have true justice. It is bizarre that we can talk about extending the scheme, when the report basically says that staff do not have confidence because of the lack of independence and the lack of sanctions. That problem will not be rectified when we pass the motion on the independent complaints and grievance scheme, and we need to address it as a matter of urgency.
Ultimately, this comes down to the power imbalance between MPs and staff, the high demand for jobs in politics and the reliance on patronage in our political system, which means that the risk of abuse of power is all too great. We have 650 individual offices, which together employ more than 3,200 staff. Any other public sector organisation of that size would have a body that allows some degree of independent oversight of its employment practices, whether it be the use of probation periods, appraisals, performance management or training.
As an absolute minimum, we need basic policies and procedures to drag our worst offenders into the 21st century, and it cannot be ignored that probation periods and performance management were repeatedly raised by contributors to the report. Those of us who already recognise employment practices in a fair and reasonable manner use them to support and develop our staff, but they can be used as a stick to prevent people from making complaints—those are the tactics of a bullying employer. So I welcome the Commission’s statement that it will begin consulting immediately to see what implementation issues there will be in the creation of a new HR department, because it is clear that we need to give much more support to Members and staff in developing and implementing policies in a fair and reasonable manner. That we do not already do this in 2019 is shocking to the outside world, so we have to get on with it as soon as possible.
Having spoken to staff, I know that they are keen to see that department set up, because, as Gemma White recommends, it would also support staff welfare. We hope it would also introduce initiatives such as a buddy system for new staff, to reduce isolation, and peer mentoring for staff who need extra support. Many staff do this in an informal way already, but others are struggling behind closed doors and are not calling for help but actually need it.
There is a role for IPSA or a similar independent body in respect of the introduction of both a leavers survey and a way to collect data to monitor MPs’ employment records, which would help to identify trends or specific pockets of concern in individual offices. That is important, because there must be nowhere for bullies to hide. Only through introducing transparent systems and independent scrutiny will we be able to end the impunity that currently exists in some quarters to hire and fire at will. Let us imagine it became public knowledge that a Member had gone through a dozen or more staff in a couple of years—questions would rightly be asked about what was going on there. So although I also welcome the Commission’s announcement that it will consult on how to collate this data and use it to improve employment practices, I again urge it to do that with the utmost expediency.
Finally, I come to an issue that I have spoken about before and that the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) spoke about at length. Many MPs enter Parliament with little or no management training or experience, but that cannot be used as an excuse. If we know MPs lack that training, we should be providing it, to make sure that no one falls behind. Even with my experience in the law, I would still have welcomed a Members’ staff handbook, with correct procedures and policies in place, and I was shocked to find that there was little support here when I was starting out as a new MP, having to hire staff, set up offices and so on. Clearly, with such a low take-up so far of the Valuing Everyone training, voluntary training is not the answer. I see no reason why that training should not be mandatory for all current Members and their staff, and it should be completed within a short timeframe. It is up to us as Parliament to set the standards not just for this place, but for the rest of the country. We cannot lecture others on the way they treat their staff if we cannot get our own house in order. We must be an example of the best practice, not the worst. That starts with getting our house in order, and getting true independence in our procedures and meaningful sanctions for those who transgress.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I wish to begin by apologising for not bobbing earlier; I was enjoying the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) so much and reflecting upon it that I forgot to get to my feet. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and I was obviously so engaged with what he was saying that I wanted to join in.
I can almost encapsulate the essence of my contribution in one or two sentences. I simply want to reach out to the staff who work on the estate or in offices around the country and say, “We are on your side. Clearly, bad things have happened. We understand and appreciate now, at least to some extent, the scale of the problem. And you do not need to fear that it will be limiting to your career or ‘career suicide’, to use the term used in the report, if you report terrible behaviour by your boss, who happens to be an MP.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said that being an MP is held in very low regard by members of the public, but there is an unusual double-edged sword here, because although the public in many ways do not respect the role of an MP, a lot of people hold the job in such reverence that it gives us power, which should be used appropriately. For example, there are 150,000 doctors in the country, and I guess that vacancies for doctors are probably coming up every day of every week, but there are only 650 MPs and the opportunity to become one does not come around very often. Therefore, many people—we encounter them on the estate all the time—treat us with a degree of reverence that is completely inappropriate. Initially, I was surprised and delighted by it, but now I am slightly embarrassed by it. So I can completely see that a small number of MPs might let that feeling of power go to their heads and exercise it in a completely inappropriate way when it comes to their staff or other people—and we see that in the report.
Let us remember that the number of people who contributed to the report—220 people—feels relatively small, given that we have heard that figure of 3,200 staff, but it says in the report that more than half those people had significant mental or physical illness as a result of the behaviour that they experienced. That is 110 people, just from that small sample, who have experienced totally dreadful behaviour. I do not see how we could be in a position to do anything but treat this issue urgently and get on and address it.
With regard to the training, I seem to have made a bit of a mistake: when I said that only 34 MPs and 135 members of staff had taken part in that training, I did not realise that the opportunity to take part came about relatively recently. I was reminded of the fact that when I became a councillor in 1999—as a young, I think, very well brought up lad—I went to the council and was totally shocked by the way councillors berated and belittled members of staff. I just could not understand how they could treat them so poorly, yet it felt like that was just the way that relationship worked: the councillors had the upper hand, and it was perfectly acceptable for them to be rude in public to staff at the council. That clearly was not acceptable, and fortunately, three years later, the council was placed in special measures and it became mandatory for councillors to attend training.
One problem we have with training is that those people who need it least are the people most likely to take it up. Those people in the council who actually would have benefited from the training were completely aghast and self-righteous—“Why should I be made to attend any training?”—but the Government said, “This is mandatory. You don’t get out of special measures unless you attend training,” so those who needed it were forced to have it and the council moved quickly to a much more comfortable position. I hope that we do not end up in a position where we need to make training mandatory, but that MPs just accept that we have a problem and that it would be a good idea if we sought to address it.
Personally, I still found it a shock coming here. I had run teams and managed budgets—all those sorts of skills that would be necessary to do a good job of running a team in Parliament—but I distinctly remember how completely overwhelmed I was in my first weeks as an MP. There was information coming from all directions; I was trying to understand parliamentary procedure; and emails were coming in by the hundreds and thousands. I felt almost a sense of panic. I just wanted to understand my role as an MP, and my role as a manager was secondary.
When I attended the parliamentary assessment board to get on the candidates list, that was not exactly the skillset being tested. The board wanted to know that someone was a committed Conservative, that they understood policy and that they could make a reasonable job of representing the Conservative party publicly; it was not so focused on whether someone could manage a budget and staff and handle HR procedures. It is therefore completely appropriate that we have a beefed-up HR department and that there is the opportunity for us all to access the excellent support that already exists but perhaps not at a scale that is appropriate for 650 MPs.
I have one other thing to say. I agreed with almost everything that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, with one exception, which was when he said that we should not have tables saved for us in Portcullis House with something that says “Reserved for MPs”. I completely understand his point, but on an estate where meeting rooms are at an absolute premium and with 650 of us looking to have meetings perhaps two or three times a day, sometimes the only way that I find the space to have a meeting is to meet people in Portcullis House and sit at one of those tables. I do not feel in any way that that sets me at a level above; it is just a practical thing. Give us some more meeting rooms and I say, “Let’s have equal access to tea, coffee and cake in future.”
I wish to conclude where I began, by saying to the staff, “We are wholeheartedly on your side. Do not suffer. If you have any problems with your boss, come and talk to one of the people who have contributed to this debate, because we are on your side.” I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will make that apparent.
Mel Stride
I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to the debate. Interestingly, there has been a high level of consensus. It appeared that it had broken at the end, when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) suggested a disagreement with the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), but then the hon. Gentleman started to nod vigorously, so we are in agreement on virtually every aspect of the matter.
We agree that, as was set out in the White report, in the main Members of this House behave appropriately and in some cases in an exemplary manner towards their staff. We all recognise, however, that there are cases in which the behaviour between Members of Parliament and their staff is inappropriate, sometimes grossly. We all agree that, particularly as a Parliament that sets an example to others and, rightly, sets the legislation that requires businesses to conduct themselves in a certain manner, we should uphold the highest possible standards and that any example of egregious behaviour between a Member and their staff is one example too many. Equally, as has been clearly expressed, we share a desire to do something about that, which is why we welcome the recommendations of the White report, and to make sure that we proceed at pace to tackle the issues that Gemma White has rightly shone a light on.
I will deal with some of the specific questions asked in the debate. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), among others, raised the Valuing Everyone training and made the point that a relatively small number of hon. Members and their staff have engaged with it. Notwithstanding the valid point that it is in its early stages—I believe that it was only earlier this year that it was being piloted; my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said that she had taken part in what was then a pilot—it is important to make sure that each and every Member undertakes it. I have undertaken it, as have the shadow Leader of the House and you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I found it helpful and useful.
Further suggestions were made about the training. We have discussed whether it might become necessary to mandate it. In the event of there not being broader engagement, that might have to be seriously considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire suggested that there might be a three-month induction period, during which that and other training sessions might be expected to be completed and, in the event that they were not, passes might be withheld as a consequence. There are different ways to address the issue, but there is no doubt that it needs to be addressed.
The shadow Leader of the House asked how long the consultation on the report will last. As she knows, although she is right to ask me that question in the context of this debate, which I am leading, it is a matter for the House and the House of Commons Commission, on which she, I and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, sit. What I will say is that we will press forward as quickly as we can in that respect, as was expressed at its last meeting.
The shadow Leader of the House also asked how we might measure the cultural change that we are seeking to achieve in this place. There are various statistics and numbers that we can use to measure progress: the statistics on access to the helplines that form part of the independent complaints and grievance scheme are publicly available; we touched on the number of hon. Members and their staff who attend the Valuing Everyone training; and there will be the 18-month review of the ICGS, as recommended under the terms of the Alison Stanley report.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire welcomed the fact that the White report does not recommend a fundamental change in employment status when it comes to Members of Parliament and staff, and I would agree. She also speculated about where the new HR function should rest, suggesting either IPSA or the House authorities. She had a fairly strong view on “the former”, as she termed it—on IPSA. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. We must have that debate, which is why sometimes these things take a little time. It should not take longer than it needs to, but we need to work our way around the human resources recommendation in particular, to make sure that that aspect is absolutely right in every possible detail.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North also spent time discussing hierarchy and the areas of the Palace not available to non-Members. He made an important point, and the House of Commons Commission is discussing those issues. Although the Government may not agree with him on the matter of Scottish nationalism, we can perhaps even learn some things from the Scottish Parliament in that respect, as he suggested.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked two specific questions, one by way of intervention on my opening remarks: it related to the treatment or accessibility of the ICGS for those whose employment is funded through Short money. I have had further notice from the box to tell me that if someone was part of the parliamentary community, they would have access to the independent complaints and grievance scheme, irrespective of how their employment was funded.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the payment for legal advice of which Members may be able to avail themselves under insurance policies provided by IPSA, if I understood him correctly. He may have been referring solely to industrial tribunals, which would be outside the context of the internal arrangements that we are discussing here. However, if his remarks pointed more towards the ICGS scheme, I should say that, as I understand it, there would be no advantage, under insurance arrangements or otherwise, to the MP as opposed to the member of staff who might be complaining about them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) specifically asked about why the Cox 2 recommendation, which we will address in a moment by way of a motion before the House—that the scope of the ICGS be extended back beyond June 2017 and include those no longer employed at the House—should not be rolled out immediately when the motion is passed. The answer is that it will take a little time, particularly to get on board the specialist independent assessors required to look at cases that, of necessity, will sometimes go back some time.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may or may not know the answer to this question. What would be the total cost of setting up an organisation such as that?
Mel Stride
I do not know; the House of Commons Commission will consider that. I interpret the hon. Gentleman’s question as showing concern that we should always be aware of the costs of putting recommendations into place, and he is entirely correct. Often, reports come forward with recommendations, and off we go saying that we should accept everything exactly as it is presented; further down the line, we decide that it was rather bureaucratic and expensive. In making sure that the recommendations of the report are bedded in correctly, we should have such issues at the forefront of our minds.
Mrs Miller
No one would expect non-recent cases to be dealt with immediately; it is obvious that they will take time to look into. Why cannot the Leader of the House enable cases to be brought forward now, while the recruitment process is going on? Clearly, during the summer period people might have more time to gather the necessary information to submit a claim.
Mel Stride
The message from the Dispatch Box this afternoon is that we expect these measures to be introduced by October. Therefore, the message to anybody who is minded to come forward is that there is now time to prepare prior to October, when we hope that the independent assessors, who will handle that work, will be in place. I think that I can at least signal that that is our anticipation, and hope that that in itself is helpful.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. I must say that I am a little perplexed that we have a scheme that is essentially identical to the current complaints scheme, that it has taken this long to come to fruition and that there will be a further delay. What is also of concern is that there may be an election later this year and those who may get caught by this historical complaints process may no longer be Members of this place. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, in those circumstances, those people will essentially not face any inquiry?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has very perceptively poked his finger into one of a few areas where it is not entirely clear how the system will work. Indeed, he is right. If a Member has left this place, I guess that an investigation could be conducted, but then there would be the issue of what sanctions could be applied and by whom. Indeed, a Member may have left this place and gone to the other place and, in those circumstances, he might ask what the process would be and who would apply the sanctions—if sanctions are to be applied. The best answer that I can give him is that there are elements of this that will require further work. If he would like to contribute to that, my door is always open.
That brings me rather neatly on to the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. She rightly asked the question about this whole issue of transparency, ownership, accountability and leadership, and where these decisions ultimately rest. I am standing at this Dispatch Box as a Minister leading this debate, but, of course, these are matters not for the Government, but for the House. They are matters for all 650—600-plus—MPs who have actually taken their seats in this place. In some senses, there are some quite deep and reform-related issues around governance here that various Members have raised, which really fall to the House to grapple with. My role in that is that I sit on the House of Commons Commission, as does the shadow Leader of the House, but I do not lead the House in terms of reforming its own procedures and practices, albeit that I can facilitate some of those changes, as I have done, by bringing forward this debate today, and, indeed, the motion that we will very shortly and hopefully be passing in regard to historical cases.
Finally, let me turn to some other points that have been made. I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for her outstanding work on the Committee on Standards, and for the time and courtesy that she offered to me when we met recently to discuss a number of the aspects of the work of her Committee. I also thank her for the work that she is doing at the moment on the different sanctions that may apply to Members of Parliament and for her best endeavours to complete that work, as suggested in the report, by December of this year. Finally, I thank her for the work that she will be doing alongside the House of Commons Commission in respect of the Cox 3 recommendation around MPs effectively not being able to mark their own homework.
In conclusion, I thank again all those who have contributed to this very important debate. We in this House hold this place dear. We are the guardians of its present and of its future, and we have a duty to ensure that it represents the very finest traditions and principles of our country. The way in which we treat those who support us in that endeavour lies right at the heart of any claim that we may make that we meet that vital test. I thank Gemma White for her report. Progress has been made, but there is still more to do and we will press ahead now with vigour.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Gemma White report on bullying and harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary staff.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Extending the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, laid on Monday 15 July and approves the steps set out in paragraph 8 of the report to make the changes necessary to extend the scheme, endorsed under the resolution of 19 July 2018.
We have just debated the findings of the Gemma White report. In the course of her inquiry, MPs’ parliamentary staff came forward to discuss their experiences of working in the House of Commons, just as members of staff employed by the House of Commons came forward to speak to Dame Laura Cox last year. As I think all Members here today have recognised, even one case of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment in this place is one too many. I am grateful to those who have come forward to share their experience with these inquiries. As has been noted today, significant progress has already been made on these issues, and it has been made with cross-party support. In making this progress, it has been critical that the parties were able to work together to establish an independent complaints and grievance scheme for Parliament, which marks its first anniversary this week. I particularly my predecessor and colleagues from across the House for their work in setting up the scheme.
Now is the right time to make an important change to the function of the ICGS, to enable all those who came forward with past experiences of bullying or harassment to access the scheme and to have full access to an investigation where it is appropriate. I am determined that all those who have worked or are still working in Parliament should have an independent route to turn to if they have been bullied, harassed or sexually harassed. The opportunity for those with historical cases to access the ICGS was one of the three key recommendations made by Dame Laura Cox in her report of October last year. Gemma White has also recommended that the limitation on historical cases be removed, including to allow former members of staff access to the ICGS.
If we are to create a culture in Westminster in which everyone is confident that they will be treated with dignity and respect, we must continue to reform and also be prepared to confront the problems of the past. Today’s motion is about doing just that—giving complainants whose cases date from before June 2017 full access to the ICGS, along with providing access to this scheme to those who have left their employment here. There is certainly more to be done, but today’s motion is a huge step forward. By acting to address and face up to the past, we work towards creating a Parliament where all can rightly expect to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for tabling this motion, and all those involved with producing the House of Commons Commission report, “Extending the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme”, which was published on 15 July.
In May 2019, the Commission unanimously agreed to consult on its approved proposal for dealing with non-recent cases by using the existing ICGS and employing specialist investigators for both assessing and investigating non-recent and recent cases. The consultation was launched on 21 May and closed on 14 June. The responses to the Commission’s public consultation were overwhelmingly supportive of its preferred option. Respondents included current and former staff of MPs and the House service, the Centre for Women’s Justice, the trade union side, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Accordingly, at its meeting on 24 June 2019, the Commission agreed to include non-recent cases in the ICGS—hence, this motion. Until now, the ICGS has been available to all those who make up the parliamentary community. Paragraph 8 of the Commission’s report sets out necessary changes to open the ICGS to non-recent cases and to former members of the parliamentary community.
I pay tribute to the staff who are currently working on Dame Laura Cox’s third recommendation; we know how hard they work. Every time Members say that things have to be done quickly, there are a lot of hard-working staff who have to carry out that work as soon as possible. The staff team are currently working on ways to implement a fully independent complaints system, and will be helped by a working group of experts in constitutional law, constitutional history, human resources and procedure, as well as consulting Chairs of various Select Committees and party representatives. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is one of those consultees. A statement has been published today, and I urge everyone to read it on the intranet and respond to it. She made a point about the Commission, but everything is open. The decisions are published on the intranet, and questions to the Commission can be answered in the Chamber by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) or tabled.
I have a simple question for the Leader of the House: can he tell us the timetable for the report following the consultation and the completion of that work? He might know that, or he might want to ask his officials. In the circumstances, Her Majesty’s Opposition support the motion.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
As I said in the previous debate, the SNP is very happy to support this motion and welcomes the changes to the independent complaints and grievance procedure, to open it up to cases that predate the 2017 Parliament. That is the most important way we can ensure that anyone who has been affected by inappropriate behaviour in the parliamentary community has access to and independent means of achieving justice, as well as the many excellent support services that have been put in place.
While I understand why the previous cut-off date was introduced to begin the process, it now feels arbitrary, and it does not recognise that investigations should be based on the weight of evidence, not simply the passage of time. That is why we are pleased that in the Commission’s statement, a key emphasis is placed on ensuring that the investigatory process at all stages is
“independent, impartial, thorough and fair, and evidence led”.
As was said in the previous debate, we have to remember that this is fundamentally about achieving not only justice for people who have been affected by inappropriate behaviour but longer-term cultural change in Parliament. Once again, the SNP is happy to support the motion.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I will not speak for too long, because I am sure the House has heard enough from me today, but I have a couple of queries, following what I said in the previous debate about this only being a staging post to our final destination.
The Gemma White report says that
“contributors to this inquiry have expressed considerable concern about using the new procedures and scepticism as to what the ICGS can realistically achieve. Many of them told me they would not contemplate making a complaint under the new ICGS procedure, because it would be ‘career suicide’… Some are concerned about the independence of the ICGS process… and the lack of clarity as to the sanctions which could be imposed on an MP.”
Those are still the issues with getting a process that we and, most importantly, staff can be confident in. Until we have a process that does not involve Members at all—I appreciate that work is going on in respect of that—staff will feel a bit inhibited in making a complaint.
The other issue is sanctions. I am not at all clear, and I hope the Leader of the House can clarify when he responds, what sanctions will be levied against an MP for a complaint being upheld under this procedure. For the procedure to have the confidence of staff, it must have proper sanctions.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
To clarify, on behalf of the Committee on Standards, we are conducting an inquiry into exactly the question of what sanctions would be appropriate in a number of different situations. We would be more than happy to hear from my hon. Friend and, indeed, all Members.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware that a consultation is ongoing, but it begs the question of what will happen with complaints that are being dealt with now if sanctions have not been clarified. Presumably some complaints will be resolved before the Commission reports. If I am wrong about that, I am happy to be corrected. Will sanctions be applied retrospectively after they have been agreed, or will investigations be reopened? Those are the questions that I hope the Leader of the House can clarify when he responds.
Question put and agreed to.
Transport in Bedfordshire
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to Mr Speaker for granting—and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for chairing—this Adjournment debate on the topic of transport in Bedfordshire and, of course, in Luton. This issue is incredibly important to my constituents and to me. We all know that transport is a key enabler of economic growth, allows access to work and education, and is increasingly recognised as key to tackling loneliness.
My constituency is fortunate to have a number of great transport options, with the midland main line for rail, the M1 motorway and its proximity to the M25, and of course London Luton airport. These are the fruits of far-sighted decisions and investments made both in this place and elsewhere over the decades, but we cannot stand still. Infrastructure from the 20th century will not be sufficient for us to thrive in the 21st. While, understandably, that means having better broadband, with 5G and rural connectivity, it must mean having better roads, trains, buses and aviation links. Today, I wish to outline five areas in which I believe transport in Bedfordshire needs to put in good stead for this century, not just for the last.
First, we all know that we must develop our roads with an eye to the vehicles that will use them. Yes, this means electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles, but it will continue to mean existing petrol and diesel vehicles for some years to come. These contribute to climate change and cause congestion, but they are also a lifeline for the 54% of my constituents who travel to work by car, and they are essential for many living with disabilities. In supporting the logistics industry, good road connections will always be at the heart of our economy.
In that context, I remind the House that the M1 motorway was this country’s first full-length motorway, and it is a major strategic route. It is currently being upgraded to a smart motorway north of London. This is of course welcome, and it will tackle congestion on routes as they grow. However, the M1 leaving Bedfordshire south of junction 10, which has been subject to its own upgrade programme in recent years, is not currently operating in the same way.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this forward. There is not an MP in the House who does not have a transport problem in his constituency. My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman has problems with road closures across his constituency, as I have in mine. Ever mindful of that—and I did do some research into his key issue—is the hon. Gentleman worried about the disruption that the closure of the A6 for repairs will cause for transport in Bedfordshire, and if so, are there plans to tackle the disruption? If we do not tackle such disruption in every constituency, and particularly in this one, we will have a real problem.
Mr Shuker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who once again uses his well-recognised ingenuity to raise the parallels between his constituency and my own. He is obviously well versed in the issues of the A6 just south of Bedford and adjacent to the village of Wilstead. He is quite right that its closure for up to six months will have a knock-on effect on constituents and on my constituency. I might say that I am surprised he did not raise the user experience of Luton airport, as he is of course a keen commuter backwards and forwards to his own constituency. Later in my speech, he may have some views on Luton airport, as I am sure he will have tried one of the many routes allowing him to get back to his constituency from the brilliant user experience that is London Luton airport.
Jim Shannon
I am very pleased to say that I have had the opportunity to use the Luton airport connection to Belfast City. It is extremely usable and accessible, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that, unfortunately, Heathrow is just that wee bit handier for here.
Mr Shuker
I am particularly grateful that the main business of the House finished much sooner than we were expecting, because if the hon. Gentleman wants a long list of the many advantages that are coming to London Luton airport—in many ways, they may outstrip the advantages of London Heathrow airport in the years to come—I am sure I will be able to mention them at some point in my speech.
As I was saying, the M1 south of Bedfordshire does need looking at, particularly as London Luton airport looks to expand in the coming years. I ask the Minister to consider carefully whether the existing programme of development that is already in place will provide the capacity needed to keep the traffic flowing not in just in the next five or 10 years, but for the next 50 years.
That said, there is a wide body of evidence to show that simply widening roads does not do much to reduce congestion, as new capacity brings forward new demand. The brave programme, put in place under the previous Administration, of exploring smart motorways might allow further expansion of capacity south of Luton airport.
The other point I would like to make about roads before I move on is that it is 30 years since bus deregulation, and there is clear demand to reverse it. As a regular user of the bus services in my constituency—I acknowledge that there are many benefits as well as the cost implications, which in many ways are very different from those in major metropolitan areas—I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether the process of allowing local authorities to have a greater say on the provision of services, achieved in places such as Manchester and London, could be extended to Luton, Bedfordshire and beyond.
Secondly, we must provide our railways with the resources they need to succeed in the decades to come. The railway is extremely important to Luton. Many people travel to London for work or to see friends and family, while many thousands of others travel in the other direction to take a flight from London Luton airport. There is even more travel from Luton to Kettering and beyond, and such northerly connections are essential. Our railways serve a diverse set of needs. They might easily be characterised as just London’s commuter belt, but they are much more than that: they are Bedfordshire’s link to the world. Luton’s stations, of which there are three, serve 7.7 million people each year, and they are growing rapidly. That growth is built partially on the delivery of the Thameslink programme, which delivered extended platforms and a new footbridge to Luton station. In some ways, however, access for my constituents was diminished by the implementation of that programme and further fixes have not been put in place.
Alongside the botched timetable changes for Thameslink in May last year, which were very damaging to Lutonians, the programme as a whole delivered more seats, trains and capacity for Luton. I acknowledge that a lot has been achieved on rail transport in the past decade, but we should also remember that such programmes take time to be implemented. The Thameslink programme was originally called Thameslink 2000. It was proposed in 1991, just three years after the first Thameslink services began. Planning permission was not granted until 2006 and funding not delivered until 2007. It took 30 years to deliver the Thameslink project. Much of that time involved important consultation, impact assessments and cost implications, but Luton has not stood still in the past three decades.
I know the Minister has journeyed to see some of the improvements in Luton, and I met him at London Luton airport among other places, but I encourage him to see Luton railway station and the surrounding area. In the past decade, the area around Luton railway station has been completely transformed, with major investment by the local authority, businesses and others. The one remaining eyesore that still exists there, which I will come on to speak about, is Luton railway station.
Through the Luton to Dunstable busway, residents of the nearby town have access to London via Luton in less than 30 minutes. Over the past 30 years, Luton has grown significantly, and so have its transport needs. I am not the only Member of Parliament from this part of England to complain about his local train service. I would not want to put any money on the number of Adjournment debates you have sat through during your tenure, Madam Deputy Speaker, involving Members standing up to complain about commuter journeys. I acknowledge that the south-east does receive its fair share of transport funding, but that only serves to remind us that there is such a strain on railway services in the south-east because of demand.
I put on record that there are currently serious problems due to timetabling on the midland main line. As a result of the last-minute downgrading of the Thameslink programme and delays to the midland main line upgrade programme, last May, Luton station—where passenger numbers have risen by 12%—did not gain services but lost its peak-time East Midlands Trains services. Many of my constituents preferred using these services to get into and out of London in the evening, because they get to London faster and go more directly. At least at that time, however, the Department for Transport, in seeking to try to take some responsibility for the mess that had been caused, mandated Thameslink to provide for the loss of the services by providing additional fast peak-time Thameslink trains.
Infrastructure constraints mean that providing the replacement services to Luton required some Thameslink services to no longer stop at Harpenden, just a couple of stations down the line. Govia Thameslink Railway, which manages the route, has announced today that it will consult on moving some peak-time Luton services so that they stop at Harpenden. Many of my constituents rely on these services for their employment, and I would be deeply concerned to see their livelihoods put at risk by any loss of services from Luton. In February this year, I successfully blocked that move in an ill-tempered meeting with representatives of the company, commuter groups and other MPs. It was not a pleasant experience to have to do that to try to prevent services that rightly serve my constituency from being taken away and given to groups that shout more loudly in more leafy areas further down the line. As this consultation opens today, I urge all residents of Luton and those who travel from there to take note and contribute. In a growing town with growing railway usage, train users should have more trains, not fewer, and Luton residents who rely on these services to get to work must be heard.
I understand that there are difficulties caused by the delayed midland main line upgrade in places such as Harpenden, and while it is easy to sympathise with commuters further down the network towards London, any changes to the timetable should reflect the data and not just those who shout the loudest. I would go further and say that the consultation should also take into account the economic inequalities that are in play. Arguments to move services based on the proportion of season ticket holders, for example, do not accurately reflect the number of commuters, but rather the number of commuters who have the financial means and access to purchase expensive season tickets. It is a misleading comparison, and acting upon it would be hugely regressive for my constituents. It would be wrong to remove services, and particularly those put in place to mitigate the loss of other services due to the Government failing to foresee what was about to happen on that congested stretch of line, to serve a richer, more vocal community at the cost of a poorer one.
Let me say this: I will not stand by and watch my residents’ services taken away by a more vocal minority. It is an injustice, and the Department should not hide behind Thameslink’s action, if the move that the consultation brings about takes services away from Luton and places them in the hands of Harpenden.
Thirdly, we must make our railway stations fit for everyone in the community, so I make no apologies for raising again the matter of Luton station, which serves some 3.7 million passengers a year. Close watchers of this House’s proceedings will recall that 1,223 days ago, I secured an Adjournment debate on this matter, noting at the time that no progress had been made on the rebuild in the 2,179 days since the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) had secured a debate on this issue. My maths tells me that 3,402 days have now passed since that first debate, and I regret to inform the House that, despite widespread agreement that the upgrade at Luton station is required, no progress has been made.
Luton station was identified in 2009 as one of the 10 worst stations in the country, and it was promised money from the £50 million better stations programme, but it saw that funding pulled by the coalition Government when they came to power in May 2010. The station is as old, tired and inaccessible as it was 10 years ago. Because of its location in the town, the station also harms accessibility for people who want to get from one part of the town to another to access jobs, education and shopping opportunities. Frustratingly, funding for that vital rebuild has been close on several occasions, but it has not been close enough for my constituents. Luton station has received no new funding in a decade.
I seek a commitment from the Minister to meeting me, GTR and local rail users to discuss how we can improve Luton station. There is no point in delivering a railway that succeeds for the decades to come if it continues to fail some of the most marginalised groups in our society. I would like the Minister to reflect on the fact that in richer constituencies along the Thameslink line—the line has received £7 billion of investment to upgrade capacity—works have been scheduled in control period 6, and other upgrades have been delivered in control periods 4 and 5, but there has been a complete failure to mandate any upgrades to the facilities at Luton station.
Fourthly, we must enable aviation to succeed in the national interest. I see you taking the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you will be pleased to hear that I only wish to make five points. I have long championed Luton airport, which is in my constituency and which supports around 30,000 jobs and puts £1.5 billion into the local economy. Each household in Luton benefits to the tune of £340 a year because we chose not to sell off London Luton airport in the late 1980s, as many on the local authority wished us to do. In retrospect, that looks like a very smart decision.
The benefits are widely spread. The airport carries 16.6 million passengers a year; that figure is 80% higher than when I came into the House in 2010. The airport is England’s gateway to the rest of the world, and it brings major benefits to the whole country, as well as to my constituency. Crucially, it has delivered growth and improvement with no additional runway capacity; we still operate with the same runway that we have used for many years. That is in line with the Government’s aviation strategy, which allows expansion but not at Luton airport. I welcome the airport’s masterplan for sustainable growth over the next 30 years, which seeks to take capacity from 18 million passengers a year to 32 million or 33 million.
The Government will be asked to make a decision on expansion at Luton airport, because only central Government can balance matters of national importance against local concerns. Against the backdrop of otherwise unmeetable aviation demand in the south of England, expansion is necessary and wholly appropriate. We know that we can deliver it at Luton, where we have a real vision for an airport that is currently Britain’s fifth largest. It is also right that local authorities make decisions on smaller matters that might affect local residents but that are not strategic concerns for the nation. As an example, increasing the planning limit on noise at Luton airport by some small amount will directly affect local residents, but it will not have massive strategic implications for the future of the nation.
Both those planning processes are appropriate and important. Personally, I think that it is outrageous deliberately to conflate the two, alongside the local authority’s ownership of London Luton airport. That might make good copy in the pages of the Herts Advertiser, but it represents really poor behaviour from those who should know better. I would appreciate it if the Minister laid out his understanding and expectation that under the current planning framework, the decision to undertake any major expansion at London Luton airport would be made by central Government after weighing up all the implications.
Fifthly, and finally, interconnectivity between different modes of transport must be at the heart of any transport strategy for Bedfordshire. I should point out that the largest railway station in my constituency is not Luton, but Luton Airport Parkway, which serves 3.9 million passengers each year. At present, it takes about at least 20 minutes to get from the station to the airport terminals. If we are to enable aviation to succeed—Luton airport is particularly important to airport capacity in the south of England—we must provide easy interconnectivity between the airport and the railway. That is why the Luton Borough Council’s investment of £220 million in the direct air-rail transit, or DART, system is so important.
I now take great pleasure in commuting from my constituency and seeing the progress that is being made on that project every day. DART will greatly improve passenger connectivity, cutting the shortest journey time between St Pancras station in central London and the terminal door to less than 30 minutes. I believe that when it is in place, it will be quicker for me to travel from the House of Commons to Luton airport than to travel from the House to Heathrow—certainly before the new Elizabeth line opens. I encourage Members to try that out when the opportunity comes along.
Most services currently take considerably longer than 30 minutes, however. The shortest journey time of under 30 minutes is possible on just one train per hour. Most airports—for example, Gatwick and Heathrow—benefit from four fast trains per hour from central London, but those airports are full, and any new construction will not be completed for decades. I am sure the Minister will agree that Luton airport has an essential role in meeting new aviation demand, but it will not be able to play that role without effective surface access, which, in my view, requires a Government commitment to putting its rail connections on an equal footing with those of Gatwick and Heathrow. As the Minister knows, I lobbied hard for that at the time of the awarding of the East Midlands franchise and was disappointed by the missed opportunity to mandate four fast trains per hour. I ask the Minister to work with me in trying to lobby the new operator, Abellio, to introduce that service voluntarily. Even at this late stage, it will be missing an opportunity if it does not do so, as the airport seeks to expand and potentially double its numbers over the coming years.
That five-point plan for improving transport connectivity in my constituency and beyond is obviously not conclusive. It will not radically transform transport. The issues are more complex than that. No single Minister is likely to pick up a pen to grant all those wishes in one go. That is, in many ways, part of the frustration experienced by a Minister at the Department for Transport: making decisions that will take a long time to come to fruition. However, these are the important bread-and-butter issues on which we are elected to the House to deliver. I would love the sort of decision-making prowess for which the Minister is renowned to be applied to them and particularly to the rebuilding of Luton station. In that context, I shall welcome him back to Luton as soon as his diary secretary will allow him to pay it a visit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) and welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issue of transport in Bedfordshire. I will deal with all the points that he raised. He ended his speech by saying that there were some frustrations for a Minister in the Department for Transport. I have to say that being a Minister in the Department for Transport is a great privilege and honour, and great fun, too, but it would be nice if we could sometimes deliver projects a little more quickly in the United Kingdom. That problem has bedevilled the delivery of infrastructure and, indeed, all sorts of procurement in the UK. But we fully recognise the importance of transport underpinning the economy of our nation. The investment in transport we are making underpins economic growth and investment in social mobility and in environmental improvement—all points the hon. Gentleman made very eloquently in his speech.
It is a while since I last visited Luton, but I recall doing so and I am acutely aware that Bedfordshire is an historic county and an important county in transport terms. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the M1, and there is also the A1, the A5 and a number of key rail routes, and obviously it is home to a major international airport. Transport is critical in ensuring that his communities can work together to secure the local ambitions of a vibrant place to work and live. He also mentioned the important social function of tackling loneliness, which I entirely agree with.
Across transport modes, the Government are making a number of key investments to help drive economic growth through our transport networks. Let me start by talking about the investment in rail. I am aware of how critical rail is to the Bedfordshire economy and transport network, and the number of people who rely upon it for their daily commutes. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the majority of services in Bedfordshire are delivered by GTR and East Midlands, and he highlighted the particular challenge in terms of GTR performance last year. I am pleased to say that the service has been significantly better over recent months, although several external incidents have impacted on services over the past few weeks, such as some flooding and trespass on the line.
The performance of Thameslink and, indeed, the entire network in terms of punctuality is absolutely my priority. Officials in the Department are continuing to engage with GTR to ensure that performance improvements are delivered and then sustained, and I have also raised this with GTR and will continue to do so. The entire industry knows, because I have been very boring in saying nothing much else, that I expect to see performance improvements and it basically doing what it says on the tin: keeping to the timetable. That is the rail industry’s key customer pledge.
Since the timetable change of May this year, Luton is receiving an increased weekend service and passengers are seeing the benefits of the Thameslink programme, providing enhanced connectivity for Luton and Bedfordshire, and Luton and Luton Airport Parkway stations will both receive £80,000 from the GTR £15 million passenger benefits fund.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State announced in April that Abellio East Midlands will operate the next East Midlands rail franchise. This new franchise will bring a host of enhanced services and passenger benefits to Bedfordshire. The service is due to start almost exactly one month from today, and Abellio East Midlands will invest over £500 million pounds in the network; this will deliver significant improvements in the quality of trains and stations to maximise and build upon the £1.5 billion investment the Government are making in the midland main line upgrade.
Abellio will oversee the introduction of a brand new fleet of trains to the upgraded midland main line from 2022, which will result in faster journeys over long distances in the peak and introduce new frequent express services from Corby through Luton into London. From December 2020, once the relevant section of the midland main line upgrade is complete, the additional East Midlands services mean that Luton Airport Parkway will benefit from an extra-fast direct, branded Luton airport express service from St Pancras every hour throughout most of the day.
This is in addition to the current East Midlands service and the GTR services, so up to 10 trains per hour will run to Luton Airport Parkway in the peak and a minimum of eight during the off peak, including twice hourly fast and direct express services. This additional East Midlands express service will also benefit Luton station, which will be served by eight trains per hour all day, up from seven, and up to 14 trains per hour during the peak, up from 12. Together, these improved services will improve access to and from Luton airport.
The points that the hon. Gentleman made about the importance of connectivity to airports were absolutely spot on. We obviously wish that connectivity to be increased through the rail network, not through the road network. These improved services will help that objective significantly. He mentioned the consultation that GTR will carry out with Luton and Harpenden passengers, which could indeed see some small targeted changes made to the timetable from December this year. GTR opted to undertake the consultation so that it could fully consider the views of both sets of stakeholders, alongside other factors such as passenger numbers, in making its decision on what represents the best balance of services on the line.
I understand entirely where the hon. Gentleman was coming from on that point, and I encourage him to ensure that all his constituents contribute to that consultation. My focus will be on increasing the capacity on the line so that both communities benefit from better services. The objective is to ensure that we do not have to worry about the allocation of rare slots and that we see the upgrades that will ensure that all communities are better connected.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the station at Luton, and I hope that the news that Luton is one of the 73 stations that will benefit from the £300 million Access for All funding available in this spending period has been welcomed. It is part of our inclusive transport strategy to ensure that our railways are open to everyone. I am aware that local partners, including the borough council, have aspirations for a much wider redevelopment of the station. I believe that Network Rail is working with the council to try to ensure that their proposals are integrated and will allow the Access for All phase of the development to commence as soon as possible. However, delivery of the Access for All work can progress only with the co-operation of Luton Borough Council, and I therefore hope that the current co-operation between the council and Network Rail will continue, because the project is long overdue and we want to see it delivered.
The hon. Gentleman has a very good track record of bringing people together to solve community issues on his patch, and I hope that he will continue that work to bring people together on this issue. I will be happy to take up the issue with Network Rail. He asked for urgency, and I am happy to give that undertaking. I will of course keep him updated on progress.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the importance of local roads and congestion, and he pointed out that 54% of his constituents travel to work in their cars every day. As we know, there is congestion in the area, and congestion is a problem that we take very seriously. That is why we have made a number of investments for local transport within Bedfordshire to help to address this issue, and we will continue to invest. This includes £2.5 million towards a new Bedford western bypass and £11 million towards the regeneration of Bedford town centre. We are also funding £22 million towards the A421 dualling scheme that is being led by Central Bedfordshire Council. That £22 million investment will improve journey times and ease congestion from Fen Farm to junction 13 of the M1.
I clearly remember my visits to Bedfordshire during my time as Roads Minister. In fact, there were three visits. Two of those were related to the £162 million investment in the new link road between the A5 and the M1 north of Dunstable. I saw the project twice during its construction, and I know how important it has been in improving journey times and reliability, and in improving the quality of life in that area, because Dunstable was a real bottleneck and the town centre was being made significantly less pleasant than it could be because of the sheer volume of through traffic, particularly heavy traffic. I hope that that construction has helped to tackle that problem.
That project followed earlier investment in Bedfordshire, including the £30 million improvement to junction 10A, which the hon. Gentleman and I both visited. We visited a number of places across the constituency. Indeed, it was my honour as Roads Minister to cut the ribbon to open that new spur to the airport. I will certainly pass on the comments about the M1 south of Luton to the current Roads Minister. The smart motorway network has helped to improve the capacity and predictability of our network. The system has evolved through several iterations since the early days on the M42 many years ago, and the scheme has helped to improve capacity considerably.
Buses are a core part of local transport infrastructure, and bus use in central Bedfordshire has risen by 27% over the past 10 years. The innovative Luton to Dunstable Busway, which my Department helped to fund, has been key in increasing bus patronage in the area, allowing Luton to be reached from Houghton Regis and Dunstable in less than 30 minutes, which puts Luton’s employment opportunities, airport and fast London trains within easier reach.
The hon. Gentleman had some specific questions about bus franchising, which takes us back to the Bus Services Act 2017. Franchising is a significant responsibility, and all authorities must have a compelling case to implement such a scheme. Local decisions to move to franchising must be based on robust evidence and analysis, with the needs of passengers firmly at the centre of a council’s decisions, which can be subject to judicial review. The 2017 Act provided a suite of options, which include partnerships and enhanced partnerships. It may be preferable for local authorities to consider partnerships with bus operators to improve services in their area. Although I am no longer the Bus Minister, I am aware that partnerships have successfully helped to drive up bus usage, and they are also less disruptive, with less risk for the franchising authority—the local council. Several options are available, but I would encourage all councils to start by looking at the opportunities in the different partnership models.
At the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was the importance of Luton airport to the local economy and community, and he made the case for the connectivity required to help it thrive very well. Luton is the fifth largest airport in our country, and air travel is vital across the UK and the EU for connecting people and businesses. The UK and EU have a mutual interest in maintaining closely integrated aviation markets, and both have put in place measures to ensure that flights can continue under any EU-exit scenario, demonstrating a clear commitment to maintaining connectivity. That should give Luton airport’s customers the confidence to book and fly to European destinations however we leave the EU. I am aware of some uncertainty in the press about how dampened demand has potentially led to people redirecting their holiday choices, but the key thing is that we have made great progress and that there will be a clear commitment to maintain connectivity whatever the EU-exit scenario. We want Luton’s customers—indeed, all aviation customers—to book with confidence.
I am aware of Luton Borough Council’s desire to increase the capacity of the airport and that it will be undertaking a consultation in advance of a potential development consent order application next year. As the final decision on the planning application will be taken on its merits by the Secretary of State for Transport, it would be inappropriate to comment any further, but it is good to see people working to improve the local economy and the factors that drive it.
The issue of connectivity to the airport is perhaps the fundamental point, and the hon. Gentleman has requested four trains an hour. In the development of the east midlands franchise there was a public consultation on the question of Luton airport services, and the public were supportive of the status quo, so we did not specify an increase in services to Luton Airport Parkway as a requirement. However, bidders were incentivised to propose initiatives to increase rail access to the airport that would not cause a reduction to existing services.
Passengers will benefit from a doubling of fast East Midlands services to two an hour, both to and from the airport, from December next year, and they will be modern, comfortable Luton Airport Express-branded services. The hon. Gentleman makes his case well, and I will pass on his comments to GTR and East Midlands Trains so that they both consider connectivity to the airport, as he requests.
I hope the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Members right across Bedfordshire recognise there has been considerable investment in the county’s transport network. I simply urge local partners to identify the best solutions to address their transport problems and to build a robust and compelling case that demonstrates to Government the need for investment in key infrastructure in this high growth, high potential part of the country, delivering benefits for current users and equipping the area for future growth and success.
We have had a good debate that has covered all modes of transport. The only one we have not covered, for fairly obvious reasons, is maritime—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should not tempt the hon. Member for Luton South. There has been significant progress, and I look forward to seeing more progress delivered to improve quality of life and to drive the economy of the constituency he serves.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. This is yet another affirmative statutory instrument regarding the environment for consideration in respect of the UK leaving the European Union, in accordance with the result of the 2016 referendum, subsequent agreement by Parliament and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The Committee may wonder why we did not consider this statutory instrument prior to 29 March. That is because the functions it concerns were not deemed critical for day one operability and continuity. I therefore agreed to lay the instrument before Parliament after 29 March, given the huge amount of legal work and work by officials undertaken in the run-up to 29 March. However, now that we have the extension until 31 October, I want to ensure that the instrument is ready for exit day.
The statutory instrument creates regulation-making powers to be exercised by Ministers here and in the devolved Administrations. The instrument itself makes no change to policy and has no impact on businesses or the public. The regimes connected to the powers in the instrument will continue to function as they do now, and will change only if new regulations are made under the powers being created.
Part 2, which contains regulations 3 to 15, covers functions with respect to five EU directives relating to air quality: the directives on emissions of volatile organic compounds, ambient air quality and cleaner air, industrial emissions, medium combustion plants, and national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. Those functions include, for example, a power to specify a common format for monitoring data for volatile organic compounds, and a power 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 volatile organic compounds and national air pollution programmes are conferred on the Secretary of State. Volatile organic compounds are a reserved matter. Powers relating to national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, on the other hand, are devolved, but the devolved Administrations have already agreed to those powers being transferred to the Secretary of State to exercise on behalf of the whole United Kingdom because they involve UK-wide obligations. However, the Secretary of State must, on each occasion, obtain the devolved Administrations’ consent before making regulations on those matters. The Secretary of State must also have regard to requests from devolved Administrations to make regulations effectively on their behalf.
For all other devolved matters in part 2, powers are conferred on the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority is defined for part 2 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. That allows for a common approach on legislation across the United Kingdom, providing more certainty for industry and other stakeholders. Regulation 15 provides that the appropriate authority may make regulations under part 2 only after having consulted anyone whose interests appear
“likely to be substantially affected”
and any other appropriate persons.
In part 3, regulation 16 transfers functions in the EU environmental noise directive, which aims to avoid, prevent or reduce the harmful effects of exposure to noise pollution. Those functions are conferred on the appropriate authority, which is defined in the same way as for part 2. They allow for specified technical aspects of the directive in the UK’s transposing legislation to be amended by the appropriate authority in the light of scientific and technical progress. These are very limited and technical matters. The Government’s consultation principles will apply to determine whether consultation should be carried out before regulations are made.
Part 4, which contains regulations 17 to 22, confers functions under the EU directive establishing an infrastructure for spatial information, which is known as the INSPIRE directive. The functions in regulations 19 to 22 include powers to make provision in relation to metadata for spatial datasets and services, and interoperability and harmonisation of spatial datasets and services. Those powers can be used to amend a number of pieces of EU legislation that will become part of domestic law in the UK on exit day, such as the EU implementing regulation on metadata. Chapter 1 sets out definitions for this part, including regulation 18, which defines an “appropriate authority”. This is slightly different from the definition in parts 2 and 3, in that the Secretary of State is the appropriate authority for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, because INSPIRE is devolved only to Scotland. However, the Secretary of State may also legislate for Scotland if Scottish Ministers consent.
Regulation 23, in part 5, transfers functions contained in the EU marine strategy framework directive, which aims to protect the marine environment, by amending the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010, which transposed the directive to the entire United Kingdom. The functions relate to: assessing the state of UK seas and setting objectives, targets and indicators to measure progress towards good environmental status; carrying out programmes to monitor progress against the targets and indicators; and setting out a programme of measures for achieving good environmental status. These functions are conferred on the Secretary of State to exercise for the whole marine strategy area, as defined in regulation 3 of the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. This includes the UK’s territorial seas, including coastal waters, offshore waters out to the limits of the UK’s renewable energy zone and the seabed in areas of the UK continental shelf beyond the renewable energy zone.
Some of these matters are devolved, but the devolved Administrations have agreed that, because they involve UK-wide obligations, these functions should be exercised by the Secretary of State. Before making regulations under this part, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of relevant devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State may also consult interested parties, including, where appropriate, the OSPAR commission and other international organisations to which we will retain our obligations after we have left the EU. The Secretary of State must publish a report on his decision following consultation.
Part 6, comprising regulations 24 to 46, confers functions contained in eight EU water directives relating to the protection of waters in general, including the water framework directive, the groundwater directive, the environmental quality standards directive, the bathing water directive, the drinking water directive, the urban wastewater treatment directive, the nitrates directive and the sewage sludge directive. The functions include powers to: set out technical specifications for economic analysis and water quality monitoring; specify the procedures for establishing groundwater threshold values, assessing groundwater chemical status and identifying upward trends in groundwater pollutants; specify the symbols to be used for information on bathing water prohibition and to make provision about handling 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 in order 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 the devolved Administrations, with their consent. Before making regulations under part 6, regulation 46 provides that the appropriate authority must consult the appropriate agency—the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency or the Northern Ireland Environment Agency—as appropriate, and indeed any other persons who the appropriate authority considers appropriate to consult. Part 7, comprising regulations 47 and 48, sets out the procedures for making regulations in each part of the United Kingdom and provides that such instruments are to be made in each case by the negative procedure.
These regulations, as I have tried to explain, extend to the whole United Kingdom, with the exception of part 5, which applies to the marine strategy area. The nature of these regulations is to allow for the straightforward transition of limited technical legislative functions that are currently conferred on the Commission by EU environmental directives. Some of the Commission’s powers enable it to make amendments to EU legislation, for example by adapting technical annexes to a directive to reflect changes in scientific and technical knowledge, without any need to refer back to either the European Council or the European Parliament. Other powers also enable the Commission to set out the details of things such as reporting requirements.
When the directives were transposed into domestic law, there was no option to take such powers, because they were specifically powers to be exercised by the Commission, not by member states. We have subsequently seen the Commission exercise its powers to legislate, and we have then used the powers in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and similar implementing powers to make any legal changes needed to reflect updates to the directives or to implement the detailed rules set by the Commission. After EU exit, unless we give these sort of updating powers to authorities in the UK to exercise for domestic purposes, in many cases we would only be able to make changes to legislation through primary legislation.
The powers will be used to ensure that domestic legislation continues to function well in the future and reflects scientific developments. They are, however, limited in nature and not the kind of functions for which we would normally require primary legislation. As in other cases, they are suitable to be dealt with through secondary legislation. It is fair to say that if we had to resort to using primary legislation and did not have the powers, it would become increasingly difficult for the law to keep pace with both scientific and technical change.
The instruments provides that in future legislative functions will be exercised by making regulations through this Parliament and indeed devolved Administrations. Parliament is therefore capable of scrutinising such regulations. By contrast, Parliament currently has no say whatsoever over how the European Commission exercises the powers. In many cases the regulations also explicitly require consultation with interested parties and expert bodies before regulations are laid before Parliament. For example, regulation 15 in part 2, which relates to air quality, requires such consultation before regulations are laid, and regulation 23 makes similar provision relating to marine strategy.
I have been made aware of a briefing from Greener UK. In its letter, it asks for things to be done that are not done today. I stress that that is not the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, under which we are in effect translating EU law into domestic law. Indeed, in my transparency statement I must be clear that we are doing what we need to do and not new things. The powers in the Act are there for me to make operable and effectively mirror the language of the directives. I understand Greener UK’s concern that phrases such as “non-essential elements” may appear somewhat odd as regards normal parlance, but that is the wording in the directive that we are effectively translating.
I point out that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did not report the regulations to the House. I believe the regulations are a sensible approach that will ensure that we continue to have appropriate legislation that helps us protect the environment.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I will use my remarks to raise a number of concerns on behalf of the Opposition about the regulations and the way in which they have been put together. They seem a little like the pile of vomit we sometimes see on the street after a night out. With a cursory glance, we wonder, “Why are all those bits in there, and where does the carrot come from?” [Hon. Members: “It’s too early!”] No, no. Everyone needs to be awake on this. When we see the broad range of topics included in the regulations and the Minister’s statement that they were held back before exit day, we must consider why all these measures are being included together. The only contingent stream seems to be that they all under the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Stakeholders have raised concerns with the Opposition on which I will provide some detail. The Minister tried to head off some of the concerns raised already, but I would like to put a few questions on the record that perhaps she can answer. I warn her that our concerns are substantial, so she cannot be assured of the Opposition’s support; it will depend on the answers she gives.
We are concerned that the regulations represent a power grab by Ministers, potentially enabling them to reduce current EU environmental protections by amending their own duties, standards and monitoring requirements, in particular for toxic emissions. The withdrawal agreement and the draft Environment Bill do not maintain the current EU protections or keep us in step with improvements. Indeed, we have not yet really seen the full extent of the Bill. These regulations need to fit with the other jigsaw pieces the Minister alluded to that we passed before 29 March. Hon. Members who have sat on Delegated Legislation Committees on such topics will note that air quality, marine management, water and water resources are the subjects of many of the statutory instruments that we have passed.
I say gently to the Minister that there is utility in mentioning how related instruments will fit together in the first and second stages when one statutory instrument is considered while others are held for future consideration. That will help scrutiny of those SIs; otherwise, all we have is random bits of legislation that do not seem to fit together. I am sure there is a method in the tactics that are being pursued, but it makes scrutiny much harder.
A key concern is the governance gap between leaving the EU and the date when the Government’s proposed environmental watchdog starts to function. The public cannot have confidence in it if it is appointed by and reports to DEFRA. Some of the watchdog’s powers relate directly to the areas that the SI covers, so they are connected. We are concerned that the Brexit legislation is being used as an opportunity for the Government to take on additional powers, but not with the same level of scrutiny as we had before, and that the new environmental watchdog does not strengthen the protections that we have together.
We have concerns about how the SI’s provisions fit together with the overall Government strategy on air quality. We know that the Government’s plans have been ruled unlawful numerous times by the High Court. The clean air strategy was a disappointment with vague targets. Responsibility was shoved to some local authorities with a degree of power, but some of their resources were taken away. Stakeholders have raised concerns about how powers will be exercised in relation to air quality, so will the Minister set out any additional powers and the level of consultation? The key thing for lots of stakeholders is that if the Government change any of the powers, will the stakeholders be consulted and will the consultation be done in a meaningful way?
On environmental noise, the current proposals are not good enough. They do not cover noise from domestic activities and noise created by neighbours, noise in workplaces and noise from transport. The Minister mentioned stakeholder concerns and she is right to highlight the concerns flagged by Greener UK, but other organisations have also flagged concerns. They are concerned that the SI establishes broad powers for the relevant competent authority, usually the Secretary of State, to make amendments, by regulation, to a wide variety of significant legislation, which potentially has important implications for the environment. Although some of the powers are limited in that the powers may be exercised only to the extent that the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate to do so as a result of scientific and technical knowledge, the requirement does not apply to all of the powers in this SI. Indeed, it provides no clarity as to what
“appropriate...as a result of scientific and technical progress”,
actually means. That is a broad statement, so will the Minister clarify what considerations and technical tests she will apply in defining what scientific and technical knowledge means in relation to this measure? Simply being really good at science and sitting in a Government Department might not qualify, so it is important to have some external scrutiny of what that definition actually means.
All the regulations that can be made by the competent authority under the SI are, pursuant to regulation 47, subject to the negative procedure of scrutiny, which means that the regulations become law on the day they are signed by the relevant Minister and will remain so unless Parliament agrees a motion to reject the relevant regulation. In SIs in the past, the Opposition have raised concerns about how many of the additional powers the Government are taking for themselves and applying via the negative procedure, potentially limiting scrutiny. We know that many of these powers are exercised by European authorities at the moment, who have a wide range of scrutiny functions derived from the European Commission and the European Parliament, and we need to look at the transfer of such scrutiny powers to the United Kingdom and how they can be properly reviewed, so will the Minister set out why she feels powers in negative SIs, and not affirmative ones, are the right ones to take?
Key to many of the concerns is the lack of scrutiny. Will the Minister confirm for the record that the SI has been in the reading room and has had stakeholder feedback on its production? What changes, if any, have been made? The Minister knows that a pet hobby-horse of mine is impact assessments, and I am afraid this SI prompts the same critique as the others, which I have mentioned in this place many times before. Page 11 of the explanatory notes, under the section on “Impact”, states:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”
or the public sector, and therefore:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because it creates regulation-making powers rather than changing any policy.”
I am concerned that the difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact” is an impact, and an impact assessment of the difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact” would be required. I know that Minister’s officials normally have to prepare lines to rebut my saying these things, and I wonder whether we can find a way to avoid that dance each time and have a mini impact assessment or a form of words that enable the time that officials spend rebutting my concerns about the impact assessment to be spent on applying some of these elements.
Now that we have got through the glut of DEFRA SIs ahead of the proposed exit day on 29 March, I wonder whether Government Ministers could persuade the House authorities through the usual channels to slightly adjust the set wording on the explanatory notes, to clarify whether there is “no impact” or “some impact”, so that we have those as two very different statements. These regulations could have some impact, but it has not been assessed. The Minister is probably correct that they take a lot of powers but might not necessarily change any policies. Given that there might be no change in the powers but that they could bring significant change when used, and that there is not always the same scrutiny of the exercise of those powers, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out her view on that.
The Opposition have some concerns about the environmental noise area. On the INSPIRE side, we are concerned about the devolution agenda and how different levels of devolution can ensure consistent application. If there is a difference between the devolution of INSPIRE in Scotland and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, how would that be resolved? If they are applied in different ways, would the Minister be concerned about that? Has any consideration been given to how that spatial data can work together to ensure that we get the right stuff?
I will close my speech by addressing marine strategy. The Opposition is very keen for the Government to have a more ambitious marine strategy for the protection of our oceans and seas. We are concerned about the application of the powers that are being transferred to the Secretary of State. I encourage the Minister to use the powers that she already has, as well as the powers that she is taking, to protect our environment in a faster, fuller way. We are very concerned about the state of our oceans and marine environment. Colleagues’ research on marine plastics and pollution, and the report on toxins and chemicals that was published yesterday by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, should concern us. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how she expects the powers in the marine section to be used. Simply transferring those powers is one thing, but their application is another.
There is plenty in the SI that looks like just a paragraph, which is our key concern. The consultation that needs to follow the powers does not always seem to apply as thoroughly as it should. I am concerned about how this fits with the other areas that we have already approved, and whether we should expect any other, related SIs. In her opening remarks, the Minister said that she chose not to bring forward this SI in the flood that we had leading up to 29 March, because it was not deemed critical. The powers that the Minister has taken are still substantial and I would be grateful if she could set out what other, non-critical powers she is expecting to transfer that relate to water, water resources, marine management, air quality and environmental protection, and which might not be included in this SI but will relate to the powers contained in it and in the others that we have passed in those areas. It is really hard to scrutinise the full regulatory and legislative impacts if the Minister keeps dripping different elements in at the same time, and if there are no aggregated or collated versions at the end that enable easy scrutiny, apart from trawling though the entire statute book—as we know, that is a much bigger challenge.
On that basis, the Opposition remain concerned about large chunks of this SI. We would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the concerns raised by stakeholders around the power grab, the additional powers and how any scrutiny functions will be applied in the use of the powers.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I have a few brief points. I thank the Minister for her comments and references to devolved Administrations. The fact that they are speaking with each other is reassuring. I am confident in the Scottish Government’s ability to scrutinise the UK Government.
As Members will know, improving air quality is a priority for the Scottish Government. Our ambition is for Scotland to have the cleanest air in Europe. Compared with the rest of the UK and other parts of Europe, Scotland has a high level of air quality, which we are trying to protect at all costs.
None the less, we have also set out stringent air quality targets, higher than those in the rest of the UK. Scotland has adopted in legislation the World Health Organisation guideline values for fine particulate matter, PM2.5, and I believe we are the first country in Europe to do so. We spend more than £1 billion a year on public transport and doubled the active travel budget in 2018 to support sustainable travel options.
Finally, I am certain that others, and certainly Scottish MPs, will join me in congratulating Falkirk on being the best walking neighbourhood in the UK—a clear demonstration of putting our feet where our mouth is—getting people out of their cars and developing a healthier life choice. That is an award well recognised by everybody in this House. Unfortunately, I could not attend the award ceremony because I was speaking on climate change at that time. Nevertheless, I think it should be recognised.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I urge all Members to go to see the Falkirk wheel, if they have not already inspected it. It is essential to understand the importance of water and the way engineering and water can combine for the public good. It is also makes a wonderful day out.
The Chair
Before the hon. Member for Falkirk responds, I have looked at the order carefully and the word “Falkirk” does not appear in it. I would be grateful if he could stick to the matters in the order.
John Mc Nally
Thank you, Mr Hanson. I thought the point was relevant to today’s debate.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
In response to the hon. Member for Falkirk, I have been there once in my life, but I have not seen the Falkirk wheel. Perhaps I will add it to my summer list.
I object to the terminology used by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport at the opening of his speech. Our officials and lawyers have worked very hard on this legislation; it is not vomit. It is actually good, normal, sensible legislation being brought to this House for scrutiny.
Hon. Members will be aware that we had a huge number of statutory instruments to process into group areas, especially where they were small and similar, with the same approach of basically updating, in this case, technical powers. I thought it was appropriate to group together the different areas in order to undertake that. I also want to point out that I wrote to the shadow Secretary of State on 5 July, making her aware of this and inviting her to get in touch, if any discussion was wanted. I appreciate that the Government have the full benefit of the civil service behind them and the Opposition rely on Short money for that support to help on policy matters.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that this statutory instrument was put in the reading room. No feedback was given to the Department at that point. There has been a subsequent briefing from Greener UK. I am not aware of contact from any other organisation on this and, as a consequence, no changes to the regulations were needed before formal tabling, which we are debating today.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is just going to have to join either the Procedure Committee or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I have made that appeal to him before. This is just the way that Parliament works, and it is not for the Government to change how Parliament decides that it wants statutory instruments to be written. We are following the conventions and rules set out by Parliament. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a champion for change on a number of matters. I encourage him to join the relevant Committees to make that change.
On the points that the hon. Gentleman made about air quality, regulation 15 provides that, before making any regulations under the part regarding air quality, there is a statutory duty to consult. Consultation will be carried out in accordance with our standard principles. On noise, the statutory instrument simply replicates the powers in the directive. It would be an inappropriate use of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to do anything more than what is in the directive. If we want to make changes in the future, that will be a separate matter for us to consider through means other than this device.
On negative SIs, I repeat to the Committee that, at the moment, the Commission can exercise the powers without any scrutiny by this Parliament whatsoever. Today’s proceedings will at least give Parliament the chance to look at future regulations. We will have consultation where it is deemed necessary, and then Parliament can, even through the negative procedure, suggest that the regulations be stopped, debated and voted on. Parliament does not have those powers today.
Marine is an important issue, on which I think the House is united in wanting to do more. Again, the regulations are simply about powers to update technical matters. The hon. Gentleman mentioned how we know what will change, scientifically. As it stands, the Commission is regularly approached by scientists, academics and others in order to get such changes made, to update the technical progress. We would expect a similar situation to happen, whereby the Government would be approached by people saying, “We think you need to update these particular regulations,” or simply making a suggestion on how we monitor data.
A future marine strategy is an ongoing process within Government. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the INSPIRE regulation and metadata. That is a devolved matter. Usually, the UK Government work in great collaboration on matters that can be helpfully dealt with on a UK-wide basis—we have seen that as regards a series of processes. There is no reason why such ongoing co-operation cannot continue; however, the whole point of devolution is that, if a devolved Administration want to do something different, they do not have to remain in step with the rest of the UK.
Luke Pollard
In relation to scientists approaching the Department and asking for changes, one of the key things about our marine environment is that fish and other aspects of the marine environment do not respect national boundaries. Ensuring that regulations and standards in our marine environment, especially in areas that jut up against our EU neighbours’ marine environment, is really important. Does the Minister anticipate changes in the way that standard and monitoring assessments are made by our EU friends that she will need to carry over into UK law, or does she expect the two standards, which are currently the same, to diverge?
Dr Coffey
I am not expecting particular changes, but it is important to point out that we also have marine boundaries with non-EU countries. There is regular, ongoing co-operation through the regional management organisation for fishing. We also have the OSPAR commission, which covers the north-east Atlantic. Again, that has non-EU countries in it. We already have ongoing co-operation. It is important to state that one element of leaving the European Union is that it will be for Parliament to decide to make changes, rather than automatically agreeing with what the European Union decides is appropriate for its regulations. That is part of the effect of leaving the European Union.
I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentlemen’s concerns. This is a special day for me, because I have been doing this role for three years. I am very much looking forward to continuing for at least another week or—who knows?—for longer. With that, I hope that the Committee will support the motion.
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Andrew
All of our vision is for a shipbuilding sector that does not need a contract for a couple of non-complex warships; it could also work in the civil sector.
[Official Report, 11 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 222WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct wording should have been:
Stuart Andrew
All of our vision is for a shipbuilding sector that does not need a contract for a couple of non-complex ships; it could also work in the civil sector.
Petition
NHS hospital services in the Consett area
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Music Education in England
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered music education in England.
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir George, and to open this debate—the first parliamentary debate I have led—on music education. I thank all those who contacted me about the debate, especially the schools in Bury North that told me about their experiences, as well as the all-party parliamentary group for music education, the House of Commons Library and the excellent sector organisations, including the British Phonographic Industry, PRS for Music, and of course UK Music. Those organisations demonstrate impressive leadership and make a powerful case for music education in their published works.
As friends will testify, when getting to know someone I soon share with them my passion for music. Shortly after that, I will probably mention that I played at Glastonbury in 2003, on what is now known as the John Peel stage, on a Saturday at 11 o’clock—11 am. It is good to be here for this important debate in another early morning slot. Two simple ideas will guide my argument. First, music education must not fall victim to the tired old argument of traditional versus progressive education; it applies to both. Secondly, this debate must look to the future in the light of calls for music education based on current assessments.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on being one of only two MPs to have played at Glastonbury. I am not the other. Does he agree that the Government could approach this issue without having to change all their assessments simply by stipulating that no school under inspection could be rated “outstanding” unless it had an outstanding creative offer, including in music education?
James Frith
My hon. Friend makes a powerful suggestion. I will come to Ofsted’s role later in my speech, as I believe it can be a friend in this mission.
Music output from the UK remains world leading. Artists such as Stormzy are breaking new boundaries and contributing to the success of our £4.5 billion industry. In seven of the last 11 years, the biggest selling album in the world was by a UK act. The heritage of British music is celebrated worldwide, but we must focus on the future. We cannot afford to be complacent at a time of great economic and cultural change. Britain’s role in the world is under new assessment. The rise in automation means that we must emphasise what makes us human, not compete on learned behaviour with the machines we make. Our education system must emphasise what distinguishes us as human, and music education is a huge part of that effort. Creativity, expression and performance are instincts as important as what we feel from the beat of a drum.
Last year, UK Music, the umbrella body for the commercial music industry, released its “Securing Our Talent Pipeline” report, which sets out in great detail the challenges beneath the success stories facing the industry. The report details evidence that 50% of children at independent schools receive sustained music tuition, while the figure for state schools is only 15%. Seventeen per cent. of music creators were educated at independent schools, compared with 7% across the whole population, and 46% of them received financial help from family or friends to develop their career. Growing inequality of opportunity underlines the problem. In that report, the CEO of UK Music, Michael Dugher—formerly of this parish—argues that a career in music must not become the preserve of those who can rely on the bank of mum and dad, and he is right.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent and passionate speech. Will he pay tribute to organisations such as the Cheltenham Festival for Performing Arts, which provide exactly those opportunities to people from all walks of life—private and state schools—and allow them to perform, build their confidence and, hopefully, build a lifelong interest in music and performing?
James Frith
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I pay tribute to any organisation engaged in that endeavour. My argument is that we need a universal approach as opposed to an incidental one, but I absolutely support the work of that organisation.
Our education system must support a deepening of the well of talent that we rely on. Music education is falling in the charts: there has been a drop of nearly 10% year on year for subjects not in the Ebacc, GCSE music entries have fallen by 24%, and since 2010, there has been a 17.8% reduction of music tuition in years 12 and 13. That is a worrying trend that Tom Richmond—a former adviser to the Department for Education and now director of the think-tank EDSK—says can “no longer be ignored.”
There is huge variation between our state and independent schools. Access to music education, with opportunities to learn, play and perform music, remains too exclusive. That must change; we must give every child the opportunity to learn the best of what has ever been said and done. Of course, that means maths and English, literacy and numeracy, but the enrichment that music brings cannot be put to one side. Children should be given the chance to shine at both or either in formal education, whatever their socioeconomic background. They should be invested in with the cultural capital of music education. In March 2019, the BPI’s extensive teacher survey highlighted that just 12% of the most deprived state schools have an orchestra compared with 85% of independent schools, and that over the past five years, state schools have seen a 21% decrease in music provision compared with a net increase of 7% in independent schools over the same period.
All our schools should turn with the natural and developing needs of every child and be more responsive, patient and dynamic, and show less rigidity and more agility. If schools do not have the time, resources or funding to do so, we must address those issues, rather than switching off the approach. Children can be better engaged in their education by expressing their natural creativity and curiosity. In fact, the argument for school tests and exams can be applied to the preparation for a musical performance as well—the idea, the studying, the rehearsal, the performance, and yes, the acclaim. Exam hall meets music hall. If we are to prepare our young people for the emerging landscape and an active, working and loving life, we need to pursue a balanced and expansive curriculum that recognises and hones skills and aptitude.
The school accountability system has pushed music education to the fringes of the way that a school’s success is judged. Music is being squeezed out of the curriculum. The suite of EBacc subjects does not include music, and although the year 9 curriculum changes may attempt to include music and creative subjects more broadly, their carousel approach means that they dilute and reduce time spent learning the speciality that music education represents. That concern is supported by the BPI’s teacher survey, which says that 31% of state-funded schools have seen a reduction in curriculum time for music. In a recent Musicians’ Union survey, more than 90% of music teachers reported that the EBacc has had a negative impact on music education.
The APPG for music education’s excellent report on the future of music education goes further:
“Some schools perceive that they have permission to either ignore the curriculum or justify one-off end of year shows or projects as acceptable forms of music provision. Only weekly progressive music lessons can develop pupils effectively in musicianship skills.”
My question for the Minister is: would the Government prefer to scrap the EBacc, or to include music in it? If students are not able to participate in music in compulsory education, they are far less likely to pursue it in further or higher education. According to Ofqual, over five years the number of students taking music at A-level has declined by 30%. However, I commend the Russell Group of universities for its decision to scrap the published list of preferred A-level subjects.
There is of course good practice, which I do not overlook. Some schools in Bury make a difference to their children’s musical education by collaboration. That is innovative, energising and fulfilling, it promotes curriculum richness, and it gives the wider school lots of memorable musical experiences. Bury’s music service is terrific, but the national evidence is that provision is patchy. Studying that evidence, the indices of value all point the wrong way, with a lack of universal, readily accessed music education during formal education time, in school hours, away from the distractions of often complex lives.
Recently, the Government announced that they will refresh the national plan for music education. What plans do they have to consult the industry? When will they be bringing forward recommendations? Does the Minister agree that a refresh of the national plan provides an ideal opportunity to reset the dial on music in education and to take on the challenge outlined in this debate? Will he consider providing creative education a criterion for achieving an “outstanding” rating from Ofsted, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)?
I know that the Minister for Schools recognises the need to get a grip on the issue. He established a music curriculum expert group, and a contract to write a new model music curriculum has been awarded to the Royal Schools of Music exam board. Will he update us on the progress of that work? Will he also assure us that the model music curriculum will work for non-music specialist schools, to ensure that reduced capacity or a lack of specialism in our schools is not a further barrier to progress? Will he explain how monitoring of the impact of any such guidance will be undertaken? According to the BPI, only 44% of music lessons in primary schools are delivered by a music specialist. Support is still needed alongside the model curriculum for teachers who want to specialise in music, whether through a teaching route or a conversion through the postgraduate certificate in education programme. Will the national plan therefore ensure that teacher training and support for music education is improved?
I welcome recent news that Ofsted is to develop its focus on schools providing cultural capital for children. That is a step forward in ensuring that the role of music education is re-evaluated and reintroduced as a norm for all children in our schools. I note favourably that Ofsted will pick that up as part of its new framework. The Cultural Learning Alliance claims that music enhances cognitive abilities by 17%; does the Minister have a view on that proposition, or has he seen any evidence for it? Will the Minister develop the powerful cultural capital argument through his responsibilities at the Department for Education? Indeed, does he agree that one key goal should be for all children, regardless of socioeconomics, to have fair and free access to music education?
My final suggestion is that the Government should renew the effort to put music venues at the heart of high street renewal and economic development. The industry business model has been flipped in the past 15 years by digital platforms, streaming services and self-publishing. Yes, all the industry went through a period of denial of the change.
Kevin Brennan
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government missed a real opportunity when rate relief was offered to pubs, shops and other organisations on the high street, but the guidelines specifically excluded music venues from that list? Despite appeals to the Chancellor by me, UK Music and others, the Government refused to change that ruling.
James Frith
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government seem to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to music venues—or perhaps a tin ear is a better phrase.
The industry business model has been flipped in recent years, as I was saying, but will the Government look, for example, at YouTube paying artists next to nothing per stream of their work? Some of the revenue that Google makes from that enormous imbalance could go to support live venues for emerging talent across the country and towards our efforts on music education, whether as a new tax or from a partnership.
Building on the Government’s embrace of the superb agent-of-change campaign, with the protections that brought in, we need more new or improved music facilities for young people outside school hours. UK Music has a network of rehearsal spaces based in deprived and disadvantaged communities to offer improved access to music. What plans do the UK Government have to develop and enhance that scheme? Can Bury have one, please?
Above the funding argument sits a bigger one. Funding plays its part, of course, but there is a bigger one even than that. It is one of choice and a question of priority. What do we expect from our schools and for all our children? If we recognise the value that independent schools place on music and music education, do we still opt to ignore that for the vast majority of all children, accepting the growing inequality of opportunity? Or do we—as I believe we must—ingrain into all our schools the rights of all children to have access to the same opportunities to learn, play, perform and enjoy music?
The truth is, it is hard to do justice to or to outline in policy what is in fact a deep passion and love. Put simply, one’s faith in the power and possibilities of music, performed, recorded and live, is not just a belief in a light that never goes out; it is the knowledge that music makes life better. Music can still your senses or stir your heart, its message motivates and mobilises, it entertains and, given the chance, it educates us all.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, in particular because you are someone who has campaigned hard for the arts in your constituency. I hope that your Shakespeare North theatre is coming along well.
As I look around at the small but high-quality attendance at the debate, I see before me a fellow member and an officer of the all-party group on arts, health and wellbeing, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane); an excellent Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who is also a fantastic asset of that group; and the shadow Arts Minister for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). That is not to mention those sitting on our Benches: my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), a member of the National Youth Music Theatre and of the National Youth Orchestra; the media star, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell); and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who represents such a centre of artistic excellence. I will come to the Minister at the end.
I have been a passionate supporter of music education throughout my time in Parliament. Having checked the records, I am pleased that I can still say, hand on heart, that I did not come to the subject late in the day. Shortly after being appointed as Arts Minister in May 2010, I commissioned Darren Henley, who was then the chief executive of Classic FM, to do a report on music education which he duly delivered in February 2011. It might astound and shock the Chamber to learn that the report was commissioned jointly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who was then the Secretary of State for Education, showing his commitment to music education.
The biggest thing to come out of the report was the creation of music hubs, which I felt strongly we should have for a number of reasons. Despite the fact that I only look 21, I am old enough to remember when we introduced local management of schools in the 1980s, and the first thing that went out of the window was funding for music education. When schools took control of their own budgets, perhaps understandably they chose to spend on repairing the roof or other initiatives that the headteacher wanted to follow, and music education suffered. I did not want that to happen again with the introduction of free schools and academies; I wanted to ensure ring-fenced funding for music education. We did secure it: there were some bumps in the road and some anomalies to be ironed out—obviously most of us in the Chamber would want the funding to be doubled, tripled, quadrupled or even more, to make a real difference—but the fact is that the money was saved and ring-fenced.
Music hubs were meant to be innovative organisations; not just money spent by local authorities, but money spent together with local music organisations. It seems ridiculous not to take advantage of the expertise not just of a local orchestra but of innumerable music organisations that might exist in a local area, including perhaps the local music venue, as the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) described so well—it was remiss of me not to have congratulated him in my opening remarks on securing this important and welcome debate.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning music hubs. Before I came to this place, I used to work with a local music hub in Leeds, which opened up vocational routes in music composition, such as work in film, television and video games. Music hubs create new non-traditional opportunities in music. Does he agree that they are important for creating new vocational opportunities for people involved in music?
Mr Vaizey
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman brought up that example; let me take the opportunity to praise the important work he does in this House on video games policy. I am really pleased to hear that example, because the thrust behind music hubs was that they be innovative, different and open up music education in its widest form, not just perhaps in the traditional way.
There were other dogs that did not bark—schemes that have been maintained by the Government and remain effective. One of the most effective was the music and dance scheme, where funding has been maintained to train young musicians to excellent standards and ensure their access to the highest quality specialist music education. Let us not forget that in the wider economy, the Arts Council funding goes to 99 music organisations—not just our major orchestras but important organisations such as Youth Music.
Another aim of the Henley report that I wanted to be implemented was the integration of the In Harmony scheme started by the last Labour Government, which to a certain extent copied the well-known El Sistema scheme in Venezuela. It was whole-class music education. I remember being moved almost to tears visiting a scheme in Everton—not that far from your own patch, Sir George—and seeing incredible children learning music in class. In fact, I was more moved when I met their parents, because the scheme brought the parents and the kids together and brought the parents into school. It gave the kids such pride and belief in what they could achieve. That leads on to a truism that we all know yet we do not act on: things such as music education have a massive impact on kids’ self-esteem and, therefore, on their academic attainment and life chances. If I could wave a magic wand, every school in the country would be part of the In Harmony scheme.
I am very pleased to be on the board of the charity London Music Masters, which does something similar in five inner city primary schools in London. It is heavy going to raise the money but, again, we see an inspiring effect on pupils. I was delighted when they came and played “Here Comes the Sun” in Westminster Hall, breaking every rule possible, but making a fantastic YouTube video. We should all acknowledge not just that music education is important in and of itself, but that it has a massive impact on academic achievement, self-esteem and, as I am sure we will hear from the hon. Member for Cardiff West, people’s health, life chances and mental wellbeing. I know he chairs numerous meditation all-party parliamentary groups.
An important challenge, for the classical music industry more than anything, is diversity. Music education brings the opportunity to learn instruments to a wide range of pupils who would otherwise not get that chance. The creation of the Chineke! orchestra shows the efforts being made in the classical music world to increase diversity, which is urgent.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
For classical musicians or otherwise, it is important to remember the role that technology plays in producing music is enormous. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be more investment in the technology side, and that it should be part of the curriculum?
Mr Vaizey
I do; it is important to go with the grain of society, and it seems absurd not to engage children in music education by using the kind of technology that they will use in their day-to-day lives, and will use when they leave school and university and go into the workforce.
I want to make two brief points that are somewhat linked. While I have no doubt at all that Members on the Opposition Benches, and perhaps even on the Government Benches, might have a go at the Government about music education, I feel strongly that headteachers—I will try to put this delicately—should not be absolved of all responsibility. School leadership plays a massive part in ensuring high-quality music and arts education. In my constituency, I have been to Didcot Girls’ School and St Birinus School, where there are passionate music and arts teachers who have put those subjects at the heart of the school curriculum, thanks to the support of their headteacher. They do not say to me, “We can’t afford it.” They do it because they understand why it is so important.
Kevin Brennan
No one would doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s passionate support for the arts and for music education, but does he not agree that while headteachers should not be absolved of blame, they react to the incentive and accountability measures put in place by this Government? Quite frankly, they have led to the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) raised, namely the decline in the number of music teachers and the number of children taking music examinations. The Government have some responsibility to make sure they set those expectations centrally.
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention shows why those of us in this House who care so passionately about the arts put party politics aside and unite in how we advocate for the arts. I wanted to get on record the point that headteachers must step up to the plate; they have the opportunity to introduce the arts and music.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
As a former headteacher, when I meet my former colleagues in Colne Valley they tell me that where budgets are concerned, they have crossed a red line. They are making cuts primarily with support staff and the creative arts and music curriculum.
Mr Vaizey
Funding of schools and education is a matter of concern to all Members, particularly those of us who represent rural constituencies where we lobby Ministers for a fairer funding formula. As I say, at the schools I visit where the headteacher is passionate about the arts and music, they do not say it is a budget issue; for me, it is a leadership issue.
To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, I agree that Government can and should provide leadership. One of the frustrations of working with the former Secretary of State for Education was that on the one hand, he was a fantastic colleague who supported me in campaigning for better funding and clearer organisation of music and arts education; but on the other hand, he was relentlessly focused on science, technology, engineering and maths, reading, writing and arithmetic, and the EBacc. That created not only an enormous amount of confusion for teachers in an ever-shifting curriculum, but a clear signal to them that they would not be rewarded for putting arts and music at the centre of their schools. A terrible paradox was created where teachers became afraid to do that, because they felt they would be penalised in the league table. That can and must change.
That brings me to my final point. Leadership is absolutely violent—not violent, vital. We need vital leadership, not violent leadership, from Ministers, to emphasise that the arts are important, particularly in a world of technology and automation where British creativity will be centre stage in our success. I remember battling hard with successive Education Secretaries, desperately asking them just to make a speech about the importance of the arts. That leadership is needed now more than ever.
The Minister has a week left in his job—[Laughter.] In his current job—who knows what will happen to him when my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) comes in on his no-deal ticket? From my own experience, let me tell him that if he is sacked, it will not be on the first day, but if he is promoted, it will be on the first day. All I say to the funky Gibb that sits before us is, “Get on your feet! Stand up for music and arts education.” In his heart, I know he believes in it and he can do that funky Gibb dance today.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I extend my thanks and gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith), who convened this debate. I want to thank a number of organisations that supplied us all, in preparation for the debate, with information on what is a vital issue. They include the all-party parliamentary group on music, the BPI, PRS for Music, UK Music, the What Works Centre for Wellbeing, the Musicians Union and the all-party parliamentary group on arts, health and wellbeing, which is ably co-chaired by Lord Howarth of Newport and the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).
I have to declare an interest. I have loved music since I was a child. I sang to my children when they were babies—three songs every night. My two girls now have grade 8 in singing. I do not put it all down to me, but I think that little bit of impetus when they were so young had an effect. I sing on my way to work in the morning. Even in these terrible Brexit times I still manage to get a tune or two out as I walk in through the Victoria gardens. I was Pharaoh in the school production of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” and even got an encore, but unfortunately at the tender age of 17 I did not know what an encore was, and just carried on. I have been a member of Rhyl folk club for 37 years. It celebrated its 50th anniversary in the Jubilee Room here a few years ago.
I was a teacher for 15 years before becoming an MP, and for six of those years I was deputy head of a Catholic primary school. Music infused the curriculum of the school where I worked, Ysgol Mair. A lovely lady, Mrs Malleliu, would hold singing lessons in the break and dinner times, in her own time. Mrs Jemmet would hold recorder and guitar lessons. Mr Russel was a grade 8 piano teacher who played music at every assembly. We had Christmas and Easter musical productions.
In my class I would weave music into as many areas of the curriculum as possible. We would use Don McLean’s “Vincent” when we were painting in the style of Van Gogh. We would use “The Last Leviathan”, a beautiful song sung by Melanie Harrold, when we studied the demise of the whale in environmental science. I used classical music as a background, to quieten the class for reflection and prayer, or just to prepare for studies. We would use disco music in the gym and for dancing lessons. It was a Catholic school so we sang hymns and prayers morning, noon and night. That steeped the whole school in music. I would encourage the children, even out of lessons, in the playground, to work on songs and perform them in the 10 or 15-minute reflection period at the end of the day.
The right hon. Member for Wantage said that music can raise an individual’s self-esteem, and that is true. I spoke to a young man—well, he is now in his forties—whom I taught when he was eight. He would practise to be Freddie Mercury in Queen, and would be out practising at break times. At the end of the day he would burst forward with a rendition of “We Will Rock You.” He said those were the best moments of his life. I attended a school reunion three weeks ago, and former pupils in their 30s and 40s fondly remembered those times gilded by music and song in their old primary school. Music was central to their education, and their education was all the better for it.
We know intuitively that music is good for us. I think that goes back to the womb. From the time when we first hear the metronome of our mother’s heartbeat, we are accompanied by beat, pace and rhythm. What we feel intuitively is backed up by top-quality scientific research. I thank the What Works Centre for Wellbeing for supplying information on dozens of scientific randomised controlled tests on the benefits of music for individuals at all stages of life. There is high-level scientific proof that if a mother plays classical music for 30 minutes a day for two weeks it will reduce stress, anxiety and depression. I believe that if we want to encourage a lifelong love of music for children, it should start in the womb. Other research showed that for pensioners choral singing in groups had a positive effect on morale, depression and loneliness. The What Works Centre said that there were dozens of those experiments, including on teenagers and young adults, but very few looked at the effect of music on school-age children. Perhaps the Minister’s Department could commission some research on that. The What Works Centre summarised the research:
“Listening to music can alleviate anxiety and improve wellbeing in young adults. Regular group singing can enhance morale and metal health related quality of life and reduce loneliness, anxiety and depression in older people compared with usual activities. Participatory singing can maintain a sense of wellbeing and is perceived as both acceptable and beneficial for older participants. Engagement in music activities can help older people connect with their life experiences and with other people, and be more stimulated.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am not sure whether it has been mentioned yet, but community bands are important in working in tandem with music education in schools. The hon. Gentleman may not know—I expect he will enlighten me if he does—that last week there was a tremendous opportunity to see some community bands performing in our own Northern Ireland cultural tradition. There are flute bands, accordion bands, pipe bands and brass bands, and they create character and personality, and friendships that last forever. They bring people together in love of music in every sphere, and that—community bands, education and music together—is important.
Chris Ruane
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am half Irish, and the Irish are probably one of the most musical nations on earth. I know that the debate is about music education in England, but we should look further afield to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and anywhere where music is central to education and society.
It is not just humans who benefit from music and song. There is a field of research called zoomusicology, which studies the impact of music on living creatures. Whales, dolphins and other mammals sing to each other in the courtship process. The production of cows’ milk has been enhanced by 3% by listening to classical music—and it is a better quality of milk as well. The stress levels in dogs in kennels has been shown to reduce when they are exposed to classical music. Perhaps the most beautiful sound in the animal kingdom is birdsong. Older birds teach the younger ones in colonies how to sing, for the purpose of mating and marking out territory.
Should not something that is good enough for whales, dolphins, cows, dogs and birds be good enough for our young people? It is not just a human foundational capacity but an animal one that goes back to the beginning of time. We should encourage it in words but also in deeds. Teachers, parents and pupils need to know that politicians value music in education, and that that value extends to proper funding and guidelines, and indeed to celebration. We should use this House to celebrate music in education more.
Music is appreciated in certain types of school. In the independent sector it is right up there: we have heard statistics that 50% of pupils in the independent sector get regular music week in, week out, and that the figure is only 15% in the state sector. The independent sector recognises music education by putting its money where its mouth is and funding it. There is already inequality in the education system in England, but the inequality does not end with the school bell at 3 or 3.30. It is perpetuated in the home life of children from different socioeconomic groups. Children from middle-class backgrounds are twice as likely to learn an instrument because they are encouraged to by their parents. A societal, cultural and educational change is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North has given a list of excellent recommendations, which I fully support. I urge the Minister to commission research on education in music, as I said before, and I remind him of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), suggesting that it should be stipulated that no school can gain “outstanding” status without its full complement of music.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) on securing this important debate. I, too, have a musical background, but a classical one; I am a choral conductor and an organist. When I mentioned that before in the main Chamber, I was astonished at the speed with which the former hon. Member for Banbury came up to me and booked me as the organist for his funeral. Fortunately, I have not yet had to play for that, as he is still very much alive and thriving, but at least I have one booking in the bag.
I congratulate the all-party parliamentary group for music education on a fantastic report, which sets out a huge number of criteria and statistics. I will not repeat them, but I will draw attention to the report and the points it makes. It mentions that music tuition is compulsory between the ages of five and 14. That is fine, but the problem comes a bit later and in that earlier period, where I feel that the music teaching profession has been so put down that we need to do something to improve it. I will come back to that at the end of my speech.
A number of hon. Members have already mentioned how the sheer love of expressing themselves goes to the heart of what being a child is all about. If they cannot express that through music, I do not know how they can express it. I quite agree with those who have said that whatever sort of music we try to achieve, it brings out the inner person within us.
The hon. Member for Bury North touched on the importance of the music industry to the UK, but I will just repeat some of that. The industry is worth close to £4.5 billion a year for the UK—a phenomenal amount. The all-party parliamentary group brought out the point that we punch well above our weight internationally. We have something like 1% of the world’s population, but when we think of the hard-hitting albums that have been sold, we realise that a huge number have come from the UK.
If we look at the impact of music, as a number of hon. Members have already commented, we see the imagination it creates among young people. I would also bring out another thing it creates: team building. Anyone who has ever played in an orchestra will know how much team building counts in producing a good sound. Certainly, in the days when I was a clarinettist and played in a number of orchestras, it was a discipline that I appreciated.
Music therefore has a big impact on mental health, and the sustainability of music education is something we should pay a lot of attention to. As the Minister himself has said, music should not simply be the preserve of the elite; it should be available to us all. The school curriculum is not enough on its own to achieve all that; we need a range of extracurricular activities—school orchestras, school bands or whatever they may be. We need a range of other activities that fit in with what is going on in the school curriculum.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) mentioned Youth Music, a national charity helping young people to change their lives through music. I have a great deal of affection for Youth Music, not least because my son is an ambassador for the charity, helping to push forward its aims. I met him last night, because I knew I was going to participate in this debate, and we discussed a number of these points.
Personally, I am disappointed to see the declining number of areas in which singing is encouraged. When Sing Up was Government funded, it had an enormous reach in schools and provided a great base for primary school children. I would like to see more done to help to push that along, and to keep on developing the skills needed to keep a singing culture alive. We are one of the few cultures in Europe that has largely lost its tradition of folk songs; most people do not sing folk songs to their children, despite what the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) may have sung.
Kevin Brennan
May I invite the hon. Gentleman to join the all-party parliamentary group on folk arts, chaired by myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) as vice-chair? We are looking for more Tory members.
John Howell
For a moment, I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to invite me to sing, which I promise, Sir George, I will not do in this session. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very kind invitation and I will certainly look closely at that.
We have already discussed how powerful music is in developing the personal and social skills of all those who participate in it, but there is one area that I brought up in an intervention that I would like to bring up again. The Music Commission and Youth Music have challenged the curriculum because it does not provide enough technology. The reason they stress technology is that, whether someone is a classical musician or not, the technology involved in composing or producing the music is the same across the whole industry. My son is a composer and uses a tremendous amount of technology to do that. I urge more emphasis on the technology aspect of music.
I said I would return to one thing in particular that I think we can do. We have had a number of campaigns in the past that have taken social workers, for example, and tried to ensure that they feel loved, valued and part of society. We should do the same for music teachers too. We need a great effort on all our parts to ensure that music teaching is appreciated, that it is seen to be appreciated, and that we can all play our part in taking it forward.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) for securing the debate, and I will also say how much I enjoy working with him on the Education Committee.
I will begin by sharing some of my own musical journey and the important role that music has played, and does play, in my life. At the age of around six I had a new teacher. She was the youngest teacher I had ever had, because I went to a very formal, traditional primary school. She was warm, she was funny, she was different, and I loved her. She read us Longfellow’s “The Song of Hiawatha”, but on the second reading she asked us to beat the rhythm of the poem on to our wooden desks with our fists. I could not believe that we were allowed to do that or that we could make such a noise. I remember the excitement and liberation of being allowed to bang my fists on the desk. She then gave out different percussion instruments, and on the third recitation we were asked to use our instruments, keeping to the rhythm. It was chaos, but it was fun, and it was very noisy. It was like an awakening. I was so excited that I could hardly breathe. I longed for every lesson where this new teacher would play music and we could experiment.
She allowed me to play on the piano in the school hall, as my parents could not afford for me to have formal lessons. She gave up her own time to sit with me, and I never forgot her kindness or the joy of touching the keys of that piano for the first time. I did not get the opportunity to continue with the piano sessions, as my parents could not afford it, and the fact that I cannot play an instrument today is one of my few regrets. However, I do know that, throughout the most important times in our lives, music is the thread. At family celebrations, the music chosen is key. At funerals, the songs that we play to say goodbye are so important to us all.
Then for me there was the ’70s disco dancing—including the funky gibbon—around handbags. These are the musical milestones of everyone’s life. Fast forward and I am a teacher and a parent. I vowed that my own children and the pupils in my school would have every opportunity to enjoy and experience music. My own children knew the joy of local authority-funded music lessons. Both now play an instrument and have a lifelong love of music. The local music centre gave young people the opportunity to perform at the Queen Elizabeth Hall and the Royal Albert Hall. They loved playing and they made friends for life, one of whom, Tom Challenger, went on to the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and is now a professional saxophonist.
As head of a large primary school in a deprived area, I was determined that every child would get the opportunity to sing and play instruments. The creative curriculum was valued and invested in. I appointed a specialist music teacher, and every child experienced that quality teaching. For every child, music mattered. One of my proudest moments was having pupils perform on Radio 3 as part of the Huddersfield contemporary music festival. The following year, our school was awarded Artsmark Gold. It was an inclusive school, filled with music and the children’s joy of learning through music.
What do most children experience today? The Fabian Society report entitled “Primary Colours” tells us that 68% of teachers in England say that arts provision in their primary school has decreased since 2010, and 49% believe that the quality of arts provision has worsened since 2010. There is also a significant regional disparity, with primary school teachers in the north 16 percentage points more likely than teachers in the east of England to feel that there is a lack of resources.
I asked Thom Meredith, principal of Musica Kirklees, how he sees music in our local schools today. Thom has been an inspirational and much respected conductor for choral and instrumental music in Kirklees for many years. He said that school funding cuts mean that schools simply do not have the money to pay for resources or teachers. Musica Kirklees used to receive £299,000 from Kirklees Council each year, but by 2016 that was cut to nothing as a result of local government cuts. That resulted in the closure of two music centres, and lessons for gifted young musicians had to be cut. Although it currently appears that nationally there has been an increase in the number of young people engaging with music education, schools are actually lumping more students into larger classes. In fact, the number of young people in smaller, long-term music classes or lessons in which they are properly engaged and learn how to play an instrument or sing has dropped dramatically.
Music can comfort and heal. It can lift our spirits and bring people together. As Shakespeare said,
“If music be the food of love, play on”.
Let us fund music properly in our schools, so that working-class kids, just as I was, can be given the chance to play on.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, and to take part in this debate. We have heard so many eloquent and passionate speeches, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) on bringing us to this place and allowing us to enjoy talking about such an important topic.
I, too, have to declare an interest. I was lucky enough to have an extensive classical music education at music college—I tried to stay there as long as possible so as not to get a proper job, which I continue to try to do. I was lucky enough also to be a music teacher for many years, and I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on music and am vice-chair of the APPG for music education, and I serve on the boards of various organisations—the National Youth Orchestra and so on. I therefore have lots of conversations with many inspiring and passionate advocates for music education and hear about a lot of their successes at first hand. However, it is easy to let the activities of great organisations such as that hide the bigger picture—the picture as it is for most people around the country.
As hon. Members will be aware and as we have heard today, Ofqual statistics show that between 2014 and 2019 the number of students taking A-level music has declined by a whopping 30%. I think that is a statistical canary down the mineshaft, warning us of the result if current practice continues. If that decline came from any general disinclination to study music that has suddenly appeared, that would be regrettable but unavoidable. But I think it rather improbable that a wave of musical apathy has swept over Britain’s young people, so we have to ask ourselves why fewer students are choosing to take their musical education further. If there is no mysterious and spontaneous reason, what barriers are preventing those who do wish to pursue it, and how do we eradicate those barriers?
If we look at earlier age groups, we can see critical points at which the pipeline also narrows. The availability of music tuition at key stage 3 is a factor. According to the “Music Education: State of the Nation” report, between 2010 and 2017 there was a fall of 6.4% in curriculum time dedicated to music. Department for Education workforce data shows a drop in music teacher numbers at key stage 3 of more than one quarter.
I do understand, as a former music teacher myself, that more of one subject means less of another. I know how it feels to face the problem of matching students’ aspirations with the realities of available time, and I realise that the EBacc is there not to shrink opportunities, but to allow talent from every area of society to flourish. But to me, a core curriculum that excludes the arts is not a core curriculum—that is an oxymoron—so I would welcome a re-examination, as other hon. Members have said, of the possibility of adding a sixth pillar to the EBacc for creative subjects, including music.
The thoughtful and wide-ranging remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education at the Church of England Foundation for Educational Leadership conference in February described very well some of the fundamental issues in making education work across all areas of the country and all sectors of society. He focused on
“the five foundations of building character”.
Two of those—creativity and performing—directly correlate with music. His focus on those five foundations was very welcome and is significant in the context of this debate.
Given the consensus on cultural capital in relation to life chances, the gap in music provision between the state system and independent schools, which we have heard discussed, is a trend that must be stopped. The BPI reports a decline in state music provision in the past five years alongside an increase in the independent sector. The gap is widest—surprise, surprise—in schools with a higher percentage of students on free school meals. Relative poverty does not equate to a relative poverty of ambition, but ambition without the opportunity to visualise and then pursue its fulfilment leads to frustration and then disengagement.
The UK’s music industry contributes £4.5 billion to the economy, as we have heard. We saw it generate £2.6 billion in total export revenue in 2017—that figure was up 7%—and it is an instrument of soft power that will only become more important in the years ahead, given the wobbly world picture out there. However, that is just part of the story. The creative industries as a whole contribute more than £100 billion to our economy. We are very good at this stuff, despite the barriers that come before us. Therefore, even if we look at things in a purely utilitarian way, a greater investment of curriculum time and resources can only make sense.
I know that it is much more difficult to quantify the cognitive benefits of understanding the structure of a Bach chorale or the blues scale than it is to see an uptake in STEM subjects or exam entries leading directly to jobs in the engineering industry, but equipping our students with an understanding of our musical, philosophical and artistic heritage does something even more difficult and important: it allows those students to anchor themselves within the centuries-old progression of thought and to understand their place in the society in which they live. The anchor provided by the arts is not just a means of generating economic value; it allows young people to understand what is of value in others. Denying them an understanding of the value of their artistic heritage hides their eyes, ears and minds from the world around them.
As we look ahead to the new national plan for music education, it is vital that we re-examine both the performance of music provision within secondary schools and the metrics used to measure that performance. As we heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), it is clear to me that no school should be awarded an outstanding judgment by Ofsted if it fails to provide strong arts and cultural education. The next national plan for music must focus on ensuring that these benefits are spread as widely as possible. As well as looking at the curriculum, that should also involve thinking about how to ensure that the flexibility given to academies is not a licence for them to sideline music education or treat it as an optional extra, especially given that 72% of secondary schools are now academies.
The greatest artistic achievements, from the encyclopédistes of the enlightenment through to “Sgt. Pepper”, aspire to universality. As such, they have a democratic impulse at their core. A failure to share their benefits as widely as possible not only lets down our young people, but runs contrary to the spirit of the arts themselves.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Sir George. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) for securing the debate. If this is his first Westminster Hall debate, he has a great career ahead of him; his speech was powerful and impassioned and addressed an important and urgent question that will affect many youngsters across the country. We have heard several excellent contributions from people who have lived experience in this world. Their concerns about the crisis of music education in England are profound and compelling. I will pick out a couple of moments of great interest.
The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) was, as always, a passionate advocate for the creative subjects for all. The work he did creating music hubs and the Henley report is a solid base from which we all work. The highlight of his speech must be funky Gibb, which will stick with us from now on. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) talked about singing for pleasure and the element of wellbeing. His statistic about cows will also stay with me. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who I will book for my own funeral—he is obviously going to have several bookings now—mentioned early years. Although music is in the list of Ofsted’s expectations, what is the quality of the music provision for the under-5s? We had a debate yesterday about the first 1,001 days of life, and we know that brain development is supported by access and exposure to music. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) made a profound contribution, speaking about her own experience. No one could challenge her experience of being on the frontline as the head teacher of a school, creating a brilliant experience for young people and giving them an opportunity to live a full and enriched life.
Finally, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) talked about the extra pillar to the EBacc. I had a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss that. His response was, “It will not make a difference.” I hope that when he looks back at this debate he will read the profound and passionate pleas from people who know and have experienced it in their life, and see that this would make a difference.
I welcome the work undertaken by UK Music, Music Industries Association and the Musicians’ Union highlighting the perilous state of music education across the country. As we heard from the hon. Member for Henley, UK Music’s “Measuring Music” reports that the music industry’s contribution to the economy is £4.5 billion, with £2.6 billion export revenue. Britain has less than 1% of the global population but one in seven albums sold worldwide in 2014 was by a British act; I can only imagine those numbers have gone up. Music is a critical part of Britain’s soft power and in the current climate, as we career out of the EU, that power could not be more vital.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s own report on sector economic estimates showed the value of the creative industries rose by 7.1% in 2017—almost twice as much as the UK economy as a whole—to £101.5 billion. Sadly, the evidence gathered, not just by the unions and other trade bodies but by the all-party parliamentary group for music education, shows that music education is at a point of crisis, with creeping cuts to music education, chaotic music education policies and plummeting morale among teachers and educators.
The Music Industries Association report, “The State of Play—a review of music education in England 2019”, proved beyond doubt that the inequalities in music provision are real, concluding that children from families earning under £28,000 a year are half as likely to learn a musical instrument as those with a family income above £48,000. There are children, certainly in Batley and Spen, for whom coming from a family with an income of £28,000 would make them feel very well off. We should always be mindful of children whose lives are so chaotic that they will never get the chance to experience the joy of playing an instrument or singing in a choir.
Eight years have elapsed since the coalition unveiled its national plan for music education; there was much fanfare around the commitment to give every child the opportunity to learn a musical instrument, with the establishment of Government-funded music hubs. Despite this commitment, as we have heard, the truth is that coherent and impactful music education is entirely dependent on the whims and talents of headteachers, the priorities of the music hub and the youngsters’ postcode. Added to this, the decline in take-up of schools offering music at GCSE and A-level means even those kids who do not necessarily want to play but have a love of music do not get the chance unless their parents can pay for costly out-of-school provision.
Of those surveyed in the “State of Play” report, 60% said the introduction of the EBacc has directly affected music provision in their schools. In a recent National Education Union—then the National Union of Teachers—survey, 97% of the union’s teachers agreed that SATs preparation did not support children’s access to a broad and balanced curriculum, saying the time taken to prepare children for assessment in maths and English has squeezed out other subjects and activities. The problem does not go away when our children leave primary school. As we have heard, the proportion of 15 and 16-year-olds taking subjects like music and drama has fallen to its lowest levels. There are outliers: Feversham Primary Academy in Bradford recently made headlines with its focus on music leading to improved outcomes for its pupils. It made the national press, which would suggest it is unusual. It should not be.
While this is not a competition between schools, one of the many reasons parents pay the eye-watering fees to send their children to places like Eton is the attractive music provision. At Eton, there is a purpose-built orchestral rehearsal room, a recording studio, a 250-seat concert hall, an organ room, the opportunity to learn music taught by seven full-time professionals, 70 visiting teachers with over 1,000 lessons a week, teaching the full range of orchestral and solo instruments, as well as the sitar and tabla. Pupils can join the symphony orchestra, chamber ensembles, jazz, wind and pipe bands, choirs and choral groups, as well as write and produce their own music in the well-equipped music-tech studios.
I am not saying this to attack other schools in any way, but to reinforce the point that those parents know the value of this enrichment. They know that not every child will go on to be a professional musician, a composer or a singer, but they will have developed as a human being and young person with a love for music and it will stay with them all their life. A recent report from the University of Oxford suggested that 15 million jobs are at risk from automation, but artists such as musicians are at less risk. Parents who send their children to schools with great arts provision are future-proofing their children’s destinies.
Creative subjects are marginalised in the curriculum and the number of post-grad students training to be music teachers has shrunk. As Members of Parliament we can encourage local opportunities. I have seen how music can transform the lives of youngsters and adults in the Batley and Spen Youth Theatre Company’s production of “Les Misérables” and Creative Scene’s production “Batley Does Opera”. They transformed lives, reduced loneliness and mental health issues, boosted confidence and raised aspirations.
We know that creative subjects are a magnet for children who are not naturally academic. They might struggle to read, but come to life on stage; they might be unable to concentrate in class, but play the ukulele for hours. No one loses in music, so we all benefit; there are no winners or losers. Music aids better brain development and maths skills, and it increases human connectivity and concentration levels, but we should look at music for its own sake. It is a gift handed down from generation to generation. Everywhere we go we are surrounded by music. We all attach music to pivotal moments in our lives.
What can we do? Labour is committed to reviewing and reforming the EBacc and ensuring that children get the broad and balanced curriculum they need for the 21st century. Creative subjects will be at the heart of that, with a boost of £160 million for arts education. We will use the cultural capital fund to invest in instruments for music hubs and upgrade music facilities in state schools to match the those found in many private schools. Each child will have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument and we will instigate a creative careers advice campaign. Our creative pupil premium will support schools, ensuring that every child has access to the cultural capital that others in less disadvantaged areas can easily access.
Post Brexit, we will need our arts more than ever, not only for jobs and the economy, but for our spirit and soul. We must support children by giving them every opportunity to love music and engage with it, and to be better human beings from accessing music.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
I am sure the Minister needs no reminding, but he needs to leave a bit of time for the encore by the mover of the motion.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) on securing this debate. He speaks with a passion for music, which I share. He is preaching to the choir—excuse the pun. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) that this funky Gibb will and does stand up for music in our schools. One of the initiatives that I am most proud of in my time as Schools Minister is the Classical 100 website, promoting classical music in primary schools, which was produced by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, Classic FM and Decca Records. Over 5,000 primary schools are already signed up to the site and I urge every primary school to do so.
The opportunity to study and explore music should not be a privilege; it is a vital part of a broad and balanced curriculum. All pupils should have access to a world-class music education. That is why music is compulsory for all pupils aged five to 14 in state-maintained schools. Academies, which do not have to follow the national curriculum, have to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. Ofsted’s new inspection framework, coming into force from September, will support that, providing a greater focus on the provision of a broad and balanced curriculum.
This Government are committed to music education. We are putting nearly half a billion pounds into arts education programmes—more money than any subject other than PE—to fund a range of cultural and music programmes between 2016 and 2020, in addition to the funding schools receive to deliver their curriculum. In November 2011, we published the national plan for music—referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage—which sets our vision for music in schools: to enable children from all backgrounds in every part of England to have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument, to make music with others, to learn to sing and to have the opportunity to progress to the next level of expertise. We will refresh the national plan. We will consult widely on it and make further announcements in the coming plans.
Schools are responsible for delivering the music curriculum, but they cannot do it alone. Our network of music education hubs supports schools to provide high-quality music tuition. I pay tribute to the vital role my right hon. Friend played in the development of that policy. Between 2016 and 2020, we are providing in total over £300 million of ring-fenced funding for music education hubs, in addition to the funding that goes to schools to deliver the curriculum. Earlier this year, we announced an extra £1.3 million for those hubs. That funding supports pupils, whatever their background, family income, or special needs. No child should be excluded from music because their parents cannot afford to pay for lessons or an instrument, or because they have physical disabilities or other special needs.
Music education hubs help hundreds of thousands of young people learn to play an instrument in whole classes every year. They also ensure that clear progression routes are available and affordable. Many hubs subsidise the cost of lessons for pupils. The programme helps schools to nurture the budding seeds of musical passion that can unlock so much pleasure throughout life, as we heard from the hon. Member for Bury North. In the years to come, many adults with a passion for music will have the work of music hubs to thank for first introducing them to the joys of playing an instrument and playing in ensembles. In the provision of music education, the Government believe in excellence, as well as equity. Talented young musicians need the opportunity to make music with others of a similar standard, and access to selective ensembles and a demanding repertoire. Music education hubs provide high-quality borough or county-wide ensembles and direct the most talented towards specialist provision.
Bury North is served by the Bury music hub, which works as part of the collaborative Greater Manchester music hub. In this academic year, the Bury hub has received over £292,000 of funding from the Government. Last year the hub delivered over 3,500 individual singing and instrumental lessons, and 14,000 small group singing and instrumental lessons. A report by Birmingham City University showed that in 2016-17, hubs worked with 89% of schools on at least one core role and helped over 700,000 pupils to learn to play a musical instrument in whole-class ensemble teaching. That is an increase of 19% on 2013-14, the first year in which like-for-like figures are available, when the number was 596,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about singing. The Government recognise the value of singing in schools. Developing a singing strategy to ensure that every pupil sings regularly is a core role of the music education hubs. According to the last published figures, 70% of schools in England were supported by hubs with singing strategies.
I want to ensure that the music lessons young people receive are of the highest quality and that pupils leave school having experienced an excellent music education, so that those who wish to do so can take up opportunities to pursue musical careers. To ensure that, we have started work with music experts to develop a high-quality model music curriculum, which builds on the national curriculum and forms part of our plans to ensure that all pupils can benefit from knowledge-rich lessons. It is being drafted under the direction of an expert panel composed of practitioners, education leaders and music specialists, and will provide schools with a sequenced and structured template curriculum for Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. I hope that the curriculum will make it easier for teachers, including non-specialist teachers, to plan lessons and will help to reduce their workload. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley that folk songs are an important part of our musical heritage and I hope they will be included in that curriculum.
The hon. Member for Bury North raised concerns that careers in the arts have become the preserve of the privileged and privately educated. To ensure that that is not the case in years to come, the Government are continuing to fund more than 500 full-time places at four specialist music schools, including the Yehudi Menuhin School and the Purcell School, and a similar number of places at four specialist dance schools, including the Royal Ballet School, through the music and dance scheme. The vast majority of pupils board, and means-tested bursaries are available to ensure that entry to the schools is based on pupils’ talent, not on their parents’ ability to pay fees. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage pointed out, funding for the music and dance scheme has been maintained since we came into power. The scheme also funds places at the junior departments of six music conservatoires.
As well as supporting the music hubs, the Government are committed to a number of programmes, including the National Youth Choirs of Great Britain and the National Youth Orchestra, that aim to enhance the musical opportunities of young people and ensure that the talent pipeline that is so important to this country remains open. Our funding helps to ensure that no one is turned away because their parents cannot pay. We also provide funding for In Harmony, an intensive orchestral experience focused on schools in some of the country’s most deprived communities.
The EBacc, which the hon. Member for Bury North and others raised, was introduced to give young people the same chances to succeed through education. It is key to increasing social mobility, and an important part of that is giving all children the opportunity to study the five core academic areas at GCSE: English, maths, science, humanities and a foreign language. The range of subjects that the EBacc offers provides a sound basis for enriching pupils’ studies, opening up a variety of careers beyond the age of 16 and giving a broad general knowledge that will enable pupils to participate in and contribute to society. Research published in August 2017 by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies found that studying the EBacc combination of GCSEs increases the likelihood that a pupil will stay on in full-time education.
It is not the case, however, that the EBacc has had an impact on the uptake of music GCSEs. Since 2010, the proportion of pupils entered for GCSE music has fluctuated but remained broadly stable at approximately 6% or 7% of the total GCSE cohort. People tend to cite the raw numbers, which have fallen since 2010 along with the total number of secondary school pupils, but the proportions have remained broadly stable.
Tracy Brabin
The question is about the family backgrounds of those 6% or 7%. Are those children taking music because they are supported by wealthy families who can afford the instruments and the lessons?
Nick Gibb
The proportions have remained broadly stable during that period. I do not have a breakdown of the free school meal figures, but there is nothing to suggest from the raw proportions that there should be any change in those figures. However, I will come back to the hon. Lady with the precise numbers, which I hope will reassure her.
The EBacc was designed to be limited in scope to allow pupils to study additional important subjects such as music. The percentage of time spent teaching the arts subjects in secondary schools remained broadly stable between 2010 and 2018, and our survey of primary schools indicates that they spend the same amount of time teaching music as they spend teaching other important subjects such as history and geography.
It should also be recognised that many pupils decide not to study the arts as academic subjects, but continue to take part in artistic activities in and out of school, such as singing in choirs, playing in orchestras and bands, and performing in school plays. The DCMS Taking Part survey in 2018 showed that 96% of children aged five to 15 had engaged with the arts in the previous 12 months. We are investing more than £70 million this year to support young people and adults to get high-quality careers provision, including careers advice on arts-related careers.
Northampton School for Boys is an example of how the EBacc does not necessarily mean a reduction in the arts. It has more than 20 ensembles and choirs, yet it also enters 70% of its pupils for the EBacc combination of GCSEs—significantly above the national average of 38%. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage cited Didcot Girls’ School in his constituency for its exemplary music provision; at 52%, its EBacc entry figures are way above the national average.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) pointed out, the music industry is vital to this country; the hon. Member for Bury North was absolutely right to pay tribute to it. We are a nation with natural musical talent and a love for music that we all have an interest in cultivating. UK Music’s report “Securing Our Talent Pipeline” helpfully highlights the importance of the music industry to the UK economy, and I agree with its conclusion that if we want to produce the stars of the future, we must invest in talent for the future. I hope that it is clear to all hon. Members present that the Government are committed to doing precisely that.
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member for Bury North for his securing this debate and for his passionate case for the importance of music education. He raised some important concerns, and I hope that I have reassured him that the Government share his commitment to ensuring that music can be enjoyed by every young person. The new model curriculum, the refreshed national plan for music, the ongoing support for our successful music hubs and our other music programmes will make sure that the next generation of music superstars have all the support that they need in schools, from their first exposure to the joys of music at a young age to provision for the brightest and most talented young musicians. All children deserve the chance to fulfil their musical potential. Thanks to the national network of music hubs, the music and dance scheme, and the support of organisations such as UK Music, I believe that pupils are being provided with that opportunity.
James Frith
I find myself at risk of repeating earlier arguments—like when I was the singer in a band and we were invited to do an encore but had run out of songs. I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank hon. Members for such a warm, engaging and, at times, spirited and witty debate on such an important issue. It is so good to reach consensus across the parties on a subject that we deeply love and are clearly all passionate about.
In years and years of trying to record an album and find the right sound engineer, the right producer and the right moment to capture the sound we were after, I initially took comfort in the phrase, “It’s all right—we’ll fix it in the mix.” Subsequently, however, I realised that re-recording is always the answer. The EBacc is not something that we can fix in the mix; we have to re-record it. The case has been well made that music and the arts are integral and should be part of the core curriculum, protected by core curriculum time, away from the complex lives that so many children leave school to return to.
If we protect music by including it in the EBacc, we can do away with the myth of fixing in the mix. A Government who commit to an EBacc with music education as a formal part of it—that is the hit we are all after.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered music education in England.
Criminal Cases Review Commission
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a review of the decision-making powers of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
As always, Sir George, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which I will refer to as the CCRC, was founded in response to the situation in which a number of high-profile criminal cases had led to people being in prison for crimes that the consensus among those who had considered the evidence suggested they could not possibly have committed. Among those cases was the case of the Birmingham Six. Despite the intervention of lawyers, television and the Home Secretary, and the discovery of new evidence, the Court of Appeal managed to reject the appeals of the Birmingham Six on a number of occasions, before the overwhelming evidence that their convictions were unsafe finally prevailed at their third appeal.
As the Birmingham Six case was one of the major motivating factors for the introduction of the CCRC, we should expect that at the very least the CCRC, as it is now constituted, would have been of help in resolving that case. My fear is that, on the contrary, the CCRC’s very existence now makes it less likely that such grievous miscarriages of justice will be resolved in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall for consideration. Bearing in mind that just 0.7% of cases received by the Criminal Cases Review Commission were referred to the Court of Appeal in 2017, which was its lowest ever rate, does he agree that there is a bad impression of the effectiveness of the current protocol, which urgently needs to be reviewed?
Sandy Martin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he is absolutely right and I will expand on that point later in my speech.
I am raising this issue today because the case of Oliver Campbell, my constituent, is a classic example of a devastating miscarriage of justice, for the resolution of which the CCRC appears to be more of a hindrance than a help.
Oliver was convicted of murder in 1991 and spent 11 years in prison. He is here in Westminster Hall today with a friend, so that he can hear this debate. He knows that I am not being rude when I say that he has a low IQ; he also knows that that is as a result of a brain injury he sustained as a baby. This reduced mental capacity should have been evident to everyone involved in this case from the moment of Oliver’s arrest in 1990, some two months after the murder of an Asian shopkeeper in Hackney.
I have known Oliver for about 10 years. I think that anyone meeting him would come to the same conclusion reached by myself and others, including the BBC’s “Rough Justice” team, Michael Birnbaum QC, Oliver’s long-standing solicitor Glyn Maddocks, and the distinguished broadcaster, Kirsty Wark, namely that Oliver simply was not capable of carrying out such a crime.
Oliver was arrested because witnesses identified one of the two men who carried out the robbery during which the shopkeeper was killed as wearing a distinctive baseball cap. The other man, Eric Samuels, was relatively short and the witnesses also described the two men as being of similar height. Oliver is a large man who is 6 feet 3 inches tall.
Oliver was questioned for several hours in a police station without the presence of an appropriate adult, which he should have had due to his impaired mental capacity, or a lawyer. Eventually, a lawyer was found, but it was only after that lawyer had left the police station, having left clear instructions to be called back if there was to be any further questioning, that the police—in direct contravention of those instructions—pressed Oliver, in the presence of his ex-foster carer but no legal representative, to confess. Within half an hour of persistent suggestion from the police, Oliver had confessed to a murder that I do not believe a reading of the evidence could possibly suggest he had committed. Many of Oliver’s answers to the police were bizarre and made no sense whatever, so it is hard to understand how they could ever have been relied upon.
Oliver’s lawyer was then called back, and Oliver immediately withdrew his so- called confession. However, in December 1991 he was convicted, almost entirely on the basis of this very dubious confession, and he served 11 years in prison. There was no forensic evidence linking him to the baseball cap nor to the scene of the crime. None of the fingerprints or hairs that had been recovered from the scene or from the cap match those of Oliver. His co-accused, Eric Samuels, who admitted taking part in the robbery, said in interview that Oliver had nothing to do with the murder and was not at the scene. However, this information was never put before the jury as evidence. Samuels’ statement was never signed and Samuels refused to take the witness stand.
Samuels was subsequently tracked down and interviewed by the BBC’s “Rough Justice” programme for its 2002 episode, “If the Cap Fits”. He was filmed during the show’s investigation and again described how the cap was taken from Oliver’s head by the man who was actually his accomplice—the man who was actually the murderer—and how it had been dropped near the shop. Samuels again refused to sign a statement, this time on the advice of his key worker.
A ballistics expert was also brought in by the BBC, who established that the murderer must have been right-handed; other experts have shown that Oliver favours his left hand for most tasks. Oliver’s bizarre confession apparently includes details of how he made a holster for the gun out of string and how he had practised shooting in a forest or a field, but he could not tell the police the location or even whether it was a forest or a field. He was pressed to identify how many bullets he had had and how many were fired, but he clearly had no idea what the correct answer to either of those questions was.
After the “Rough Justice” programme was broadcast, detailed and extensive submissions were made to the CCRC by Oliver’s legal team, including by his solicitor, Glyn Maddocks, and his eminent QC, Michael Birnbaum, in the clear hope—indeed, expectation—that the Commission would refer Oliver’s case back to the Court of Appeal.
After two long years, the CCRC concluded that there was nothing new to form the basis of a fresh appeal and that therefore there could be no appeal. That was despite a recent change in the law that would have enabled the Court of Appeal to rely on the statements that Eric Samuels had made, in which he completely exonerated Oliver.
The CCRC also ignored the reports of two very eminent psychologists, who explained that Oliver’s acquiescence to police questioning was due to his limited mental capacity, and his eagerness to please and be accepted. As Kirsty Wark reported at the end of the “Rough Justice” programme, this evidence of Oliver’s mental state, which had never been brought before the original jury, constituted
“fresh new evidence which points to a terrible miscarriage of justice”.
I am bringing this case to the attention of the House for two reasons. First, of course, it is because I believe Oliver to be innocent of the crime of murder. Life is not easy for Oliver; life never would have been easy for him, even without a murder conviction hanging over him. Oliver works five mornings a week at a community café as a cleaner; he spends the rest of his time trying to clear his name. Secondly, however, and crucially, the other reason for us to have this debate here today is because the CCRC was established by this House to make it easier to rectify miscarriages of justice, and I do not believe that it has achieved that aim.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend and I are founder members of the new all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. As he knows, we now have the Westminster commission on miscarriages of justice, led by Lord Garnier and Baroness Stern. Does he believe that we need a fundamental change to the CCRC, both in terms of its structure and its resources?
Sandy Martin
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and he is right. I was very pleased to have gone to the first hearing of the Westminster commission on the role of the CCRC just the other day. I think it is making good progress and I hope to see a radical change in the way that we deal with appeals on the grounds of miscarriage of justice.
In my view, the grounds for an appeal in this case are compelling. I am not a lawyer but I have an inquiring mind, and the first three grounds submitted by Oliver’s lawyers seem to me to constitute essential issues that cry out to be reconsidered properly by a court.
Ground A is that the admissions made by Oliver in his so-called confession were inconsistent, inaccurate when compared with the rest of the evidence and, on a number of points, simply absurd. Ground B is the report of Professor Thomas-Peter, a well-respected and highly experienced psychologist. That report states that Oliver’s
“lack of mental capacity for understanding anything other than the simplest of questions indicates to me that he would be vulnerable to self-incrimination.”
He added that Oliver had difficulty understanding double negatives and that, from his reading of the available documents,
“it seems that part of Oliver’s defence was based upon his succumbing to intimidation rather than his inability to understand complex questions.”
Ground C is police misconduct. I would very much like to believe that the treatment Oliver received at the hands of the Metropolitan police would not happen today. Oliver was not treated appropriately and consistently in relation to his obvious needs and inabilities: he was questioned without solicitors, and was misquoted back to himself by the officers in order to confuse him. References were made during the interview to fingerprints on a can of lager held by the murderer being Oliver’s, which was not the case and which the police knew not to be the case. If the prints were Oliver’s, they would certainly have been cited in the prosecution’s case; if they were not Oliver’s, the fact that they belonged to someone else ought to have been enough to acquit him. However, that evidence was never brought to the attention of the court. There is still no forensic evidence to link my constituent to this murder.
Mr Sheerman
Does my hon. Friend agree that in some criminal justice systems, access to all the evidence that was presented by either side at the trial makes it much easier to look at the case later and mount an appeal, and does he believe that is something we should have in our country?
Sandy Martin
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and thank him for his intervention. As far as I can tell, any criminal justice system that does not allow all the existing evidence to be available to both sides of the argument prevents the correct decision from being made in court. I believe the commission needs to look again at Oliver’s case, and that if it carefully re-reads the submission from the QC, it will conclude that there is indeed good cause to send this case to appeal.
The recently established APPG on miscarriages of justice has gained a great deal of support in this House. Oliver’s pro bono solicitor, Glyn Maddocks from Gabb and Co, who has represented Oliver for over 20 years and is a recognised expert in miscarriage of justice cases, is a special advisor to the APPG. He has been working closely with the newly established Westminster commission on miscarriages of justice, which is co-chaired by former Solicitor General Lord Garnier QC and Baroness Stern. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will give their full support to the Westminster commission as it undertakes its important work?
The purpose of the Westminster commission is to look at the difficulty in overturning wrongful convictions in England and Wales. Such a review, particularly of the CCRC and its relationship with the Court of Appeal, is long overdue. I hope to have an opportunity to submit the failings of the CCRC’s review of Oliver Campbell’s case as evidence to the Westminster commission. We need our justice system to be fit for purpose, to identify and punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent, and when there is clear evidence that that has not happened, we need to know why. However, we also have a fellow human being to consider—a man who is still living under licence, with barely enough income to survive and subject to recall to prison at any time. I strongly believe that Oliver has already had to wait too long to have his name cleared. I urge the Minster to write to the CCRC and ask it to review Oliver’s case once more as soon as practicably possible, and reconsider its decision not to refer his case back to the Court of Appeal.
No one doubts that the job of the CCRC is difficult; it is constantly being asked to do more with fewer resources. I suspect that when it was set up in 1997, it was never expected that it would receive 1,500 applications each year. In its 22 years of existence, it has reviewed nearly 24,000 of the 25,000 applications it has received, many of which have been completely ineligible. The commission has referred 658 cases to the Court of Appeal, of which all but 10 have been heard in the courts. Some 437 convictions have been quashed, and 198 appeals have been dismissed. It is beyond me, and beyond anyone else who knows anything about this case, why Oliver’s case was not one of those referred. However, does the Minister agree that the rate of convictions quashed suggests that a large number of the cases that have not been sent to the Court of Appeal might also have led to convictions being overturned?
There is some concern about the subordinate relationship the CCRC has with the Court of Appeal, and about the difficulty it faces when applying the real possibility test, which it currently uses to decide which cases to refer. I have personally seen from Oliver’s case that the CCRC has acted somewhat more as an arbitrary gatekeeper than as a champion for righting the obvious miscarriage of justice he has suffered.
Oliver will be 50 next year, and has been fighting to clear his name for nearly 30 years. Those within the criminal justice system who have had contact with Oliver professionally, including during his time in prison, have had very serious doubts about his conviction. The governor at Wandsworth described him as
“of very low intelligence and childlike in some ways. Knowing him as we do it is difficult to see how he has ended up in this situation”.
His probation officer said he had serious concerns about Oliver’s conviction for murder. Even the trial judge’s report to the Home Secretary at the end of Oliver’s trial reflected his view regarding the gross artificiality of the result, and the unsatisfactory nature of the trial process that led to it.
It is right that I pay special tribute to Oliver’s legal team, his solicitor Glyn Maddocks and his QC Michael Birnbaum, both of whom have worked tirelessly and resolutely for over 20 years on an entirely pro bono basis to achieve justice for Oliver. Such dedication is rare, but at a time when legal aid is almost non-existent and miscarriages of justice are increasing—surely linked to cost pressures in the criminal justice system—it is an absolutely precious commodity. I hope that many other younger lawyers will be inspired to work on cases such as Oliver Campbell’s.
Several people have said that Oliver Campbell’s case is the clearest example of a miscarriage of justice that they have seen. I am surprised and dismayed that the CCRC, established by this House with the support of all parties following the recommendation of the royal commission on criminal justice under the Major Government, has failed to enable the correction of what is so clearly a wrongful conviction. I call on the Minister to institute a review of the CCRC’s decision-making powers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) on securing this debate on the decision-making powers of the Criminal Cases Review Commission—which, like him, I will refer to in my remarks as the CCRC, for brevity’s sake.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out Oliver Campbell’s situation. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a forceful champion for his constituent, and indeed for his constituency, and I pay tribute to him for that, just as I do to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for his commitment and dedication to the issue. I must be a little bit careful when paying tribute—a reshuffle looms, so I am not sure whether paying such fulsome tribute to Opposition Members will help or hinder my career prospects. However, the work they have done is truly impressive and important. Although I am sure the hon. Member for Ipswich appreciates that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss an individual case on the Floor of the House, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the broader issue. I am of course happy to discuss his constituent’s case with him outside the Chamber, should the hon. Gentleman feel that would be helpful.
As the hon. Member for Ipswich has set out, the independent CCRC plays a vital and valuable role in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. In addition to my tributes to Members present in this Chamber, I pay tribute to the commitment of the CCRC commissioners and staff, and to their work in investigating potential miscarriages of justice. I am sure all Members, both in this Chamber and beyond, share my view that miscarriages of justice are a blight on our criminal justice system; have a devastating impact on all those involved; and can cause people to question that justice system, which we must seek to avoid at all costs.
Since the establishment of the CCRC in 1997, my understanding is that 441 referrals from the commission have succeeded in the courts—I raise the hon. Gentleman by four. Those referrals have resulted in overturned convictions or amended sentences.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister has always been very supportive and listened carefully to everything we have been campaigning on, which I appreciate. Some of us went to visit the commission in Birmingham, and we got the impression that it was under-resourced; that it cannot get investigators because it is right out on a limb in Birmingham and should be closer to the centre of legal affairs in our country, here in London; and that very often the commissioners are part time and work from home. Does the Minister think there is a bit of a problem there?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that some of his colleagues who represent Birmingham seats might slightly take issue with his suggestion that the city is out on a limb. We believe that the approach adopted by commissioners allows for flexibility and the most effective management of case loads, and I will move on to the tailored review shortly. From my discussions with the new chair of the commission, my understanding is that she felt that the resourcing was adequate and appropriate, but that changes are needed to reflect the findings of the tailored review. I will touch on that in a moment, subject to time.
The CCRC is, as the hon. Member for Ipswich alluded to, the world’s first statutory, publicly funded body charged with the task of reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice. The law provides that the commission can refer cases to an appeal court only when it considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the referral to be made. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, have set out concerns about the real possibility test and whether it affects the rate at which the commission refers cases to the appeal courts.
The hon. Member for Ipswich asked whether the rate of convictions quashed suggests that a large number of the cases that have not been sent to the Court of Appeal might also have led to the convictions being overturned. Those concerns have been aired before and were considered by the Justice Committee in its report on the CCRC published in March 2015. The Committee considered whether a declining rate of referrals was due to the real possibility test itself, the CCRC’s application of it or the Court of Appeal’s approach to appeals. It found no conclusive evidence of the CCRC failing to apply the test correctly.
We do not feel that it would be appropriate to alter the test simply to demonstrate the independence of the CCRC. Doing so would by definition risk allowing referrals where there was less than a real possibility of a conviction or sentence being overturned. The Committee accepted that the application of the test is a difficult task and is by no means a precise science, but it considered that the CCRC should be willing to err on the side of making a referral where potential miscarriages of justice are concerned. I am assured that is the approach the CCRC adopts, and there must be a realistic chance of success.
Both hon. Gentlemen referred to the work of the recently established commission. I will make two comments on that. First, I fairly regularly meet the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and if the hon. Member for Ipswich would like to join those discussions of the broader issues, as well as meeting to discuss Oliver’s case, he is welcome. I look forward to following the commission’s work. Without making firm commitments, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will recognise that I have always been willing to engage constructively since I have been in this role, and I look forward to doing so in future.
Mr Sheerman
Just to put the record straight, the people we met are really good people. I did not want to denigrate them; they are very good people, but they are under-resourced. I got the feeling, talking to them and talking to people in this area, that senior people in the judiciary do not like the system and are not positive towards it. Is that the real key; that some senior judges do not like the process at all?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and he is gently tempting me to speculate on areas where I will not tread. I believe the judiciary has full confidence in the process and fully respects the nature of the process. That is reflected in how it engages with the CCRC and the appeals process. He may seek to tempt me, but I fear that on this occasion he has not succeeded.
I note that the CCRC’s analysis has identified other reasons for the recent level of referrals, including the lack of common themes across recent cases and changes in approach by investigators. The CCRC continues to review the reasons for a low referral rate, working with practitioners and academics to ensure that they are aware of any potential new causes of miscarriages of justice.
In February the Ministry of Justice published a tailored review of the commission, as the hon. Member for Ipswich will be aware. The review found that the current delivery model as a non-departmental public body is still the most appropriate. The review did, however, make a number of recommendations relating to improving the commission’s performance. Those recommendations were in part informed by respondents to the call for evidence, who commented that the commission does not provide as timely a service as they would wish. The commission has acknowledged that although internal targets were met, too many cases were taking too long to resolve and more can be done to avoid delay.
The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the amount of time it has taken the CCRC to look at Oliver’s case and the handling of it. The review team found that a single commissioner or a committee of commissioners were making the decisions on the non-referral of cases, despite legislation providing the option for decisions to be made by one or more employees of the commission. The review recommended that responsibility for the final decision on non-referrals in less complex cases should be made by case review managers, rather than commissioners.
Mr Sheerman
Does the Minister understand that many of us got into this issue because of cases in our constituencies? In Huddersfield, I had a tragic case like Oliver’s. Does he realise that even when someone spends 18 years in prison and they come out having been found not ever to have committed a crime, they get nothing?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, which he has made in our previous conversations. I look forward to picking that specific point up in more detail with him. I think we are due to have one of our regular meetings soon.
As with any case, the CCRC would welcome an application to review Oliver’s case, if new information can be provided. That would be decided by people who have had no previous involvement in the decision making.
Sandy Martin
I thank the Minister for that. If the CCRC says that there has been no new evidence and refuses to take any further applications, what is our recourse after that?
Edward Argar
My understanding is that beyond that the recourse is via judicial review, which I appreciate is a complex and expensive process. That is why I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman following the debate to discuss the issue in more detail outside of this place.
The review also recommended that the CCRC and my Department should discuss the possibility of changing the law so that the commission does not have to consider cases dealt with summarily and sentence-only cases. The CCRC currently considers applications relating to summary offences, which often originate in magistrates courts, as well as more serious indictable offences, which are dealt with in Crown courts. The CCRC also considers applications that allege a person has been sentenced incorrectly.
The review recommendation reflects the outcome of the Justice Committee inquiry in 2015, which recommended that the CCRC be given discretion to refuse to investigate cases dealt with summarily, if it deems it not to be in the public interest to investigate. The CCRC is considering and reflecting on that recommendation, but it is of the view that it should retain its function with regard to summary cases, given that it is an area where miscarriages of justice can and do occur. The CCRC has established a working group to consider the recommendations of the tailored review, and I look forward to the outcome of its discussions, especially with regard to what can be done to ensure that commissioners can focus on more complex and serious cases.
I very much support the work of the CCRC. In saying that, I put on the record that I was in no way suggesting that the hon. Member for Huddersfield does not; I know he is deeply involved in this area and has a lot of respect for the staff and their work. Although he is courteously challenging of it, I know that the CCRC welcomes his engagement, which shines a light on its work and raises its profile. The staff enjoy and respect his interest and the focus it brings to their work. I know they would want me to say that to him.
With the appointment of six new commissioners in June, the organisation is well placed to deliver its important work investigating where people are wrongly convicted or where convictions are unsafe. I look forward to carefully considering the results of the work of the Westminster commission that has been set up by the all-party parliamentary group. I hope that I will be in this post this time next week and in a fortnight hence, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that although we may on occasions disagree, as long as I am in this post I will always be happy to engage with him and with Members from all parts of the House.
The hon. Member for Ipswich is absolutely right to use his position in this House as a champion for his constituents to highlight Oliver’s case, bringing it to my attention as a Minister and also to people more broadly. I look forward, should he wish and should I still be in this role in a couple of weeks’ time, to discussing that with him, where he can unpack some of the more detailed points he would want to make on that. It has been a pleasure to respond to this debate, Sir George. The CCRC continues to play a vital role for individuals and also in upholding the integrity of our justice system, which is precious to us all.
Question put and agreed to.
NHS Workforce: England
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the legal duties of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for NHS workforce planning and supply.
I am a nurse. My daughter is a nurse. Nursing is in my family and fundamentally informs who I am and what I do. Last November, I triggered a debate about investing in nursing higher education. I am here today to again carry the burning flag for the nursing profession, the wider health and care workforce, and society.
I will start by directly addressing the notion that we should not seek to further clarify the Secretary of State’s legal duties and powers. I have heard that the latest legislation sought to remove political interference in our health system. I have heard people say, “Don’t make health a political football.” Lastly, I have heard that changing the legislation to give the Secretary of State accountability for the workforce would put health and care back under political control—as if our ability to access health and care was ever out of political control.
I am sorry, but those are laughable positions. Which- ever side of the fence we sit on, it is a serious point that health is fundamentally political. It can never not be political, in terms of what we can access and what happens to people. Our great health service was created within a political agenda, and creating it was a fundamentally political act. Supporting our health and care service to thrive will never not be a political decision. Let us be proud of our history, recognise that health is political, and find a solution to the problems we face.
Now that I have addressed those weak positions, let me state that I, and many others across the political spectrum, take no issue with the idea that there should be explicit clarity in the law about the Secretary of State’s responsibilities. I am not alone in my gratitude for all that our health and care staff do. They work constantly to provide quality care by putting patients at the heart of what they do. In the NHS and the independent sector, nursing accounts for one in 10 of the labour market of the whole of England. We are, and ought to be, a fundamental force to be reckoned with.
Thanks to the scale and urgency of the workforce crisis, many people have been looking into these issues—some of us would say for far too long, and to poor result. We have a long-term plan for the NHS and an interim NHS people plan, so we have seen some movement in the way that agencies work together. However, we have no understanding of what the social care sector needs, and no assurance of workforce funding, which is entirely dependent on the forthcoming spending review and subject to the whim of a new Prime Minister. We do not have a workforce strategy that meets health and care service requirements, or that projects the future needs of the people who live in this country.
The vacancy rate has reached alarming levels, with almost 40,000 nursing vacancies in the NHS in England alone. That is not the full picture. The extent of the vacancies within social care and public health is unclear because it is not mandatory to collect workforce data. It is not possible for services designed with staffing built into their planning to run safely and effectively with so many missing staff.
Fewer people are joining the nursing profession and more are leaving. Since the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU, more than 10,000 EU nurses and midwives have left the UK workforce. I will not be drawn on Brexit in this debate. However, while we are trying to find our way through the referendum result, frontline staff are propping up the health and care system with no credible assurances that the situation will be resolved. Our professionals are holding on as best they can, but we need to be realistic about what we can reasonably ask of them. They are starting to vote with their feet, and there is not yet the accountability to help us navigate the future that is to come.
This crisis has come about because there is no clarity in the existing legal powers and duties that would ensure that enough staff with the right skills are in the right place at the right time to provide safe and effective care. That is true not just of nursing but of every profession working within our commissioned, taxpayer-funded services, including nurses, medics, psychiatrists, physiotherapists, psychologists, paramedics, pharmacists, social workers, support workers, occupational therapists and dietitians. Literally no one—no one person—is accountable for growing and developing our health and care workforce to meet patients’ needs, now and in future.
The Secretary of State’s current legal duty is to provide a comprehensive service. The Government may say that the Secretary of State has oversight of the workforce through those general duties and powers. With all due respect, the Secretary of State’s responsibilities are too broad to understand what aspects of workforce provision they include. There are also no particular workforce duties within the range of national organisations responsible for service design and delivery. In a health and care system as complex as ours, it is easy for everyone to lose sight of ensuring that we have enough people. Clearly, that is exactly what has happened.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Surely two reasons for the number of vacancies are low pay in the public sector generally and the lack of bursary provision to recruit new nurses. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a golden opportunity for many mature women, whose children have grown up, to enter that profession? Recently, even ambulance drivers had to pay extra for their certification—I had a debate on that a couple of months ago.
Eleanor Smith
My hon. Friend is right, and I will touch on the removal of bursaries later.
A huge amount of effort has been required to try to fix this mess. There has been progress in the NHS, but it is too little and too slow. It does not include social care and deals only with the immediate context. Many of us in this House are here to challenge the position that the existing so-called responsibilities are clear and robust enough for use by the Government and the health and care system, and for the public to have confidence that the Government can be held to account—now and in future, since the pressures on the system will continue to grow and change.
Yesterday, many of us met nursing staff, having been brought together by members of the Royal College of Nursing, who are all passionate about patient care and public safety. I am moved by their advocacy for the profession, patients and society. I also feel their desperation in the situation they face, trying to keep people safe in challenging environments. Given that professionals have been raising the alarm for decades, hopefully our demands for an end to the boom-and-bust cycle in the workforce will be met.
Even the High Court recognises how vague the current powers and duties are. The legal dispute between the Secretary of State and junior doctors over their contract resulted in a judicial review in 2016. The Court judgment said that, as stated in the National Health Service Act 2006, the objective of “protecting the public”, with a duty on the Secretary of State to take appropriate steps, leaves
“considerable leeway to the Minister as to ways and means”
of running the service.
Anyone who looks at the content of the law can see clear holes and gaps. In addition to the Secretary of State having no explicit responsibility, we have other problems with the duties and power of the national guidance. For example, Health Education England is the organisation responsible for developing our workforce, but its hands are tied because it does not have sufficient legal powers or funding to invest properly in the educational provision needed to grow our workforce. HEE can do planning but not supply, which ought to be the responsibility of the Government. The current legal framework is simply not fit for purpose.
Some people might say that Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, should be accountable for not addressing the workforce needs. The development of the long-term plan provides another clear example of the ambiguity and conflicting expectations playing out in practice. In June 2018, the Prime Minister said:
“Growing demand and increasing complexity have led to a shortfall in staff. So our ten year plan for the NHS must include a comprehensive plan for its workforce to ensure we have the right staff, in the right settings, and with the right skills to deliver world class care.”
That was a clear signal of the Government’s commitment that the long-term plan would address the workforce crisis. On publication, NHS England acknowledged significant workforce issues but said that staffing was additional to service planning and was outside the £20 billion financial package that Simon Stevens was given. Again, NHS England does not have any explicit legal duties that relate to the workforce, so it is not obliged to act.
Just last week, Simon Stevens said there is a need for a
“much bigger upturn in the pipeline of new nurses… There has been a big debate about bursaries and their removal, which as we look at the way the student loan system is working, that is clearly back in play as a big question we’ve got to answer as a nation.”
However, the reasons for these supply problems are not within Simon Stevens’s control. They include the reform of higher education for nursing, which has not grown as we were promised. The ability to boost and fund the workforce sits with the Government, and the ambitions set out in the long-term plan will not be met if we do not have trained and qualified staff to achieve those goals. Although the Government have committed to transforming services, they must also commit to building the workforce we need. To do that, the lack of accountability must be addressed.
A nurse who walks into a shift that is short-staffed has no power to safely and effectively staff services. They have no option but to carry on, yet the buck stops with them when patient care is unsafe. Nurses have no power to recruit more staff, and they rely on Parliament to ensure that the incredible position we find ourselves in is addressed; to fix things not just now, but for the future. I know how heartbreaking it is for a nurse to be unable to give the care they want to. I know the guilt we feel when care is left undone, and the stress of being unable to do our job to the best of our ability. Patients pay the highest price when the number of nursing staff falls too low.
Understanding that the health and social care system is a safety-critical industry should be the starting block for any consideration made by the Government. The Royal College of Nursing and other professional and patient organisations have a clear solution. With cross-party support, they are calling for a legal framework for workforce accountability that sets out who in Government and across the health and social care system are accountable and responsible for workforce supply—recruitment, retention and remuneration.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care should have explicit powers in law for the growth and development of the health and social care workforce across England. Such accountability would ensure that there are enough staff to care for the number of patients, and that there is an incredible and fully funded workforce strategy. These requirements are not an either/or position; we need both. Alongside the Secretary of State’s accountability, there are other ways in which the responsibilities need to filter down across all layers of the health system. Never again would the system be able to sidestep workforce planning when setting a 10-year vision for the future of our NHS. The ultimate aim in clarifying accountability for the workforce at Government level is to ensure that all health and social care services are of a high quality, and that they are equipped to provide safe and effective care to guarantee patient safety. The current pressure faced by the healthcare workforce puts that guarantee at risk.
Successive Governments have missed opportunities to fix the health and social care workforce crisis. Boom-and-bust approaches to workforce supply have been an afterthought, with the focus on glossy new services and sparkly new plans, rather than on worrying about the staff who are needed to deliver them. That has led to a situation in which the system currently defaults to discussing how to fix the workforce gap. We need to plan strategically for what workforce will be needed to deliver the future healthcare services that have been designed to meet the needs of the population.
An opportunity to rectify the workforce crisis is coming right towards us. NHS England and NHS Improvement have finished engagement work on the legislative changes that they feel are needed to make a success of the long-term plan. Their engagement work sets out proposed changes to the remit of the Secretary of State, but currently these legislative proposals are missing crucial accountabilities. It is down to right hon. and hon. Members to expand the proposals when the law is presented to Parliament. The legislation must include accountabilities for the workforce, because it is too clear an opportunity to miss.
A simple legal change would turn the tide for patients, and support is growing across the political spectrum for a legal fix as part of addressing the workforce crisis. I found myself at a roundtable discussion on this very matter, with a Government Member with whom I share no political allegiance. We found ourselves in full agreement that we must explicitly clarify the responsibility for putting our workforce on a sustainable footing.
As a nurse in Parliament, I commit to seeking the change that is being called for. I hope that others call on Parliament to speak loudly and clearly in adding their voices to ours, and that all right hon. and hon. Members will commit to pursuing change. This is a truly cross-party issue, and rightfully so. There is a crisis and everyone points fingers at others, but ultimately no one is responsible. There are moves to make the system better, but they must be set out in law and strengthened further. There is an opportunity to fix this cleanly and easily. We are not adding burdens, but clarifying mandates. The moment is now—we must commit to ending the workforce crisis once and for all.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing this debate on an issue that she and I have discussed—her office is near mine in Norman Shaw North—and both care deeply about.
I am glad to see the Minister in his place. He knows my constituency well and understands the challenge of getting to it. In fact, he was the first MP ever to visit me in the heady days before 2010, when I stood as a parliamentary candidate because I thought that coming to Parliament would be a great way of changing the world. I have since learned that that is probably not the case.
The credit should really sit with the people who work in the NHS. In particular, I pay tribute and send my thanks to those who work in West Cornwall Hospital in Penzance, Helston Community Hospital—or cottage hospital, for those of us who grew up there—and other places where NHS staff and others do a fantastic job in really difficult situations, as we have heard. They make sure that people who arrive for whatever reason get the best possible care.
I was keen to take part in the debate because I recognise that things need to be done. We must take responsibility for the way things are at the moment, and although I understand what the legal responsibility is and the reason for the debate, I want to understand a bit more about the solutions, too. I have never thought that all the solutions can be created, thought up or delivered here in Westminster or in any Government Department. Although real progress in integration and improving services on the ground needs to be enabled through legislation, support and encouragement, people in health and social care in Cornwall have got together and worked extremely hard for many years to deliver a system in which pathways and integration are much better than when I welcomed the Minister off the train.
One problem of many is the workforce, which is undoubtedly a challenge. There is also no doubt that the NHS 10-year plan is a fantastic document, but it depends heavily on workforce. I know that the Minister will agree and will want to ensure that we have people in place. We may not participate in this Chamber, but across Parliament, the bunfight, debate and arguments about the NHS go on, and have been taken up by people in local campaigns and the media. That has created an environment in which people choose not to nurse or do anything else in the NHS because they are misinformed. I know of lots of people who would have gone into or considered going into nursing or social care, but will not do so because the NHS is a political hot potato.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about people not joining the NHS to nurse, the lack of bursary is a significant issue. If someone wants to train, the bursary is really important.
Derek Thomas
I am addressing the point the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West made about the importance of working cross-party, as we will in this Chamber. I will come to the bursary later.
Actually, I will come to that part of my speech now as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) has mentioned it. I was one of the MPs who signed a cross-party letter requesting a royal commission for the 70th year of the NHS, because I believe that although we do not have all the solutions, we should set the tone. That would help to open the door of opportunity for those who work in the NHS. I will come to the bursary, which I have already raised with the Minister; I asked him to look in particular at the impact on mature students. Podiatry in Plymouth, for example, will not be taught from September onwards. In the south west, where the incidences of diabetes and other vascular problems are significant, we need podiatrists, so that is a major problem. The reason given is that most people who go into podiatry do it later on in their careers, and one of the challenges arising from the removal of the bursary and introduction of student loans—I voted for that and regret doing so—is that those who take out the loan immediately lose all welfare and can no longer get housing benefit.
For someone with a young family who wants to study, the student loan, or the grant available for mature students, is just not enough. The Minister is aware of my view because I have raised it before, and there is work to do on that. It is not about financial incentives; it is about making it affordable for people to go and do a fantastic job. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West rightly said, some people bring so much to health and social care and we need to ensure that we take away every possible barrier without creating unintended consequences. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to address that point later.
I will talk briefly about how Cornwall is responding. I have been very keen to see what we can do in Cornwall to make sure that people can turn up, get training and work and train on the job. For people in Cornwall, most opportunities for training are outside the area, but as we know, people who go into some professions, including in the NHS, tend to stay where they train. That has always been a problem for Cornwall, which has struggled to recruit the people we need. We have set up a health and care academy using the apprenticeship levy. The academy can offer people training and jobs as healthcare assistants. There, they can do 12 hours per week working and studying through the Open University, and will become qualified nurses after four years. As they are already settled in the area and have family there, they are very likely to work for the NHS for the rest of their careers.
That is really positive, but there are some challenges and I have met the Minister to talk about them. One of the challenges is that for hospitals—in this case Royal Cornwall Hospital—to provide that kind of support, they need extra cash. It is not just about the apprenticeship levy, which they want to use and not repay, but about staffing 100 nurses and 100 healthcare assistants at a time, and providing pastoral support and other elements that come with training up staff on a ward or in a hospital. An added pressure is that for a hospital without the staff that it needs, really excellent healthcare assistants are no substitute for fully qualified nurses with a wealth of experience.
There is a problem in this place. I am a skilled craftsman in the building trade but I have put my tools away, despite the desperate need for skilled craftsmen in Cornwall. In this Chamber and across the House, we have lots of GPs and talented nurses. For some reason, we decided to pitch up here instead of continuing in our valuable jobs. I think that we are part of the problem. I am not suggesting that we should all pack up and go home, although we might get more done if we did, so we should consider it.
Eleanor Smith
I get what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I worked for 40 years in the health service and it was because I saw its deterioration that I came to Parliament to say, “This is what’s happening.”
Derek Thomas
I said that in humour, which is why I talked about my own skill—or lack of. It is a curious thing, though, to hear people talking about the crisis in staffing when so many of them are in this place.
On a more important note, we are in a tricky situation with the challenges around the apprenticeship levy. In Cornwall, we hope to train 200 nurses using the apprenticeship levy over the next two years—that would address the shortage—but we have to recognise that funding is needed and I know that the Minister is looking at that now.
Derek Thomas
I will when I have finished this point. Whatever the solution, we must recognise the added pressure on existing staff.
Paul Girvan
On that point, it is all very well getting nurses into and through training, but in Northern Ireland the NHS is haemorrhaging nurses who are not leaving the profession, but going into agency work, getting paid two and a half times more than they were and working the hours that they want. Not only is workforce planning impossible when people can just work when they want, but we lose continuity of care in wards.
Derek Thomas
I appreciate that valuable intervention. I had a conversation with the former Secretary of State for Health about how, when the student loan was introduced, there might have been a way in which students had all their loan written off if they gave seven years’ service to the NHS. The advantage of that, to be honest, is that people who had done seven years after qualifying would probably have settled down by then, entered into a home purchase and perhaps had family, so they would have been, first, less likely to clear off to another country and, secondly, kind of tied into the NHS where they were.
In part, that addresses the problem the hon. Gentleman raises. Yesterday, I met a newly qualified nurse from the south-west who found that on Christmas day she was the leading NHS nurse, supported only by agency staff. That must stick in the back of NHS staff’s throat, when they know that extra pay is available to agency staff. Efforts have been made to address that, and there must be ways to do so, but that is what we are getting at today—the workforce challenge.
If we have a workforce challenge, other things will happen, such as agencies springing up and the demand for them. We have to get to a place where working for the NHS as a nurse employed by the local trust is the best and most rewarding place to be, and appreciated by all. We simply do not say often enough how great such people are. We can do so many things locally and nationally to rebuild value, trust and appreciation in those people. The challenge for Health Education England is to look at how we fund local innovative ideas, ensuring there is enough money, as well as flexible support, to find solutions. I discussed that with Simon Stevens, and he seemed alert to the challenge.
As I said, I met nurses from the south-west yesterday, and they were concerned about safety on wards and retention of nurses. We have this bizarre circle spiralling downhill: if nurses do not feel safe, they go to do something that might not be nursing. Unfortunately, in places of low unemployment, lots of other work and employment opportunities are available, often paying more.
Solutions are possible. In Cornwall, I have found that people often do not know what is available. The Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust and other trusts in Cornwall, my local college and I got together to work on an event in the college called “Work for the NHS+”, which included 15 or more different parts of the NHS, as well as some from social care. They came along to tell students and the general public what the employment opportunities were, the pay and training that could be expected, and what kind of career paths were available. In Cornwall, as in many other parts of the country, there are some fantastic members of staff and people in the NHS and social care who can inspire others. This might sound ridiculous in a debate on shortages on a ward, but when we have such individuals, we must find opportunities to get them in front of people who are thinking about which career they should choose.
I do not know much about the other challenging problem raised by the nurses yesterday, but it is right to mention it. They said that although more nurses are training, training placement opportunities are fewer. They suggested that part of nurse training now is off the ward—obviously that has happened before, but they were concerned about whether that virtual training or simulators were the same. I know that the Minister will take seriously all opportunities to get nurses trained in the best possible way, so I will not dwell on a subject that I do not know much about.
I mentioned the issue to do with podiatry, which is a real problem in the south-west. We must find ways to help professionals, whatever they do, whether therapy, physio or all the things that people to do to ensure that we stay well and do not end up in hospital. Podiatry is one of those. We must ensure that people get the training, that they can afford to do so, and that they can have a great career in the NHS or with local authorities. We need to talk to universities about exactly why they are not attracting the kind of numbers they need to justify the courses.
I should have declared an interest at the beginning: I chair the vascular and venous disease all-party parliamentary group. One thing I am being told loud and clear—I have done a lot on this—is that because we have taken the nursing bursary away from older students, they find it difficult to go on the courses that I am describing. That will have a real impact on the numbers of nurses available to do those important jobs. If we do not address that issue, in a place such as Cornwall, where diabetes is a significant problem, the pressure on urgent care will be enormous—if it is not already.
Last week, our general district hospital—the only one in Cornwall—closed to the public, because a spate or outbreak of vomiting and diarrhoea put a lot of people from nursing homes and others into hospital. In that situation, the system rallied and did some amazing work to cope, ensuring that no one who needed care was failed, but it was also an example of why we need to work equally hard, if not harder, to ensure that at the best of times and the worst of times people get the best healthcare available.
The NHS in Great Britain is the envy of the world. We need to be careful always to remember how fantastic our system is. Last week, my brother and his wife came back from Cambodia with stories of trying to get healthcare there—they have two young children—and that reminded me of how fantastic our health service is, as are all those who work in it.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) for securing this important debate.
I will start by talking about my lived experience of staff shortages in the NHS. I worked as a nurse from 2003 until 2017, when I entered Parliament. For the majority of that time, I worked on an in-patient cardiac unit at Lincoln County Hospital. Today, I want to paint a picture of a nurse’s working day and how difficult that becomes when we have staff shortages. First, however, I pay tribute to all the staff at Lincoln County Hospital—not just the nurses, but all the staff—and to NHS staff who deliver our healthcare right across this country in local communities and in hospitals.
I keep in touch with my former colleagues and still hear at first hand how staff shortages affect them—some stories are quite scary. As an MP over the past two years, I have witnessed an awful lot of patronising pats on the back. I exclude today’s debate from that, but we often hear from Members how wonderful our NHS staff are, and yet that does nothing to address staff shortages or to make their working conditions any better. That is what they want; they do not want patronising pats on the back. The 40,000 nursing vacancies are evidence of that stark truth.
As a nurse, when I went on shift, I would be allocated eight cardiac patients. They would have been treated for heart failure, recently had a heart attack or been waiting for an angiogram, or perhaps they were being treated for endocarditis, which is a serious infection of the heart. The staffing was meant to ensure that a single nurse took either the male or the female team, with an extra nurse working between the two sides to support the multitude of tasks that delivering good patient care means. In reality, we often did not get that third nurse, and had to manage without. Some shifts felt like a marathon combined with a sprint—I kid you not, Mrs Moon, it really was that bad. I did love it though.
The medical management of my group of patients would be varied. Many patients were diabetics, meaning that we had to check blood sugars, four times a day for some and twice for others. If four or five out of eight of a nurse’s patients were diabetics, that was quite a task. We could even get something called “sliding scale”, which meant we had to check them every two hours. Sometimes, honestly, we just chased our tail the whole day.
Many patients needed intravenous antibiotics, which were really time-consuming to prepare, even more so if a patient had a line, a Hickman or a PIC—a peripherally inserted central catheter—because it had to be done aseptically; it just took ages, and the nurse was running around the whole time. As well as that, staffing was routinely topped up with bank or agency staff. I am not knocking them, because we would not have managed without them, but they were not allowed to do IVs, so when we had agency staff on the other side of ward, to be honest we would end up doing quite a proportion of their work as well. That made it really difficult.
Many patients were prescribed controlled drugs, so first thing in the morning, at 8 o’clock, we might have had two or three CDs to do—but trying to get someone else to check the CD was a nightmare. There were just not enough hands on deck, which meant that people were sat waiting in pain for analgesia when they had gone all night and were due that dose. Sometimes a patient needed a blood transfusion, which was a really tricky process. They had to be monitored the whole time, but, again, that was done for one person and there were eight patients, so the nurse was running around all the time. It felt unsafe and the nurse felt really bad because they wanted to deliver good, safe patient care.
A patient might be close to death and need to be monitored, because the nurse could tell visually whether they were in pain, but there were seven others to look after. The relatives wanted someone to sit and talk to them, which of course the nurse wanted to do, but they did not have the time. In addition, there were other tasks such as changing dressings, monitoring pressure areas, and speaking to social workers, physiotherapists and occupational therapists about assessments, as well as discharging patients. The doctor might say to a patient, “You can go home today”, but the nurse had seven others to look after. All the patient wanted was for the nurse to do their paperwork and get their meds from the pharmacy. They sat waiting impatiently and the nurse felt bad because the patient could not go home. When the nurse eventually got them out, another patient was straight into their bed and the admission paperwork had to be done. The tasks were endless, but that was the job. We did it and we loved it, but we have to have enough staff to do it properly.
No nurse can deliver care without the healthcare support workers, so this is not only about nurses. The housekeepers make the tea but because the nurses do not have time to sit and talk to the patients and their families, the nurse goes to the housekeeper at the end of a shift and says, “Has anybody told you anything that I need to know?” It is team work. If there are not enough staff to carry out the different roles, staff simply burn out and cannot deliver the care that patients need. Towards the end of my nursing career, in the two years before I came to Parliament, I worked in out-patient clinics because I thought it might be a little easier, but it was not. It never is, but I was starting to get burn-out and I did not want that to happen because I loved the job too much.
We used to work 12.5 hour shifts. We would start a day shift at seven in the morning. At about half nine, if we were lucky, we got a cup of tea, but we literally had only five minutes. At around two o’clock we got our lunch. We had half an hour and we were meant to have another break at teatime, but we never, ever got it because we were running around trying to finish all our jobs, chasing our tails and trying to get everything done. So we would have a break of about half an hour in twelve and a half hours. Then, just when we thought we were going home, it would turn out that the bank staff, the agency staff, had not turned up and we could not simply say, “I am off home.” We had to wait until somebody had been found somewhere else in the hospital and somebody was moved from a different ward. Then the handover took half an hour. Instead of going home at half seven or eight o’clock, it could be nine o’clock and we would be back again at seven the next morning. People simply burn out.
Working in our NHS is incredibly hard work in whatever role. It is not well paid, and in places such as Lincoln a few years ago when we had the pay freeze, it was suddenly decided that a consultation would be held and we were asked, “Do you think you ought pay for staff parking?” Of course, everyone said no, so what happened? We all had to start paying for staff parking: £15 a month for staff nurses who had not had a rise in years. It absolutely made us feel undervalued, and that is not acceptable. I am not surprised that people are leaving the profession.
I want to talk now about the crisis in our NHS and about some of the steps we must take as parliamentarians to address it. There are more than 100,000 vacancies in our NHS, including 40,000 nursing vacancies. The “Interim NHS People Plan”, released last month, acknowledges that
“shortages in nursing are the single biggest and most urgent we need to address.”
I agree with that, but there are many other things we need to address, too. It is true that 80% of shifts from over 40,000 nursing vacancies are covered by expensive bank and agency staff, which highlights the false economy of austerity. It makes no sense financially. I will say this again and again: the removal of the nursing bursary in effect means that nurses are not training. I know I will get the answer back about how wonderful nursing apprenticeships are and how other wonderful things will happen, but the stark truth is that nurses are not training. So the NHS long-term plan and the talk about all the extra places for nurses is pie in the sky if we have not got the nurses training. It will simply not happen.
I am particularly concerned that applications from mature students have decreased by 39%. People no longer have the support that I had when I trained as a mature student. I was 39 when I started my training. The RCN is calling for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to be accountable to Parliament for making sure that there are enough health and care staff with the right skills in the right place at the right time to care for patients, based on population needs now and in future. Support for that must be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West said, cross-party if it is to happen. This or any future Government must ensure a credible, costed workforce strategy. Our healthcare workers must feel confident of delivering the very best care, and our patients must feel happy with the care they receive. A worn-out and demoralised workforce is not what the patients or any of us want to see.
Patients watch nursing staff doing their best to look after them. Some of them used to say to me, “Do you ever stop and take a breath?”, and I would jokingly say, “No, but I still don’t get thin, do I?” They have to wait their turn longer than they should for the care that they need, and that is not what we want to see. So I really hope that the Minister is genuinely listening and does not give me the usual answers: “We have got apprentices and we have got this and we are doing that, and all this money is going in, so we will get lots of nurses and it will all be all right in five years’ time.” I want someone to take notice and listen to me as an ex-nurse and make sure that hardworking NHS staff will be equipped to deliver the care that is both safe and effective for them and for their patients.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Members for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on their eloquent speeches.
The crisis in the NHS workforce is deeply concerning. Its effects are felt nationally, locally and personally. Like others here, I want to pay tribute to the people working at every level of my national health service within the south lakes: the hospital in Kendal, Westmoreland General Hospital, and the district generals that we travel to in Barrow and in Lancaster. Of course, there are the GPs, dentists, paramedics and those providing mental health services. They do an outstanding job, but it is particularly challenging in rural areas, where we have specific problems with workforce planning and supply, which are at the heart of the problems that we are challenged by.
There are several key elements to workforce planning, including accessible and high quality training, as well as affordable training, as has just been mentioned so eloquently. Effective recruitment is another. Alongside both of those is the issue of staff retention. The Secretary of State must surely be held to account for each of those. The huge shortages in the NHS workforce are felt heavily in numerous areas of healthcare provision in the local communities in Cumbria, and I briefly want to touch on a few of them.
The provision of ambulances and ambulance crews has been hit particularly hard. It is vital that we recruit and deploy more paramedics and ambulance technicians. Rural communities such as mine suffer because of the sheer distances that ambulances have to travel to reach patients. According to the review of NHS access standards, it is the responsibility of ambulance trusts to respond to category 1 calls within seven minutes on average. That is a tall order when there are half the number of ambulances per head in the north-west of England as there are in London, despite the fact that my constituency alone is bigger than the whole of Greater London. It leaves communities living in fear for their safety and takes a serious toll on the physical and mental health of our outstanding ambulance crews. Our local paramedics and ambulance technicians are being pushed beyond their capacity. As a result, I have had an influx of local people contacting me about having to wait hours for an ambulance to arrive to give them the treatment that they so desperately need. That is why local health campaigners have been calling on the Government to deliver two new fully crewed ambulances to south Lakeland to stem the crisis and ensure the safety of the community. It is not right that people in Grasmere, Dent or Hawkshead might be an hour away from the nearest available ambulance.
We met the Minister to raise the issue a few weeks ago. He was incredibly helpful and I thank him for his time and his response. I very much welcome the commitment to procure additional emergency ambulances. I understand that as a result of our campaigns an additional £8 million has been allocated to the North West Ambulance Service. That could be good news for south Cumbria, but only if the ambulance service allocates it in the way that we have asked. Ministers should be held to account for whether the ambulances materialise.
Mental health is another element of workforce planning that I want to raise—particularly provision for children. Four years ago the Government promised a bespoke one-to-one eating disorder service for young people in Cumbria. For young people in south Cumbria that promise remains nothing more than words. The specialists have not been recruited and the service still does not exist. I should love it if the Minister would tell me exactly when we can expect our young people to have access to the service. When will the promises be kept?
I welcome the Government’s commitment to preventive healthcare, set out in the NHS long-term plan. However, again, promises are not being fulfilled. In our area, cuts to the public health budget mean that the NHS in Cumbria currently spends only £75,000 a year on tier 1 mental health preventive care for children. That works out at just 75p per child per year. Proper investment in public health would ensure enough money for a mental health professional for every school and college, if we could recruit them, keeping young people mentally healthy and making sure that problems did not become so severe further down the line. It would also ease the burden on our massively oversubscribed local child and adolescent mental health services, and relieve the pressure on our brilliant but overworked teachers.
In our area, there is a problem with people moving out of NHS provision to work privately, particularly in the delivery of dental services. More than half of adults in Cumbria have not had access to an NHS dentist in the past two years, while one in three children locally does not even have a place with an NHS dentist. Much as with ambulances, the impact of the lack of a workforce of sufficient size is felt particularly acutely in rural areas. Insufficient NHS dentistry provision has resulted in families having to make ludicrously long journeys to reach the nearest surgery with an available NHS place. Often, people are unable to make those long journeys, or to afford to make them.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about dentistry. There are frightening figures about my constituency showing a lack of take-up of NHS dental treatment among children in particular. That is a real worry. I wonder whether it is reflected in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and whether he agrees that we need at least to tackle NHS provision for dental treatment for young people. It is important.
Tim Farron
Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. I am certain it is felt across the country. If it is made too difficult to get to the nearest NHS dental surgery—if that is 60 or even 100 miles away, as has been the case on occasion for constituents of mine—people go without treatment, and so do their children.
Last November I managed to secure the agreement of the commissioners to increase the value of the contracts to NHS dentists in Kendal so they could see and treat more patients. “Brilliant,” we thought, “that is really good news.” When NHS England contacted our local NHS dentists they found that not one of them was able to take up their offer. I was told that the practices were already working to capacity within the staffing resources they had available, and were reporting difficulties in recruiting additional staff. Those staff exist, by the way. They are working in the private sector. The treadmill of a contract that is unfair to patients and dentists, and not fit for purpose, keeps them out of the NHS. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) says, that hits young people particularly.
The reasons for those difficulties include a contract that pays a set amount for a particular type of treatment, regardless of the number of teeth that a dentist treats. A dentist will get paid, on average, £75 for an entire course of treatment including six fillings, three extractions and a root canal. That is not enough to cover overheads. That is a serious disincentive to people entering NHS dentistry. It hits all areas, but particularly deprived areas, and has a massive impact on the size of the workforce. According to the Department’s website, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is responsible for
“oversight of NHS delivery and performance”
but if he is unable or unwilling to intervene to correct such absurd commissioning we have to ask what real power he has to perform the role. That is the kind of systemic problem that adds up to the workforce crisis we have all talked about and which proper accountability would go some way to solving.
The website states that the other part of the Secretary of State’s role is
“oversight of social care policy”.
Social care policy is key to NHS workforce planning and supply in England. We all recognise that social care provision is in crisis, and that the crisis gets worse the longer we do not address it. As it grows, so does the pressure on the NHS, which is left dealing with the serious health problems of those who did not receive the routine care they needed. The Government cannot go on delaying simply because of the personal embarrassment of having failed so far. To be fair, they are not the only ones responsible. Neither are they the only ones who can come up with a solution. We need to reach across divides and look for a cross-party solution.
I have written to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the shadow Secretary of State, to invite them to join me so that between us we can constructively use this deadlocked Parliament to reimagine and then redesign a social care system that could provide us with the care we might want for our parents, ourselves or, indeed, in the future, our children. I hope that we can work together to create a new deal for social care and a chance to turn this logjammed Parliament into one of the most productive in history.
The lack in the workforce has a profound impact in each of the areas I have talked about. Common themes and problems emerge: there is a lack of planning, as well as short-sightedness and a failure to invest in preventive care or to understand that providing healthcare is harder in rural areas, as are recruitment and retention. The Government must plan to overcome those specific challenges as part of their overall strategy. The Government, in not taking responsibility for the workforce crisis, are creating huge problems for generations to come. We need accountability, both for the current workforce crisis and to ensure that we invest in long-term solutions beyond the next Prime Minister, the next Government and even the next generation.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) for securing the debate. Like everyone who knows the NHS workforce, I want to pay tribute to all the people I served, including in acute services, when I was a Unison official in public sector health. Some of the stories we heard today from colleagues who used to work as nurses or as other healthcare staff took me back to those times. I have talked to many a worker, particularly in mental health, and often they are overstretched. The work is arduous and they cannot go off shift, for the safety of the patients. More importantly, at times the environment is dangerous for staff, and I know many people, particularly in acute mental health, who have been subjected to violence in the workplace purely as a consequence of understaffing and lack of resources, yet they bravely battle on to look after the patients in their care.
There is a word that one would never expect to be associated with NHS services in a commonplace way, yet it is frequently associated with the demise or semi-demise, or shutdown or partial shutdown, of NHS units. That word is “unsafe”. It has been used time and again, especially by acute trusts, to justify the stoppage of particular patient-facing functions, including accident and emergency departments. In 2016 it was reported that in 60 towns, including Hartlepool, A&E units had closed, disappeared or been downgraded. A year later, in 2017, one in six was reported to be at risk, and a further 33 units, in 23 areas in the UK, were affected.
Even today, in the Tory heartlands of Richmond and Northallerton in North Yorkshire, the same is happening at the Friarage Hospital. It is not just A&E provision that is affected but the birthing unit at University Hospital of Hartlepool, and breast screening at nearby James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough. They have been mothballed or put into slow decline, with one common denominator: the services were deemed unsafe due to a lack of consultants.
The recruitment and retention of consultants is vital, of course, but so too is the recruitment and retention of nurses and other staff. I mentioned the birthing unit in Hartlepool because last year the maternity centre, at which there were once hundreds of births, reached an all-time low—just three babies were delivered at the unit, with a further five home births in the town. That so alarmed the local authority that maternity provision in the town came under specific scrutiny, with a view to promoting and boosting the use of the birthing unit and improving maternity services in the locality. In fact, the chair of the council’s audit and scrutiny committee—Conservative Councillor Brenda Loynes—is on record as saying that it was
“important to encourage more people to use the Hartlepool unit to keep the service in the town.”
Yet the will of the people, and the pride that comes from having the right to be born and registered in their own town, is continually being thwarted. Only this week a constituent told me that his partner, who was four days over her due date, had recently opted to have her baby at the University Hospital of North Tees in Stockton because there was not a consultant on hand at Hartlepool, even though they are part of the same NHS foundation trust. At her midwife appointment, his partner stated that it was a shame that there was not a consultant on hand in Hartlepool, as her preferred choice was to give birth there. The reply was, “Nobody can have their babies at the birthing centre, as they haven’t got the staff to cover it—not just consultants but midwifery staff.” To the people of my town, who thought that they had seen the back of cuts to hospital services, that will be a slap in the face.
There are 40,000 nursing vacancies in the NHS in England alone, according to the Royal College of Nursing and the other unions—GMB, Unite and Unison. We stand on the brink of a crisis in our NHS. As my brother Andrew has experienced several times, surgery and appointments are cancelled, and wards and units are closed, more often than not because of staff shortages.
Let me be clear: that is not the fault of the hard-working NHS staff, who cannot and do not drop everything at the end of their shift, in the face of short staffing and in the interests of patient safety. It is not the fault of the midwives in Hartlepool, who want to provide a service out of the local hospital. It is the fault of the Government, who have failed to get a grip of the issue and ensure that there are enough health and care staff with the right skills, in the right place, at the right time to care for patients. Their strategy for the NHS has to include taking responsibility for ensuring adequate workforce planning and funding. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care must have a clear and explicit responsibly for the growth and development of the healthcare workforce across England. Shame on the Government for not doing so and for running the NHS further into the ground.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) for securing this important debate, and for her excellent and knowledgeable speech. I also thank all other hon. Members who made excellent speeches. They are all very knowledgeable, and some have had long careers in the health service, which really adds to the quality of the debate.
I pay tribute to the approximately 1.4 million members of the dedicated and hard-working NHS workforce, who are responsible for making our health service one of the best in the world. This debate is absolutely not about criticising them or the NHS, as others have said; it is about criticising the Government, who have continued to undervalue the NHS workforce. NHS staff too often find themselves working under unacceptable levels of pressure following nearly a decade of mismanagement and underfunding. They are consistently asked to do more with less. That pressure has led to abhorrent working conditions. Staff shortages in the NHS have spiked consecutively over the past few years. Recent estimates suggest a shortfall of about 100,000 staff, including 40,000 nurses and 10,000 doctors. If the trend continues, it is estimated that the shortfall will more than double by 2030.
We know that staff shortfalls put patients at risk. They prevent treatment and lead to a poorer quality of care. A 2017 study concluded that lower staffing levels can lead to necessary care being missed, patients being more likely to die following common surgery, and lower patient satisfaction, yet hospitals frequently have gaps in rotas and lack medical cover, which prompts significant concern about safety. Does the Minister believe that is appropriate care for patients and their families? If those substantial staff shortages continue, we will face even longer waiting lists and a deteriorating quality of care, and money ring-fenced for NHS frontline staff and services will go unspent due to lack of staff.
The effect of staff shortages is already evident. We have already seen care homes shut, an increase in agency hires, and chemotherapy treatments postponed because of a lack of staff at hospitals across the country. The effect that staffing shortfalls have on patients must not be underestimated, but we must also remember the effect on the staff themselves. NHS staff are consistently asked to take on additional responsibilities, to work harder, to do more intense shifts and to take on an excessive number of patients. Working in an already high-pressure environment without adequate resources or support not only puts patients at risk but damages the mental health of staff, leading to lower morale, poor wellbeing and a poor working life.
Working life is becoming intolerable for some of our NHS staff. It is no wonder that 20,000 nurses have left the NHS since 2010, and that the NHS has seen a 55% increase in voluntary resignations, with staff citing a poor work-life balance as their primary reason for leaving. The number of voluntary resignations due to health problems and stress has increased threefold in the past 10 years. The recent interim NHS people plan states that people are “overstretched” and admits that people no longer want to work in the NHS. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that NHS staff are retained once they are trained and experienced?
The standards of protection and safety that are rightly expected by staff and enshrined in the NHS constitution are being abandoned. On top of the cuts to staff wellbeing services that have consistently been made across England since the introduction of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the number of understaffed shifts and overworked practitioners is forcing staff to take time off work and has led to increased requests for employed staff to take on extra shifts. That risks their health and can lead to increased locum use to cover staff rota gaps and vacancies. Staff shortages can have a significant impact on patient and professional safety.
It is welcome news that NHS Improvement will monitor trusts’ use of safe staffing guidelines. However, five years after the Francis report, the action taken on safe staffing simply is not good enough. The exodus of dedicated staff over the past 10 years, staff shortages, long waits for treatment, and frequent cancellations of operations demonstrate that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s suspension of work on setting evidence-based staffing rules in 2015 was a mistake.
One way of ensuring the system has the number of staff it needs would be for England to follow the approach that is taken in Wales and is planned in Scotland, which is to legislate for safe staffing levels, yet the Government have continuously refused to bring forward legislation on safe staffing levels. Will the Minister reconsider that?
It remains unclear who is responsible for interventions in the workforce supply, as the Government certainly seem to be abdicating responsibility. The Government must consider seriously the legal proposals put forward by NHS England and NHS Improvement to amend the Health and Social Care Act to ensure that the workforce crisis is meaningfully and explicitly addressed. Can the Minister explain what impact workforce accountability requirements would have on the current legal framework? Surely the fact that Scotland and Wales have explicit accountability for the provision of the workforce across health and social care but England does not will lead to unequal progress and quality of care across the country and, inevitably, to a postcode lottery for patients.
We cannot tackle this problem if the pool of talented medical professionals in Britain continues to shrink. Safe staffing is not just a numerical issue; it is about having enough staff with the right skills, experience and knowledge. The UK trains only 27 nursing graduates per 100,000 of population, compared with the average of 50 across other OECD countries. The Government have continually undermined incentives to join the NHS workforce, which is demonstrated by their treatment of junior doctors, their introduction of salary caps, their cuts to bursaries and funding opportunities for students, and their hostile approach to those who travel from overseas to join the NHS. Does the Minister recognise that restrictive migration policies act only as a further barrier to tackling the NHS workforce crisis?
Does the Minister also recognise that the Health Education England budget has been cut by 17% in real terms since 2013-14? Applications to nursing training have fallen by 30%, particularly since the nursing bursary was removed. The NHS long-term plan set out some ambitious targets, such as diagnosing 75% of cancers at an early stage by 2028, expanding emergency service care and increasing the availability of mental health services. However, without a long-term, fully funded staffing plan for the NHS, those targets are impossible to reach.
The Government’s warm words and commitments to increase the number of NHS staff working and in training “as soon as possible” are appreciated. However, legislative action must be taken to ensure that patients and staff are not exposed to unsafe staffing levels, which can have dire consequences for patient outcomes and workforce retention. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I look forward to responding to the debate, which has been interesting, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing it.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). He will be pleased to know that I will be happy to write to him about podiatry; there are some interesting issues about new plans that are being put in place. He will recognise that there are more applicants for university nurse training places this year than in the previous year.
I was pleased to hear the contributions from the hon. Members for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I have responded to the hon. Gentleman about ambulances. He will know that there are eight posted in the Cumbria and Morecambe Bay areas, but I am looking with him at procurement there and will be looking to see where the North West Ambulance Service places those ambulances. He questioned whether promises are being fulfilled. I guide him to the implementation framework. He also talked about planning and investment. That is why there is a long-term plan and a people plan, and why moneys are going in to back them up. I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill).
I say to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), let us start by agreeing with each other. I think both of us, and everybody in the Chamber and across the House, would recognise and praise the work of everybody who works in the NHS—I have been pleased to do that on every occasion I have responded to a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Floor of the House. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned that the interim people plan recognises the pressures that are being put on staff. What she failed to say, of course, is that not only do we recognise that but there is a whole chapter on addressing those issues and making the NHS the best place to work. She talked a little about junior doctors and nurses in training, failing to recognise that we have just done a deal with the junior doctors that includes a four-year pay deal and resolution of the number of issues they had with the contract review. There are now more applicants for nurse training places than there were in the previous year.
Like many other Members, I attended the RCN member-led event yesterday and heard at first hand about the aims of the campaign from many nurses working in the NHS. I met again a number of the people I met at an event for nurses in training back in November. At the heart of the campaign, as everybody recognises, is the RCN’s intention to ensure that the needs and requirements of the NHS workforce are prioritised. I fully support the RCN’s focus on the importance of the NHS workforce—recruitment and retention—but I am not convinced that legislation is always the answer, and I am not convinced that changing legislation will necessarily bring about the changes and focus the RCN seeks.
However, given that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West secured the debate in recognition of the Secretary of State’s legislative duties in relation to workforce, it is probably right that I set out exactly what the legal position is. Through the Care Act 2014, the Secretary of State delegated to Health Education England powers to support the delivery of excellent healthcare and health improvement for patients and the public in England by ensuring that the current and future NHS workforce has the right number of staff with the right skills, values and behaviours at the right time and in the right place to meet patients’ needs.
The Care Act 2014 sets out in detail Health Education England’s remit and range of responsibilities, including its duty to ensure an effective system of education and training for the NHS and public health. Beyond the detail of the legislation, HEE provides leadership for the education and training system, and ensures that the workforce have the right skills to be able to deliver excellent healthcare in the right numbers. HEE was established to deliver a better healthcare workforce for England and is already accountable for ensuring that there is a secure workforce supply for the future. It has responsibility for promoting high-quality education and training that is responsive to the changing needs of patients and local communities.
The full range of HEE’s responsibilities, deliverables and accountabilities are described in its annual mandate, which the Secretary of State is required to approve. The most recent edition of that mandate and HEE’s latest annual business plan summarise what it is doing and its achievements. I am pleased to say that, as those who have had the chance to read it will have noted, the mandate for 2019-20 was published last week.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West made a point about legislation for safe staffing, but there is already a commitment to safe staffing and to ensuring that the NHS aims to be the safest healthcare system in the world, as it should be. Part of that must come from transparency in staffing levels, which is why the care hours per day data were introduced in 2016. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 require hospitals to have the right staff in the right place at the right time, and appropriate staffing levels are a core element of the Care Quality Commission’s registration regime. As the hon. Lady will know, all providers of regulated activities must be registered with the Care Quality Commission and meet the registration requirements. The safe staffing requirement is therefore already there, and accountability mechanisms are in place.
Mrs Hodgson
The Minister says that accountability is already in place. Staffing levels may be required and desirable, but what happens when they cannot be met because the staff are not there? Where is the accountability?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Lady will know that the CQC regime puts directives in place if staffing levels are not there. The local providers are then forced to address those issues. The accountability is there.
Beyond this issue, several hon. Members talked about exactly what we are doing now. There was recognition that the Government have put in place the long-term plan and the people plan. Any reading of those will see that our overarching plan for the health service looking forward recognises explicitly that getting the workforce supply right is key. That is therefore an important part of the long-term plan, which sets out the vital strategic framework to ensure that in the next 10 years the NHS will have the staff it needs. Nurses and doctors will have the time they need to care, work in a supportive culture and allow them to provide the expert, compassionate care to which they are committed.
Hon. Members rightly said that that will not be for this Government; it may well be for the Government beyond. However, the long-term plan rightly recognises by its very nature that what we need to put in place today must continue through the next 10 years to ensure that we have the staffing levels we need.
Karen Lee
A number of us mentioned the nursing bursary. The long-term plan talks about extra places for nurses, but if nurses are not being trained—the evidence shows that numbers have dropped by about 25% to 30% —clearly we cannot have them in place. I seek the Minister’s comments on reinstating a nursing bursary so that mature students and other students can afford to train.
Stephen Hammond
I will come to the number of nurses in training and related issues in a moment, to address the hon. Lady’s comments.
Associated with the long-term plan is the people plan, which clearly recognises, to reference what I said about Health Education England, the significant role of that organisation in securing the NHS workforce for the future. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care commissioned Baroness Harding, the chair of NHS Improvement, to work alongside and closely with Sir David Behan, the chair of HEE, to develop the workforce implementation plan. The interim people plan published in June set out the actions needed to change positively the culture and leadership of the NHS, making it the best place to work, which addresses the issues rightly raised about recruitment and retention.
The people plan commits to developing a new operating model for the workforce that ensures that activities happen at the optimal level, whether in individual organisations, local healthcare systems, regionally or nationally, with roles and responsibilities being clear.
On NHS workforce supply, hon. Members talked about demand for nursing and midwifery courses. The latest available evidence shows that we are starting to see a substantial rise. Data published only last week showed a 4.5% increase in applicants compared to 2018, with that being the second increase in as many years. To build on that, to ensure that we increase the pipeline of nurses coming into the profession, the Department has worked with NHS England to ensure that funding is available for up to 5,000 additional clinical placements for nursing degrees in England. The chief nursing officer for England has led work to identify and accelerate the availability of such clinical placements. It is vital that universities ensure that they take up offers and provide placements to ensure that places are filled at the end of this year’s recruitment cycle. That can happen.
Mrs Hodgson
I acknowledge the 4% increase—it is a small increase—but figures show that the numbers are still down 29% from 51,830 in 2016, when the bursary that covered training was removed. Even with that small increase, we are still 15,000 short of the figure when the bursary was axed.
Stephen Hammond
The figures show an increase in applicants this year. The hon. Lady will know that there are 1.4 applications for each place, and she will have heard me say that we are creating additional clinical placements to ensure that more nursing places are available. I recognise that there has been a drop, but I hope that she applauds the 4.5% increase in applicants this year. That is key.
A number of Members rightly talked about additional nursing roles and support. Health Education England is leading a national nursing associates programme with a commitment for 7,500 nursing associate apprentices to enter training this year. That builds on a programme that has already seen thousands start training in 2017 and 2018.
The RCN is leading work focused on the legislative framework for all professional groups. I should set out that work on the people plan also included examining options for growing the medical and allied health work- force, including the possibility of further medical school expansion, increasing part-time study, expanding the number of accelerated degree programmes and greater contestability in allocating the 7,500 medical training places each year to drive improvements in the curriculum.
For allied health professionals, the long-term plan sets out a commitment to completing a programme of actions to develop further the national strategy, focusing on implementation of the plan. There will be a workforce group to support that work and make recommendations, including on professions in short supply, which would address the podiatry point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. That is essential.
I do not think that anyone should be in any way complacent, and the Government are clearly not complacent. Many hon. Members will have heard me say that, as well as training the workforce for the future, it is important that we support and retain the current workforce. The interim people plan is committed to reviewing how to make increases in a number of factors. One such factor is national and local investment in professional development and workforce development.
There are examples of good practice in this area across the NHS, and I was particularly pleased when I visited Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust to see how a group of band 6 nurses had created their own in-house training programme, boosting management skills and leading to greater collaborative ways of working. That example of best practice makes the case for national investment in such programmes and for national funding for continuing professional development.
Everyone recognises the need to recruit more staff, but it is also fair to put on the record the fact that the number of staff working in the NHS today is at an all-time high—it is the highest it has been in the NHS’s 70-year history. Since 2010 there has been a significant growth in qualified staff. [Interruption.] I hear a sigh from Opposition Members, but it is worth making the point that there are now 51,900 more professionally qualified staff, including 17,000 more nurses working on wards. That is a simple fact; it is a piece of data, and we cannot get away from it. I do not suggest that one should be complacent in any way, but we should recognise that there are more nurses and doctors, and the Government are committed to delivering on our promise to ensure that the NHS has the right staff with the right skills in the right place at the right time to deliver the hugely valuable, excellent care that patients deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the legal duties of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for NHS workforce planning and supply.
Aquaculture
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of aquaculture to the UK economy.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am very grateful to have secured this debate on a subject that is so important in my constituency. Figures from 2017 show that the value of farmed Scottish salmon alone is higher than the value of all species landed in UK ports, principally due to the high value of Scottish farmed salmon, which was worth just over £1 billion to the UK economy in 2017. It is our single highest earning food-type export and ranks second only to whisky in UK exports in the food and drink sector. Aquaculture as a whole is worth £1.1 billion to the UK economy, and 96% of that is based in Scotland.
Let us look at the broader picture for Scottish salmon. It is an industry that employs 2,300 people, who have an average salary of £34,000, and it generates well over 10,000 additional supply chain jobs and £216 million in tax. When it comes to carbon emissions per tonne of edible protein, aquaculture produces up to 9.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tonne of edible protein, compared with 46.34 for chicken, 56.4 for pork, and 337.2 for beef. That is understood globally: the global tonnage of captured fish has plateaued at 90-93 million tonnes per year, but aquaculture continues to grow. In 2016, it produced some 170 tonnes.
The sector is fast becoming one of the key ways of producing protein for human consumption. It is a matter of global food security, tackling hunger and sustainability.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Aquaculture is important not only to the UK economy but to my constituency. Does he agree that the importance of aquaculture in the UK economy will grow once we leave the UK and the common fisheries policy? It is imperative that we support that essential industry. I want the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and Strangford to do well from it, to grow the UK economy, jobs and opportunities.
Stephen Kerr
I agree; there is a tremendous future ahead for aquaculture. My constituency has always been at the centre of aquaculture. The historic fishery at Howietoun was created by Sir James Maitland in 1873. Many of the methods used today in fish farming were developed there. It was part of the Institute of Aquaculture at the University of Stirling until recently, when it was taken over by Michelle Pearson, who is a model social entrepreneur. She has hugely impressive plans for the environmental and ecological enhancement of the site.
The Institute of Aquaculture at the University of Stirling has a growing global reputation as a centre of excellence, and the university has a long history in this field. Even as long ago as when I was a student there in the 1980s, Stirling had a formidable reputation in aquaculture and that continues to grow. It is truly global in its scope. The university is a pioneer of aquaculture as a solution to the challenges of feeding a growing global population. Its contribution should be celebrated. It has done significant work on aquatic animal health, focusing on aquatic infectious diseases, studying how diseases spread and how to fight them with vaccines and other systems.
Let us not shy away from that issue. Significant environmental issues need to be addressed, including the destruction of natural ecosystems, the acidification of water environments and riparian ecosystems, the general pollution of water that could be used for human consumption, invasive non-native species and the spread of disease to wild populations. Those are real accusations that have been levelled at the sector, but they are surmountable.
Given the current value of this industry to the Scottish and UK economies, and the vast potential promise and future prosperity connected to the industry, we are rightly investing and must continue to invest in this sector. We must push on with the necessary research and development and give the champions at the University of Stirling the space and the resources they need to develop solutions to those challenges. That is why, as part of the Stirling city region deal, the UK Government are rightly and properly investing in the Institute of Aquaculture on the campus of the University of Stirling. The UK Government have already committed to invest £17 million through the deal, to support research by building brand new, state-of-the-art facilities in Stirling.
The University of Stirling campus is also home to the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre, led by the excellent chief executive Heather Jones. It works to ensure that commercial opportunities from aquaculture research are fully realised. Its first five years of activity are expected to create additional sales of £284 million. It brings industry and academia together, from research and development to retail. It houses the ecosystem of a whole industry, by bringing the whole industry together in one place, acting as an engine, delivering real benefits in the sector, developing markets and partnerships, growing the number of jobs, growing sales, promoting best in class practices, driving up standards and securing the industry for the future.
I strongly urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to co-invest in the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre, to bring those benefits to the whole of the UK. The Institute of Aquaculture and the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre are invaluable assets to Scotland and the United Kingdom. They have the potential to become a much bigger global player—a world centre of excellence, putting the UK at the forefront of this important and valuable agenda. I welcome the creation by BEIS of a new seafood innovation fund, announced in last November’s Budget; it is a welcome recognition that new technologies and innovations can drive economic growth and productivity across the sector.
As I said, capture fisheries and aquaculture add disproportionate value to the Scottish economy, notably the latter: Scottish salmon is worth more than all wild fish landed into UK ports put together, and it represents 93% of UK aquaculture. Given those facts, I call on the Minister to commit to ensuring a proportionate distribution of innovation funding to aquaculture, giving it at least 50% of the total, and at least 50% going to Scotland.
Jim Shannon
I am aware, and I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, that farmed salmon infect some wild salmon—I have read proven cases in the papers in the last 10 days. Does he fear that the rise of farmed salmon could be detrimental to wild salmon?
Stephen Kerr
That is exactly why I request that the Government proportionately invest in Scottish aquaculture, particularly in research at the Institute of Aquaculture at the University of Stirling. There are solutions to the problem that the hon. Gentleman raises, but they require innovative, scientific research breakthroughs, which come about through the funding of world class research, such as that at the University of Stirling. We need to encourage business investment in research and development. The innovation centre that I referred to earlier is important because it brings together the entire sector.
The UK industrial strategy sets out the bold ambition to increase UK investment in research and development to 2.4% of GDP. That is a good objective. The Government have firmly put research and innovation at the heart of their industrial strategy, setting a grand vision for the UK to become the most innovative country in the world. We need to see better co-ordination of innovation in the sector; that is the focus of this debate.
As we have seen already, the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre in Stirling has created a £36 million programme of research and development, with £22.8 million from commercial partners and £1.3 million from university finance. Many companies are investing in this valuable sector, but we need it to work better together.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking with his usual combination of insight and eloquence. He draws attention to a critical matter that I know will be close to the Minister’s heart, and that is the marriage between research and development, skills and macroeconomic strategy. If we are really serious about productivity, we have to invest in the competence of the people who work in aquaculture, agriculture and horticulture, and the necessary innovations that he has described.
Stephen Kerr
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend; there is a connection between investment, the resulting gain that we make in national productivity and the benefit that will then accrue to the whole UK economy. Innovate UK, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland all need to work together to create a shared strategy of supporting investment in research and development in this area.
At the very least, we need that shared strategy to be agreed in a spirit of co-operation. The industrial strategy calls for innovation across the board to boost our national productivity, as my right hon. Friend suggested, but it also calls for a new technological revolution in agriculture and food production. UK aquaculture is an innovative sector; there is a big opportunity to utilise big data, sensors, imaging or robotics. It is at the forefront of the productivity challenge, but it needs more investment and interest from the UK Government.
I ask the Minister whether DEFRA will consider investing UK funds to help to support the growth of a vital UK industry such as farmed Atlantic salmon? This is far too important a sector to be devolved and forgotten about. We need an explicit acknowledgment that UK aquaculture is a high-tech, high growth, low carbon food source and direct future funding through the industrial strategy challenge fund to support further innovation in the sector. That would also give us an opportunity to address some of the other issues I have spoken about in terms of environmental sustainability, which can and will be solved through the power of science and innovation.
There is no doubt in my mind about the importance of this sector and I hope there is no doubt—I am sure there is not—in the mind of the Minister.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman speaks a lot about the importance of productivity and R&D and about investment. He will be aware that in the event of a no-deal Brexit Scotland’s salmon industry may need four times as many export health certificates as now, which has the potential to cost the industry £15 million. Can he tell us how he thinks that should be addressed?
Stephen Kerr
That is a very good intervention; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. Government and business need to be fully prepared for any eventual outcome in relation to Brexit.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
We are right on top of that. We understand what would need to be done in the event of a no-deal Brexit in terms of the export health certificates. We are well on top of that and understand exactly what other work would need to be done.
Stephen Kerr
One of the encouraging things about interacting with Ministers from DEFRA is the state of readiness in that Department, which is led by an excellent Secretary of State and ministerial team, in relation to the potentiality of any Brexit outcome.
Deidre Brock
I am delighted to hear that from the Minister and to receive those reassurances. I do not know how much influence the Minister has in terms of local authorities. I know about one department that examines export health certificates in a local authority in Scotland that has been cut considerably. I do not see how it is possible for the Minister to give us complete assurances about export health certificates.
Stephen Kerr
It is illuminating and apposite that the hon. Lady draws the attention of the Chamber to the cuts that the SNP Scottish Government have inflicted on Scottish local authorities. In fact, the UK Government gave a parcel of money that was intended to be passed to local authorities to help them be ready for any eventual outcome in relation to Brexit. The Scottish Government thought better than to pass that money on to Scotland’s local authorities and decided they had other spending priorities.
That is not surprising given the fact that this is a Scottish Government that borrows to the hilt on the nation’s credit card on the one hand, then has dramatic underspends from year to year on the other. They are frankly incompetent when it comes to managing Scotland’s economy and Scotland’s public finances. I am afraid that they are incompetent in just about every field we look at in Scotland; the sooner we can shine a bright light on the performance of the Scottish Government in this matter, and every other matter, the better, because then we can talk about real substance in terms of political issues that impact on the quality of the lives of constituents.
To conclude, I have specific asks for the Minister. Given the fact that Scottish farmed salmon alone is worth over £1 billion to the UK economy, we have got to give aquaculture its proper place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on the issues I have raised. I would like to hear how the Government will ensure Scotland and the aquaculture sector benefit from the seafood innovation fund; that is key. The UK Government is working with the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre in Stirling, but what more can be done to support that valuable work and promote a UK-wide approach, harnessing our global reputation in this sector? What more can be done to ensure closer working across and between Governments to develop a shared vision and strategy for innovation in the aquaculture sector? Putting aquaculture at the heart of our food security policy and acknowledging what a tremendous innovative and high-tech sector it is, how much more would be possible with the right level of investment and partnering?
In short, the whole point of my speech is to ask the Minister to support the idea of creating a UK-wide sector deal for aquaculture. Can we have one?
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for securing this debate on such an important subject. I am excited to have so many Conservative colleagues from north of the border shining a bright light on the failures of the SNP Government there.
Aquaculture is a critical part of the UK’s food industry. As we have heard, the value of the UK’s aquaculture produce is over £1 billion and the industry employs over 3,000 people. Before I respond in full to the debate, I note that policy on the aquaculture sector is, and will remain, devolved to the four UK fisheries administrations. I use the word sector with a proviso: just as with fishing, I take the view that when we talk about the sector, we actually mean sectors. Aquaculture is rich and diverse, comprising a range of activities. In the UK as a whole, this ranges from farmed salmon—Scotland’s largest non-liquid export—through rainbow and brown trout to the cultivation of marine shellfish such as oysters and mussels, and more exotic species such as king prawns, with which I know there are exciting developments in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Stirling is clearly already at the cutting edge of technology in this area.
I am acutely aware of the key contribution that aquaculture specifically makes to the Scottish economy; it had a sales value of £765 million in 2016 and employs more than 2,000 people. Of course, it is not just those people directly employed in aquaculture who depend on it. The wider impacts across the supply chain are estimated to be around £620 million in gross value added and 12,000 jobs. The value of aquaculture produce also extends beyond Scotland. According to Seafish figures, its value in the rest of the UK is likely to be around £100 million in revenue and 1,700 jobs.
Aquaculture is a sector with a bright future. Global production, as we have heard, has been growing by nearly 7% per year and it is making an increasingly important contribution to global food security. Overall UK production has risen more rapidly. The biggest percentage growth is in Northern Ireland, as I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be pleased to know, but the largest growth by volume is in Scotland. We recognise that the Scotland is currently leading the way in UK aquaculture, and I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling says about sharing out the budget proportionally. He makes a good case. England has set out its the aquaculture growth opportunities in “Seafood 2040”. I encourage the Seafood 2040 Aquaculture Leadership Group to engage with Scottish counterparts to seek opportunities for learning and working together.
Sir John Hayes
On food security in particular, my right hon. Friend will know that the best guarantee of food security is to shorten the distance between production and consumption. A significant contributor to that is public sector procurement. Will he give a commitment in this Chamber, as a result of this excellent debate secured by our hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, to look again at how we can maximise consumption of British produce in aquaculture, agriculture and horticulture through changes to public sector procurement?
Mr Goodwill
Certainly, leaving the European Union gives us more flexibility on procurement, but I would like British suppliers and British public services—prisons, schools and so on—to buy British food not because they have to, even though it is more expensive, but because it is the best quality and the most cost-effective source. The way to get more British food on to British plates is to ensure that it is the best and that it is delivered at a cost-effective price.
Henry Dimbleby is leading the first major review of the UK food system in nearly 75 years. He will investigate across the entire food chain, carrying out an integrated analysis of our food system, resulting in a new national food strategy to be published in 2020. Only a couple of weeks ago, Henry attended an aquaculture workshop for the public sector, academia and officials hosted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I strongly encourage more engagement from the sector and devolved Administrations in this important undertaking.
It is only right to acknowledge the environmental and sustainability challenges that the aquaculture sector faces. They have been brought to the fore by two recent parliamentary inquiries in Scotland, which culminated in a debate in the Scottish Parliament that demonstrated broad cross-Chamber support for the sector, but emphasised that progress must be made on known issues such as sea lice.
At the end of March 2019, 111 aquaculture projects had been approved for funding under the European maritime and fisheries fund, with a value of approximately £14.5 million.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
There are huge economic opportunities in aquaculture—indeed, Scottish salmon is one of our biggest food exports—but, as my right hon. Friend says, there are some environmental consequences. One of those is the plight of the wrasse, a species of fish found in Cornish waters. Is he aware that Scottish vessels go to Cornwall, kidnap live wrasse from Cornish waters and take them to the North sea to eat sea lice on their farms, which has a big impact on wrasse? Will he ask his officials to look at the impact on and the plight of the Cornish wrasse?
Mr Goodwill
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend did, as my predecessor, in getting to grips with these issues. He is a hard act to follow. I was aware of the wrasse being kidnapped and taken to harvest the lice, and of the impact that has on the ecology in the south-west of England.
Deidre Brock
I am a little surprised to hear the Minister talking about the industry leadership group here, because there is one set up in Scotland, the Aquaculture Industry Leadership Group, which seeks to double the economic contribution of the sector and double the number of jobs to 18,000 by 2030, as opposed to 2040, which I think is the ambition of the group down here in England.
Mr Goodwill
I give the Scottish Government credit for its achievement where credit is due. I hope the groups will work across the four Administrations to ensure that we do not duplicate effort, but work together. At this point, I must pay tribute to the huge investment in the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre through the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal, which is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to aquaculture.
Stephen Kerr
Does the exchange we have just witnessed not underpin the importance of having a UK-wide approach? Is not the answer a UK sector deal for aquaculture?
Mr Goodwill
We need to be careful that we do not intrude on the devolution agreements, but where we can work together, we should. The best way to work together would be to have Ruth Davidson in Holyrood; I think she would be much easier to work with than some people currently inhabiting that place.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes the point about working together, which is very important, and mentions the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal, where the UK Government are also investing in the International Environment Centre. The centre will work with the University of Stirling on these kinds of UK-wide impacts and will not only help Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom, but lead the world.
Mr Goodwill
It is clear that the UK is at the cutting edge globally of progress in this area, and I am pleased to recognise that.
I reassure those in the industry that EMFF funding will continue to be available until 2021. In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an additional £37.2 million for fisheries and aquaculture over the next two years. He also made a commitment that the Government will put in place domestic long-term arrangements to support the industry from 2021, through the creation of four new schemes comparable to the EMFF to deliver funding for each part of the UK. In addition to the EMFF funding, the UK Government’s seafood innovation fund is a three-year, £10 million research and development fund, which I can confirm applies to the whole of the UK. The fund will focus on investing in innovative research and development, helping to improve both the environmental sustainability and the productivity of the fishing and aquaculture industries, and will be launched imminently.
The Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre at Stirling University, which connects industry with academia, facilitates knowledge exchanges and funds projects, plays a key role in addressing the sustainability challenges through innovative solutions. Further investment of £17 million through the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal to develop the new National Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Hub is welcomed.
Important points have been raised in today’s debate, which I hope I have covered. I am optimistic about the future of aquaculture. I want to see a sustainable, profitable fishing and aquaculture industry, to have the greatest possible tariff-free and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours, and to negotiate our own trade arrangements around the world. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Scottish aquaculture and salmon industry just last week to discuss this issue. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the sector to achieve our common goal: that exports of top quality UK aquaculture products should be able to continue in all scenarios.
Delivering a negotiated deal with the EU remains the Government’s top priority, but like any responsible Government we are planning for all scenarios, which must include leaving without a deal. We acknowledge industry concerns about the impacts of a no-deal EU exit, particularly on the continued ability to rapidly transport a premium product to the EU. We and the devolved Administrations have published guidance on the revised export requirements and will ramp up engagement with businesses to ensure that they are clear on those requirements.
Hon. Members have raised many important topics today, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to close this debate. I have heard voiced today the passion for further developing this dynamic and innovative industry. We have heard about the valuable contribution that aquaculture is making to the UK economy, boosted by Government investment in research and innovation in Stirlingshire. We have heard about the innovative recirculation aquaculture system farm that has recently opened in the region. I will be interested to see what role that technology plays in the expansion of the UK aquaculture industry, and look forward to having an opportunity in future to visit the facility to see the research that is going on and how we can not only reduce food miles in domestic production, but have low-carbon protein delivered to our plates. We have acknowledged the sustainability and export challenges that the industry faces and how the Government are working to support it through those challenges. Overall, it is an exciting time for UK aquaculture and I look forward to seeing the industry continuing to grow and thrive.
Question put and agreed to.
Small and Village School Funding
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Just before we start the next debate, there are a lot of colleagues here, and it would be very helpful if, through a note, those who have not already written expressing a wish to speak could let me or the Clerk know, so that I can make sure that no colleagues are disappointed.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for small schools and village schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. This debate is about two things that overlap but are not the same: small schools and village schools. My focus will be firmly on primary schools. About a fifth of schools are in villages, and on average they have just over 100 pupils, compared with an average of about 400 for schools in large cities. These village schools are good schools; only about 8% are not “good” or “outstanding”, compared with 11% nationally and about 15% in towns and small cities. They are also much-loved institutions, at the heart of their community, and they are where the community gathers for special occasions. Just the other day I was at the Church Langton Primary School fête watching the children do some intense Japanese drumming. I could equally have been at the Foxton family fun day or any number of other wonderful occasions in my constituency.
Village schools are also where people meet each other and the community organises. For example, the campaign for a road crossing in Lubenham in my constituency is being spearheaded by the children of Lubenham Primary School, and I am being bombarded by their very neatly handwritten letters. It is no wonder that people feel that a village loses its heart if it loses its school.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Like his constituency, Cornwall has many village schools. They make sure that our villages survive, because by having the school there, a younger generation of people come into the village, renewing its life. Without those schools, there is a real risk that those villages could become dormitory towns for second homes or for people who have retired.
Neil O'Brien
My hon. Friend is completely correct. However, rural schools, partly because they are small schools, have been much more likely to close in recent years. I thank the Department for Education for the historical data it provided to me on this, and Pippa Allen-Kinross at Schools Week for helping me to analyse it. Since 2010, 61% of schools that have closed and not reopened in another form have been rural schools, meaning that rural schools have been twice as likely to shut as urban ones. Since 2000, 150 rural primaries have closed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the debate. What he outlines in his constituency and other parts of the United Kingdom mainland is replicated in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for this, but for the record, is the hon. Gentleman aware that since September 2010, 98 of the 230 schools that closed in Northern Ireland—42%—were rural, according to Schools Week analysis? Does he recognise the difficulties that creates for rural dwellers and socially isolated children?
Neil O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman is completely correct. This challenge affects all of the United Kingdom. For rural schools that closed, the average walk to the next nearest school is 52 minutes, which in practice means driving or getting a bus. There is a cost to the taxpayer for this transport, and a cost to parents and children for driving a long way, so there are all kinds of reasons why we should want to preserve our village schools.
I will turn to small schools more generally, including those in urban areas. I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for digitising older data for me that revealed a dramatic transformation in the scale of our schools over recent decades, and a decline in the number of small schools. The number of pupils at state primary schools in England is roughly the same as in 1980, but the schools that they attend are completely different. In 1980 there were 11,464 small primary schools with fewer than 200 pupils, but in 2018 there were just 5,406. The number of such schools has halved over the decades.
In contrast, in 1980 there were 949 large primary schools with more than 400 pupils, but in 2018 there were more than 4,000, so the number of large schools has quadrupled. The number of really big primaries with more than 600 pupils increased from 49 to 780, while there are now more than 100 what I call “super jumbo” primary schools with more than 800 pupils, which often have playtimes in shifts and hundreds of staff. This is a huge change in the nature of our primary schools, and it is visible in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too. In fact, since 2002 Wales has seen the most dramatic decline in the number of small schools, followed by the north-west and Yorkshire.
This huge change in our primary schools has come about without any real discussion or political choice. It seems to me a move away from the natural small scale for small children, and there is no obvious policy rationale for it. Small schools are not bad schools. Schools with 200 pupils or fewer are just as likely to be “good” or “outstanding” as other schools. In fact, schools with fewer than 100 pupils, which account for about one in eight schools, are more likely than average to be “good” or “outstanding”, so this is not about academic standards.
I think two different things are driving it. The first is planning, which is outside the DFE’s remit. We do not build new small schools, and we do not make developers pay enough for the infrastructure needed for new housing. Instead, our bitty, piecemeal development allows developers to get out of paying for new schools, and we cram more pupils into existing schools, building classrooms on playing fields. Secondly, wider catchment areas mean more car journeys to those schools, and because builders often put schools in residential areas, there are a lot of cars driving into streets that were never intended for them, leading to a lot of congestion. People tell me that makes their village no longer feel so much like a village.
However, the DFE could do some things about the declining number of small schools. We should increase the lump sum element of the national funding formula. Do not get me wrong: the national funding formula is extremely good and has meant that the funding rate per pupil in my constituency has gone up twice as fast as the national average. It helps underfunded areas such as mine to catch up with the national average, although there is still a long way to go. It would be very helpful to increase the lump sum—the part of the national funding formula intended to help small schools.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Is another problem with the national funding formula that the system of gains, caps and floors—in place for transitional reasons, which we all understand—compounds historical unfairness? While 3% of a very small budget is still quite limited, 1% of a very large budget is still quite a lot for those schools to enjoy.
Neil O'Brien
I think my hon. Friend is correct, and I think we both want to see a faster transition to a fairer overall settlement. However, I want to focus on the point about the lump sum.
Leicestershire County Council was historically a strong supporter of small schools and had a lump sum of £150,000 per primary school. In the national funding formula, that is only £110,000. When consulting on the national funding formula, the DFE acknowledged that that number was lower than the average for most local authorities. As local authorities converge on the national funding formula, as they should, the pressure on small schools may intensify. The proportion of the core schools budget going through the lump sum declined in the last year, and the gap between income and expenditure is much smaller for small schools, indicating a financial pressure. In fact, larger schools have about twice as much headroom per pupil. Small schools are definitely feeling the pinch.
I hope and expect that, under the next Prime Minister, we will see a big increase in school funding. A good way of delivering that would be to increase the lump sum within the national funding formula. About a fifth of primary schools get more than 20% of their income from the lump sum, and for them an increase could make the difference between staying afloat and closing. There has been some discussion about increasing sparsity funding as an alternative, but I am a bit sceptical. Fewer than 6% of primaries get sparsity funding, and only 1% get the full amount; a number of small schools in my constituency that are under pressure would not be eligible. That is one reason why only a third of local authorities have included a sparsity element in their local formulas. Increasing the lump sum, if I could beg the Minister to do that, would be simpler and better. For a little more than £800 million, we could take the lump sum back up to £150,000 and get my village schools back to where they were.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I support his last point. One of my local authorities, North Lincolnshire Council, made a policy decision not to close any small schools, so the schools in my constituency with 45 or 50 children will remain open. However, the key issue that my local authority has asked me to raise with the Minister is the core funding costs. Admin costs, in particular, for a small school of 46 or 50 children are not dissimilar to those for a school of 100 to 150 children, because the same admin function is still needed. I therefore think that the point my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) is making is really important, and I want to offer him my full support and say that it is exactly the same point that my local authority is concerned about.
Neil O’Brien
I thank my hon. Friend. He is right and has brilliantly teed up something that I intended to say: the future for small schools and rural schools can be very bright. There are two reasons for that. One is that more and more people want to live in villages, and technology allows people to do that and work from home, rather than having to live in a major city. The other reason is the growth of multi-academy trusts—rather an ugly phrase for families of schools. The growth of those families of schools is enabling small schools in effect to combine the advantages of being a small school—the human scale and the connection to the community—with the advantages of being part of something bigger, which are being able to share resources, people and back-office functions and to learn from one another. Therefore, if we get behind them, village schools can have a really bright future.
I was in one such school just the other day in South Kilworth in my constituency. In many ways, it was a very traditional scene. I was watching the new school hall being built, thanks to school condition improvement funding, and the children were practising their maypole dancing. The fields were ripening around us and the sun was shining. It was a beautiful scene. We could have been time travelling, but that school is a modern school. It is part of a family of schools, which are helping one another to improve. It is a really good school and exactly the sort of thing that we want to keep in our communities. There are these very exciting opportunities opening up for small schools, but we need the Minister’s help to relieve the financial pressure on them if we are to fully achieve the potential of small and village schools.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. The winding-up speeches will start at 5.15 pm, so there is about five or six minutes per person.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate. My constituency has two secondary schools with fewer than 200 pupils, 10 primary schools with fewer than 50 and, by my reckoning, three primary schools with fewer than 30 pupils. They are all really good schools. They are small because the area that they serve is sparsely populated and we live huge distances away from one another. However, small schools are enormously vulnerable.
If a school with a decent-sized population to serve has a bad Ofsted report or a difficult period of leadership, or if there is a dip in the birth rate, that does not kill it, but if a small village school that is absolutely vital experiences any one of those things, that could be the end of it, and the damage to the community is immense. Just two summers ago, we lost Heversham Primary School, which had once had 60 kids. It had a period of difficulty, went down to 11 or 12 kids and was closed. The ongoing damage to that village and its community is huge. Small schools are vulnerable, yet utterly vital.
In my time in Parliament, and in my time as a parent, a local school governor and what have you, and as somebody who worked in education, in teacher education, for many years, I have never known schools’ budgets to be as tight as they are today, particularly for small schools, because they do not have the wherewithal to get through difficult periods. I think that what happens is that because headteachers keep quiet, the Government take advantage. Headteachers keep quiet for two reasons. First, teachers do not like to get overly political by talking about the level or lack of funding that their school has to cope with.
Also, headteachers do not want to risk any competitive advantage that they have. If I, as a headteacher, say that I have had to sack three teaching assistants this year, pupils or parents looking at my school will think, “Well, I’ll go somewhere else instead.” I think that all of us, but particularly the Government, take advantage of headteachers’ perfectly understandable reticence about talking about the state of play at the schools they serve so admirably.
I therefore want to pick out what was said by the 16 schools in the Kendal area that wrote a collective letter to all of us. They said that Westmorland and Lonsdale had seen school funding cuts of £2.4 million, which was equal to a cut of £190 per pupil per year, and that that had led them collectively to reduce the numbers of teaching and non-teaching staff and support for the most vulnerable pupils; to make reductions in small group work for children who need additional support, reductions in teaching resources and equipment, reductions in subject choices in secondary schools and reductions in the range of activities at primary schools; and to cut back on repairs to school buildings and so on.
One head of a small school told me that his school income had gone down by £204,000 since 2014. Staffing costs had gone up by £232,000 in the same period. He had got rid of teaching assistants and reduced administrative support time and had had to increase charges for school meals, the breakfast club, music tuition and so on. There were reductions in catering hours and in midday hours. Anecdotally, another head brings her husband in at the weekend, outside his own job, to do all the maintenance and janitor work for the school, because it cannot afford anybody to do that full time.
Underpinning all the problems is the ongoing issue of special educational needs funding, which hits schools of all sizes, but particularly the smaller schools, because proportionally it is a bigger blow. The Government make schools provide and pay for the first 11 hours of special educational needs support. That means that they hit and they hurt and they punish those schools that do the right thing and they reward those schools that do not take children with special educational needs. That is wrong and it needs to be changed.
The quality of experience of a young person at a small school is so obviously so wonderful and so treasured and something that parents will travel out of area to take advantage of. The quality of teaching and leadership and the diversity of skills that are needed to teach in and to run a small school are that much greater, but the failure to fund schools properly across the board hits smaller schools the worst, even though smaller schools, especially in Westmorland and Lonsdale, are the best.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate. Access to a high-quality, fulfilling education should not be based on geography. Children do not choose where they live and grow up, so it should never be a barrier to their fulfilling all their ambitions.
The Government have taken important steps to level the playing field through the national funding formula. I recognise that. It moves us towards rebalancing some of the disparities in the old system. We are moving away from more than 100 different funding models across the country, which meant that there was little fairness and no transparency whatsoever. The national funding formula allocates an increase in funding for every pupil in 2018-19; and for the historically underfunded schools, such as those in West Sussex, increases could not have come sooner.
The changes to the funding model will ensure that funding is provided in a more balanced way across the country, not least because for the first time the money that schools receive is comparable across counties and local authorities. However, a key challenge for rural schools, both in West Sussex and across the country, is pupil numbers. This is a more precarious funding model for rural small schools, as there can be significant annual variation in the number of children coming into each year. Some schools have become very worried when just one family are moving out of the area, as they rely on every single child for income.
Sarah Newton
In areas where there are armed forces personnel, such as my constituency, it can be a real problem if, when they are deployed overseas or sent to different parts of the country, the family moves from a small school. It seems very unfair, when people are serving their country and doing the right thing, that the primary schools are adversely affected in that way.
Gillian Keegan
That is a very good point. I had not thought of it, but of course in that kind of area there will be a massive impact as children move from place to place.
I am aware that, for the most isolated schools, the new funding formula has a sparsity factor that aims to provide some funding certainty for rural schools, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said, very few schools actually qualify for that. It does not cover the financial needs of these schools.
The fixed sum for primary schools in West Sussex has dropped from £150,000 to £110,000, so each rural primary school needs to find more than 12 new pupils to keep the same level of funding as they had. That is incredibly difficult, because it is not possible to get 12 new pupils from these areas. The challenge is on top of the fact that the Chichester district is the fifth lowest funded local authority for primary and the sixth lowest funded for secondary. In the Chichester district, many of our schools fall within the South Downs national park, where new homes are not being built; they are few and far between. That only exacerbates the pressures on our precious rural schools. At Harting Church of England Primary School, the headteacher now predicts the future intake based on families living in the village and surrounding areas, and it will continue to decrease. That is a problem.
I understand that many rural small schools are now taking on a greater quantity of children with special educational needs and complex behavioural issues who have often been excluded from other schools. They do that to bolster numbers, because each child brings with them a pocket of funding. Although that funding allows schools to keep their doors open, it does not cover the subsequent additional support that these schools need from teaching assistants.
I recognise that funding for special educational needs has risen from £5 billion in 2013 to £6.3 billion this year. However, schools still face challenges in addressing the rising levels of special educational need, not least in West Sussex, where 13.5% of all pupils require SEN support, which is well above the national average of 11.6%.
Having looked at the school budgets, to me the challenge is clear. Most schools spend more than 80% of their budget on teachers and staff. That is a real challenge, because little is left for essentials, pencils, books and digital equipment. My local schools are using other funding streams to survive. Loxwood Primary School has a weekly cake raffle to raise money for iPads and a wish-list website where local businesses, friends of the school and parents donate items. I checked that website the other day and I saw everything from a paper guillotine to paint brushes and books. The school has just crowdfunded 15 laptops thanks to the generosity of a local charity, the parent teacher association and the parish council. That work is inspiring, but it should not be necessary. Schools such as Loxwood are the beating heart of their communities. The teachers should spend their time educating the next generation, not fundraising.
My constituency is packed with fantastic schools and dedicated teachers and parents who go above and beyond for their schools and students. They maintain exceptional standards despite facing pressure. In advance of the upcoming spending review, I encourage the Department for Education to continue to engage closely with the schools and local authorities, to develop a deeper understanding of the pressure these schools face, and to consider the level of income required to maintain such excellent standards.
These schools are the beating heart of communities up and down the country. They offer the best education to young children and they are the centre of all kinds of community activities. They ensure that our precious village life is maintained.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate on small and rural schools. I thank the Minister for everything he has done and will continue to do. He has listened to many MPs on this side of the Chamber lobbying for more to be done for our schools, but we also recognise that almost 2 million more pupils are in “good” or “outstanding” schools under this Government and during his many years as Schools Minister. I want to put on record my appreciation of him.
I have frequently spoken of my schools’ need for more funding. I have a 200-square-mile constituency—which you have visited, Sir David—75% of which is an area of outstanding natural beauty, so we have many small village schools. I am concerned not only about funding for all of those schools, but particularly about Broad Oak Primary School, which is under threat of closure. That is a new experience for me in my four years as MP for Bexhill and Battle. The villagers, pupils, parents, governors and staff are hugely concerned about what will happen. It is a classic case of there not being enough pupils. As was mentioned, the reduction in the block grant makes it harder for smaller schools to continue. Broad Oak Primary School has a capacity of 140, but approximately 80 pupils. That is a problem for my area: we have many schools but not enough pupils.
However, those small schools play a vital role in the community. Broad Oak is a good example. Because it is a small and nurturing school, more pupils with special educational needs can find the right environment for their needs there, but that adds to the cost. While schools receive £6,000 per student with SEN, they often spend an extra £6,000 from their own budget, to provide the proper required education. That compounds the challenge for Broad Oak.
I would appreciate some guidance from the Minister. What can I do to mount a case? I understand that where there are not enough pupils and a school is no longer viable, difficult decisions must be made to support the other schools. At the same time, however, small is good and small needs nurturing.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is vitally important to note the contribution that small schools make to rural communities. They can be the heart of a village, holding it together. If the school closes, the village effectively dies. People do not want to move there, because there is no school. They are vital to keeping communities alive. We might save money in the short term, but in the long term it will cost more.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A village school is the heart of that community. As villages have lost other services, the school is often the only bedrock in a village; without it, we lose the heart and soul of the community. That is why I am concerned about the village of Broad Oak.
Part of the rationale in the consultation by East Sussex County Council is that a number of pupils travel from outside to attend the school. I am a Conservative; I believe in choice. We have championed the ability of pupils and parents to choose the school that is best for them, so that should not be used as an argument for closing the school.
If we require pupils to travel further—pupils from some villages will have to travel to other schools—we have to increase the school’s budget for transport. One cost often knocks out another. Further, if pupils rely on the bus service, they miss out on the rich, after-school learning and sporting activities, and the social part of school. Private schools are able to deliver that, but in rural areas we are hampered by the bus service: students have to leave at a certain time otherwise they will not get home. That is a big concern.
I look to the Minister for assistance, to help me make the case that small schools are good schools, so that the villagers in Broad Oak will continue to be able to educate their children in their local school, with pride in their community.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, Sir David, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing the debate.
I have 56 schools in my constituency, and 40 of them certainly have fewer than 100 pupils—unfortunately, some as low as 30, or perhaps just over. That is a real challenge. The problem, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and others, is that taking that school away means that the community suddenly ceases to function, and that is exactly what has happened in my constituency.
About 18 months ago, the St Martin-in-Meneage Primary School was closed. That was not as a result of what we might call natural wastage—pupils were not leaving the school in year 6, but were taken out by parents because of problems in the school. Everyone concerned was slow to react and it therefore became unsustainable. We lost a perfectly good school and an excellent facility for the local community. As soon as that happened, families moved out and people considering moving in changed their minds.
Other schools in the area are now full, and we have an empty school building that still has to be maintained for that purpose. However, it is much more difficult to reopen a school than to save it. I did all I could, as did the commissioners, but unfortunately we could not win the argument.
I agree with many things that have been said, and I do not want to repeat all of them, but I will make some quick points. The first is on capital funding for small schools. I go to a school every Friday whenever possible. The main issue that I see, and which I hear about from staff and children, is the quality of the estate, and that needs concentrated work.
The Minister’s commitment to the subject has already been mentioned, and he has been fantastic. He has been to my constituency considerably more times than any other Minister—to be fair, I except my immediate constituency neighbours, as they live right next door. Early on he visited St Erth Community Primary School, which is in need of a hall, as he might remember. The school has grown, and done everything it can to try to make its existing building work, but it does not have a place in which the school can meet. That reduces the opportunity for assemblies and all the other things we had in our school halls when we were small. Other schools in my constituency are in the same situation, and we cannot find a solution that will allow them to build a school hall. I am keen to hear from the Minister about any capital that might be available for making schools fit for purpose with a clean, dry and warm environment, good toilets and facilities such as a school hall.
It has already been mentioned that although a small school, with 30 pupils or slightly more, may not be able to afford the teaching assistants that it requires, it will tend to attract more children with special educational needs because of its size, the real commitment of its teachers, and their wonderful work. That puts enormous pressure on the schools; I do not like to say it, but they are victims of their own success. They do a great job—I visit them, and they are great fun to be at—but the funding to properly support each child to get the very best start in life is just not there. As Conservatives, we want our children to have all the opportunities available. I know that the Minister understands that, but we need to win the argument with the Treasury and the Chancellor, whoever that may be in a week or two.
Also mentioned earlier were the armed forces covenant and the impact on schools of having armed forces children. If a child’s parent is in the armed forces, a veteran, in the regular forces or a reservist, the school benefits from a premium. However, it does not benefit if—as is often the case in Helston in my constituency—the child’s parent is in the merchant navy, because they are not described as being in the armed forces community. As I argued yesterday in our debate on defence spending, the experience of modern-day merchant navy personnel means mums and dads can miss the whole summer holidays because they are away at sea, and they are exposed to threats from pirates and rogue nations. The premium is there to help schools to support children in distressing situations. I would argue that one way of supporting schools and funding them for the work that they do so well would be extending the armed forces covenant to include the merchant navy. I would be very interested to see what the Minister can do to make that case to the Ministry of Defence, and possibly the Treasury.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) made a very important point about funding. We expect new money for education, certainly by next April, and we will be grievously disappointed if it is not there. It is really important for money to go where it is most needed. My hon. Friend made the important point that if the growth in funding follows the national funding formula, some schools will benefit far more than others. A very small school that has been underfunded, as happens in Cornwall, can expect far less growth. I would like the Minister to consider that point, as I am sure he has already, because there is a case to be made that funding needs to be targeted at the schools that most need it.
In Cornwall, we have quite a perverse situation. Cornwall Council defends its actions, probably rightly, but to ensure that children with special educational needs are supported, it has had to take funding away from our schools—not only the high needs block funding, but some of the baseline funding. That has left every single school—the 56 schools in my constituency and all the others around the county—with less funding per pupil for a sustained period. That means that when the national funding formula comes into place, our schools will continually and consistently be underfunded until we get the fair and happy funding that we all desperately look forward to.
I need not say any more; I think I have made my point. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this critical debate, and I join all hon. Members in their praise for small schools, village schools and rural schools. My constituency has a great many: about 70% of Witney’s schools are village schools or rural schools, and 90% of them are rated “good” or “outstanding”. That is a tribute to the outstanding work to all the teachers who have worked so hard to make the quality of education so high. I declare an interest: my wife is a governor at one of those schools—Bladon Church of England Primary School, the village primary school where I live.
As hon. Members have said, we cannot overestimate the importance of a village school. It is the centre of the community—the beating heart, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) said. It might have been where our parents, our grandparents or we ourselves went to school, and it may be where our children go. It is a crucial way to build links with the local community. What makes such schools so special? As has been said many times, their nurturing and caring nature and the amount of attention that individual schools can give results from their relatively small size. However, that is also one of their great challenges.
I have been to the majority of schools in my constituency and spoken to teachers, parents and governors. I have visited assemblies, seen the projects that pupils take part in and attended the school fêtes that often happen during the summer. I have had conversations and really tried to understand the issues in detail. As I am sure the Minister and many hon. Friends will understand, school funding is a complicated issue that repays detailed study—I have certainly tried to study it. Having had all those conversations with teachers, because I very much value that close relationship, I think I can make some suggestions.
West Oxfordshire is an f40 area—a rural area that historically has been underfunded. I do not think that it is terribly helpful to make any cheap political points about cuts; the Minister will tell us that there have not been cuts, because core per-pupil school funding has been protected for the duration of the spending review. However, I make it absolutely clear that my primary schools—my small schools, rural schools and village schools—face significant cost pressures.
There are a number of reasons for those pressures, which I hope the Minister can help with. Some of them may be a result of funding very well-deserved teacher pay rises. Pension costs were another major concern, although I understand that they are now covered. Several hon. Members have mentioned special educational needs provision, which is critical and of increasing concern for our small schools. There has also been a reduction in the spending powers of local authorities; many things that were once covered are no longer free, and schools are expected to pick up the cost. It may not be direct, but the net effect is the same: our excellent schools are trying to do much more, to less effect. In some cases, that may be due to pupil numbers, which are critical because all these schools are functioning on the tightest of budgets. From speaking to the teachers, I am clear that they are making every penny count, certainly in my constituency in west Oxfordshire, but the funding is on a per-pupil basis. That can be a problem, because if the catchment area is relatively small—if it is a village, a rural area or perhaps even a small town—a fluctuation in pupil numbers can cause real concern.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), who mentioned military forces. A quarter of the entire Royal Air Force is in west Oxfordshire, based in Carterton and the whole area around RAF Brize Norton. It is certainly a concern, not just for village schools but for Carterton primary schools, that those personnel are posted, so the schools do not necessarily know from one year to another how many pupils they are likely to have at a particular stage. That causes significant budgeting challenges. Even for the best-run school in the world, not knowing how many pupils it will have makes things harder. In some areas in my villages, there may be a low birth rate, an ageing population, or families moving in and out because they are in the armed forces or for other reasons. That has had a major effect in several villages in my area.
The effect of multi-academy trusts has been very helpful in many cases. The Oxford Diocesan Schools Trust is shared by my constituency and the Prime Minister’s, as she was kind enough to recognise at Prime Minister’s questions last week. The trust has 12 schools in my constituency—small schools such as Bampton Primary, Leafield Primary and Wootton-by-Woodstock Primary. They are doing a fantastic job of providing outstanding education, but all such organisations, whether they are small schools on their own, local authority-run or part of a multi-academy trust, face uncertainty about pupil numbers.
If we are looking for ways to support small schools, one idea that has not yet been suggested is a dedicated funding stream for small schools—let us call it a small schools grant or a small schools loan—whereby schools can bid for funding if they have low pupil numbers or other temporary budget pressures. If a school usually has stable numbers but it has a year in which there is a dip, that will cause it great problems, but if it could apply for assistance from the Government or the local authority by way of a dedicated funding stream, that would be of great assistance, because it would give that school the certainty it needs for that year, which may help it to deal with factors such as a low local birth rate. Of course, it will also deal with money in the long run, because the local authority will not have to worry about things such as schools closing and having to relocate children or support them in that time. The cost to the community of school closures is, as other hon. Members have said, absolutely devastating and must be avoided at all costs.
I am very grateful to the Minister for coming to Westminster Hall to respond to this debate. We are all passionate about our local schools and my suggestion about a dedicated fund is just one that might assist them. I also echo the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives when he said that we must ensure the funding is in place. Of course I make the plea for more school spending in the spending review, although I appreciate and understand that that is a plea that I should direct at the Treasury and not at the Minister, but we must ensure that it goes to the right place. Our small schools—rural and village schools—provide outstanding education and we must provide the funding they need; I look forward to seeing that funding in due course.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As ever, Sir David, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this important debate; it is very important that we talk about the funding of small and rural schools. I also congratulate him on the really powerful speech he made in the main Chamber last year about one of his favourite teachers, who had passed away. For many of us, speeches in the main Chamber do not often stand out, but that was a really memorable one. For him personally, education and standing up for his constituents is very important, and it was great to be in the main Chamber for that speech.
The Minister for School Standards and I have had this debate before. In fact, I said to him today that we should go for a drink some time, because at the moment I see more of him than I do of my wife. That is because we spend so much time either in the main Chamber or here in Westminster Hall discussing school funding cuts and budget pressures. If we are not discussing West Sussex, Cornwall, Stoke-on-Trent, Chichester, or Westmorland and Lonsdale, then it is Liverpool, Merseyside or Manchester—week after week after week.
I want to put this debate in context for Members from rural constituencies who are passionate about their schools, so I say to the hon. Member for Harborough that Leicestershire has had to take £51.9 million out of its budget since 2015. That is probably the root cause of most of the reasons why primary schools in rural or urban areas are facing problems at the moment. Many of the concerns about this issue have been really well articulated today, so well done to all Members who are standing up for schools in their constituencies. However, all the challenges for schools are amplified for small schools, as we have heard this afternoon.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on his speech, in which he said that small schools struggle because they do not have the economies of scale that some multi-academy trusts or local education authority schools can achieve in urban areas. I think he said that small schools lacked the “wherewithal”.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), whose constituency is in West Sussex, shares a local authority with the Minister. I have to say with some passion that that authority has had to take £61.3 million out of its school budget since 2015. The Minister will come back and say what the Government have done since 2017, but this is the stark reality. As the hon. Lady said, too few schools seem to receive money from the hailed sparsity formula, which was supposed to be the silver bullet to help schools in rural areas. Maybe the Minister can tell us, through his officials or in writing, how many schools in rural areas are receiving money via this fabled sparsity formula.
It was interesting that the hon. Lady spoke really passionately, as she often does, about a school—I think it was Loxwood school—that had to set up a donations web page to fund a guillotine. That is the state of school funding in our day and age on the Minister’s watch. There are parent teacher associations. Who was it who said that schools are the “beating heart” of communities? I think it was the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). They are, particularly in rural areas. Unlike many schools in urban areas, schools in many rural areas have PTAs, or they have parishes that help out, but that is the state of school funding; it has had to come to rely upon PTAs, donation web pages and companies helping out to buy basic products. Of course, one of the other problems that rural schools have is that, being in rural areas, they do not often have huge companies around them, as schools in cities often do.
The Minister has a huge problem. I forget the exact statistic, but somewhere around 100 schools—I will check out the exact number; it has been put on the record before—containing about 70,000 pupils are not brokered. That is another problem that schools in rural areas face. The Government are struggling, through these multi-academy trusts, to get enough brokers to broker those academies. So we literally have to thank the Lord for the Church of England, because if the Church of England did not have its thousands of schools in our rural areas—I also thank the Church for its schools in our cities—this Government’s policy would be in real difficulty.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), which is on the other side of Sussex, also contributed to the debate; his constituency is in an area where £37 million has been lost. It is always an honour to play football with him, and recently, we played at Stamford Bridge—I think it was in a game to “Show Racism the Red Card”. It was the only football game that I have ever played in where my boots were cleaner coming off the pitch than they were when I went on. He is an excellent footballer and I congratulate him on standing up for his schools.
The hon. Member for St Ives spoke about Cornwall, where £51 million has been taken out of the schools budget since 2015. He made a hugely valid point about special educational needs practice, which is often overlooked in these debates, even though it is an issue in urban areas, too. Where there is a school with really good SEN practice, parents want to get into that school, but the school has to put the money up front and is disadvantaged because of it.
Sorry—it was the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), in his excellent speech, who talked about rural schools being the “beating heart” of the community. He is right, but I have to say to him that Oxfordshire schools have lost £37 million. He did not want to hear about the cuts, but I am afraid that he has to hear about them from me, because no amount of national funding formula, no amount of sparsity funding and no amount of special funding for rural schools—even though such funding may be a good idea that the Department might wish to look at; I will let the Minister respond to that suggestion—will get away from the fact of the cuts that have happened across the whole of Oxfordshire, in addition to what he said about the pension rises and pay rises, which we still do not have certainty about, and the SEN provision.
The Minister knows that I sound like a broken record on schools funding, but it appears that no matter how many times it is raised or whoever raises it—including his colleagues on the Government Benches—this Government are not listening to the grave concerns of hon. Members, leaders and teachers about the impact of school funding cuts.
It is really interesting. I do not want to proselytise on a party political point, but the leadership candidates of the Conservative party—sorry, what is the Health Secretary’s seat?
Mike Kane
I thank the Minister. The right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) pledged £15 billion of new schools money in that leadership debate. All the candidates know, from courting Conservative Members over the last few weeks, what the No.1 concern is for Conservative Members, and they have responded to those concerns in the leadership debates.
Across the country, our schools are experiencing £2.7 billion of cuts. There are concerns from teachers, including thousands of headteachers, many of whom protested right here in Parliament, and there are cuts to special educational needs and disability provision, which is an even more acute challenge for small schools, as they cannot amass economies of scale when they are buying additional support and resources.
Statistics from the Department itself show that the number of children and young people in England with SEN, or with education, health and care plans, rose by 34,200, an increase of 11% from 2018. However, research by the National Education Union has found that special needs school provision in England is down by £1.2 billion because of the shortfall in funding increases from the Government since 2015. No doubt the Minister will come back in his speech with what has happened since 2017.
The Government’s own data shows that as of January 2018, 4,050 children and young people with EHC plans or statements were awaiting provision; in other words, they were still waiting for a place in education. Over 500,000 children are now in a super-sized class, and there is an unquestionable recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, with the Government having missed their own targets five years in a row. For the second year running, more teachers are leaving the profession than joining it. That has a huge impact on rural areas, especially if we take into account the price that teachers have to pay to afford a house in those areas, not having had an effective pay rise in 10 years. That has really affected the ability to get the quality and calibre of teachers required in rural areas.
Rural areas also suffer—[Interruption.] Do I need to wind up, Sir David?
Mike Kane
I am terribly sorry, Sir David; I was just hitting my stride.
Career progression is more difficult in rural areas and for rural teachers, as cities often offer an agglomeration of impacts so that teachers can develop professionally.
Under Labour’s national education service, we will invest properly in our schools. Investment will be delivered under Labour’s fully funded and universal vision for a national education service that will cover all our schools, both rural and national, that need funding put into them—not just at the spending review, but today.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to reply to this debate under your beady eye, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on having secured this debate, and on his excellent opening speech. The Government recognise the importance of rural schools and the need to maintain access to good local schools in rural areas, which, as hon. Members have said, are so often at the heart of their communities.
I also echo my hon. Friend’s recognition of the strong educational standards in many rural schools. Although we know those schools face special challenges, we also know that they rise to those challenges and perform well. In terms of attainment, both primary and secondary, rural schools have on average outperformed urban schools over the past three years, and 89% of rural primary schools have been rated either “good” or “outstanding”.
We want to ensure that school funding levels support an education system that offers opportunity to every child in this country. To continue to support all schools, including those in rural areas, the Government have prioritised education funding while having to take difficult decisions in other areas of public spending, as we seek to reduce the unsustainable annual budget deficit from 10% of GDP in 2010—some £150 billion a year—to under 2% now. As a result, core funding for schools and high needs has risen to £43.5 billion this year, and high needs funding has risen to £6.3 billion. However, we recognise the financial pressures that schools face, as described so well by my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Witney (Robert Courts).
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) reminded me of our visit to St Erth Community Primary School, which I enjoyed. I remember being lobbied by its school council, which was almost as compelling as my hon. Friend in making the case for capital for the school hall. Although I cannot pre-empt decisions that will be made as part of the forthcoming spending review process, we are of course looking to secure the best deal possible for our schools, both revenue funding and capital funding. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough recognises the decisive and historic move towards fair funding that this Government have made by introducing the national funding formula. The NFF is now directing money where it is most needed, based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics rather than accidents of geography or history.
Schools are already benefiting from the gains delivered by the national funding formula. It has allocated an increase for every pupil in every school, with significant per-pupil increases for the more underfunded schools, including those in rural areas. For example, as my hon. Friend mentioned, funding for schools in his local area of Leicestershire has increased by 5.5% per pupil compared to 2017-18. That is equivalent to an extra £31 million when rising pupil numbers are taken into account. As he stated, we do direct funding to provide additional support for small and remote schools, especially those in geographically challenging areas that do not have the same opportunities to find efficiencies as schools elsewhere.
The national funding formula provides a lump sum for every school as a contribution to the costs that do not vary with pupil numbers. That gives small schools certainty that they will attract a fixed amount each year, in addition to pupil-led funding. Although there is general agreement that schools face fixed costs, the evidence available suggests that there is no agreement on the scale of those costs, or that they are the same for all schools. In the previous system, local authorities awarded their schools very different lump sums, ranging from £48,480 to £175,000, and there was no obvious reason why local authorities chose those different amounts. It is important to maximise the funding available for the factors that are directly related to pupils’ characteristics, so following our extensive consultations with schools, we set the lump sum at £110,000 for each school within the national funding formula. However, the beauty of a national funding formula is that we can tweak it from year to year.
The formula also includes a sparsity factor, which allocates an additional £25 million specifically to small and remote schools. When the lump sum is coupled with that sparsity factor, it provides significant support for the small and remote schools that play such an essential role in rural communities. A small rural primary school eligible for sparsity funding can attract up to a total of £135,000 through the lump sum and the sparsity factor. Of course, we continue to look for ways in which the national funding formula can be improved; in particular, we are considering how to improve the methodology for calculating sparsity eligibility in future, and we will consider the suggestion my hon. Friend the Member for Witney made of a dedicated rural school funding stream.
Local authorities have a duty to provide sufficient school places for all pupils in their area, including reviewing provision where populations have grown or declined. Consequently, local authorities have the power to close maintained schools; that is a local decision, and neither Ministers nor the Department play a role in the process. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) will be pleased to know that given their importance, we have a presumption against the closure of rural schools. Although that cannot mean that no rural school will ever close, the case for closure must be strong and in the best interests of educational provision for pupils in the area. When a local authority proposes the closure of a rural school, it must follow a well-established statutory process that takes full account of that presumption against closure. That includes a representation period, during which all those affected by the proposals can submit their views and suggestions.
To enable my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough to respond to the debate, I will conclude. Our rural communities are part of the historic fabric of this country, and the schools that serve them are fulfilling a vital and valued service both locally and nationally. I believe that by working closely together, we can make sure we deliver on our ambition to give every child a world-class education, wherever they live.
Neil O'Brien
I thank all Members who have taken part in today’s debate. I know that many Members are not in the building this afternoon, so I am particularly grateful for the eloquent and thoughtful speeches we have heard. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) in strongly praising our brilliant Schools Minister, who is a relentless and hard-working champion for higher educational standards. If the next Prime Minister has any sense, he will be promoted; if he has very good sense, the Minister will be kept in place, because he is doing a good job.
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for his praise for my previous speech in the Chamber. I thought his own speech would have been stronger if he had acknowledged that there has been a real-terms increase in spending per pupil since 2010—an amazing achievement given that we inherited the biggest budget deficit since the second world war. Perhaps if he finds himself in a position of power in future, he can avoid dropping one of those again.
I thank all the Members who have taken part. We heard important points about capital and buildings from my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), and important ideas about smoothing out budgets from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle spoke about the importance of not relying on a bus, because children miss out on after-school activities. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) about some of the things small schools are doing to cope in an authority where there has been an even bigger drop in the lump sum.
Small schools and village schools are an important part of the fabric that makes up this country. I do not want to wax too lyrical, but I genuinely think that if we continue to lose those schools at the rate we have seen in recent decades, in my lifetime, we will be losing an important part of this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for small schools and village schools.
Written Statements
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union (Withdrawal) Act: Common Frameworks
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks—26 March 2019 to 25 June 2019” as required by paragraph 4 of schedule 3 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made in discussions between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding common frameworks in the fourth reporting period covered under the legislation, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.
The attachment can be viewed online at http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-17/HCWS1732/
[HCWS1732]
EU Agreements with Third Countries
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government are undertaking a programme of work to replace EU international agreements with bilateral agreements ready for a UK exit from the EU either in the event of no deal or at the end of the proposed implementation period. This is essential preparation for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU to ensure that the UK can, where relevant and possible, maintain the benefits of these agreements, thereby providing continuity and stability to businesses and individuals.
As part of this programme, officials in HM Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs are working with their international partners to replace EU Customs Co-operation and Mutual Administrative Assistance (CCMAA) agreements with UK-third country bilateral agreements. These agreements will provide a legal framework for the exchange of information between the UK and international partners on customs matters and continued co-operation between the parties’ customs authorities, both facilitating legitimate trade and supporting international efforts in fighting customs fraud. They also fulfil domestic legal requirements for Authorised Economic Operator Mutual Recognition Agreements (AEOMRAs), which deliver important trade benefits to some UK businesses.
In cases where the other party’s domestic law allows, the “replacement” UK-third country CCMAA agreements will include provision for them to enter into force upon signature, often referred to as “definitive signature”. The parties would thus be bound by these agreements upon signature, although the agreements’ provisions would not have effect until the EU CCMAA agreements cease to apply to the UK. Use of definitive signature in this case would enable the UK and its international partners, in the event of EU exit without a deal, to transfer without interruption key customs agreements that are currently in place by virtue of the UK’s membership of the EU. This is because there will be no change in effect of the agreement due to it being a replication of the arrangement the EU currently has in place with the third country. While many international treaties are expressly subject to ratification, it is also common in both UK and international practice, where practicable, for treaties to enter into force upon signature; In UK law, where a treaty enters into force upon signature, it is not subject to the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny as provided in section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. However, as CCMAA agreements are straightforward bilateral agreements, and rely on provisions in the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018, which has already been approved by Parliament, the Government consider that definitive signature is appropriate in these instances.
The Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018 provides the necessary powers for the UK to create a stand-alone customs regime once the UK exits the EU. In particular, section 26 of this Act allows for the UK to share information on customs matters with international partners and therefore provides the necessary legal basis from a UK perspective for the co-operation between parties outlined in the CCMAA agreements.
Once signed by both parties, a copy of each UK bilateral CCMAA agreement subject to definitive signature will be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper in the treaty series for information in the normal way.
Where third country partners’ domestic law does not permit them to be bound by signature, thereby requiring ratification by them, the CCMAA agreement will not use definitive signature but will be drafted to provide for consent to be bound by a two-stage process of signature and ratification.
[HCWS1731]
International Criminal Justice: Support and Funding
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Today we mark the Day of International Criminal Justice, which provides an opportunity to update Parliament on the UK’s support for the principles and institutions of international justice in the previous calendar year.
Support for international criminal justice and international humanitarian law is a fundamental element of the UK’s foreign policy. The UK believes that justice and accountability for the most serious international crimes is crucial to building lasting peace and security.
The UK Government believe that the International Criminal Court has an important role in pursuing accountability, but only when national authorities are either unable or unwilling to do so. The UK has long provided political, financial, and practical support to the ICC. We are one of the largest financial contributors to the Court, contributing £9.7 million in 2018. An example of the UK’s practical support was the sentence enforcement by the Scottish Prison Service of Mr Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, who was convicted of destroying cultural heritage sites in Timbuktu.
In 2018, the ICC considered situations from across Africa, the middle east, Europe, south-east Asia and South America, with 11 situations subject to formal investigations, and proceedings continuing in three trials: the Ongwen case (Uganda), the Ntaganda case (Democratic Republic of the Congo), and the Gbagbo and Blé Goude case (Ivory Coast). Al Hassan (Mali), and Yekatom (Central African Republic) were surrendered to the ICC.
The ICC’s trust fund for victims plans to launch an assistance programme in the Central African Republic, to provide physical and physiological rehabilitation, alongside material support for victims and their families. The UK contributed funds to the TFV for reparations to victims in Mali.
While the UK continues to support the role of the ICC, reform is required for the ICC to fulfil its mandate as intended under the Rome statute. The UK will work with other states parties, the Court, and civil society, to achieve this goal.
The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) continued its mandate to fulfil the residual functions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The IRMCT delivered an appeals judgment in the case of Radovan Karadžić, the former Bosnian Serb politician convicted in 2016 of genocide in Srebrenica. Karadžić’s sentence, increased from 40 years to life, sends a clear message that those who commit atrocities will be held to account. The IRMCT continued to hear the retrial in the case of Stanišić and Simatović and issued a decision in the Šešelj contempt case.
The UK supported the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone through a total contribution of over £500,000. The UK has also been at the forefront of international efforts to gather and analyse evidence of atrocities committed in the middle east. Since 2016, we have committed £950,000 to the UN International Impartial and Independent Mechanism (HIM) to support the preparation of legal cases for serious crimes committed in the Syrian conflict. The UK also led efforts to adopt a UN Security Council resolution establishing an investigative team to collect, preserve and store evidence of Daesh atrocities in Iraq, and contributed £1 million towards its operation. The first mass grave exhumation was in March 2019 in the Yezidi village of Sinjar.
In reaction to the Rohingya crisis in Burma, the UK worked closely with the EU and the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation to secure a UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish a mechanism to collect and preserve evidence of human rights violations to support future prosecutions.
We will continue to update Parliament on our support to international criminal justice through our annual human rights report.
[HCWS1729]
Grenfell Tower
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Two years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, my priority is to ensure that everyone affected is receiving the support they need and deserve. The independent Grenfell recovery taskforce continues to provide challenge and advice to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) in its response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I recently received its fourth report, which I am today depositing in the Library of the House and publishing in full at gov.uk, alongside my response.
The taskforce has outlined the progress that the council has made since their last report of November 2018. RBKC have published its Grenfell recovery strategy and committed £50 million over the next five years to develop services to support the recovery. The recovery strategy is also prioritised in the new council plan. The taskforce reports that the dedicated service for the bereaved and survivors is the successful result of the council co-designing the service with its users. I welcome these significant steps forward.
On rehousing, the taskforce has again offered reassurance to Ministers that the council’s approach is appropriate and sensitive to the long-term needs of survivors. I am pleased that there has been further progress since I received the taskforce’s report with two more families moving into permanent accommodation. However, as I said in my oral statement on 10 June I remain concerned that households are still in emergency accommodation, including one in a hotel.
The taskforce has also welcomed the council’s demonstrable appetite to modernise its governance procedures. It cites its implementation of recommendations by the Centre for Public Scrutiny, including establishing a programme of listening forums. The taskforce has also identified the beginning of a culture change initiated by the chief executive and leader of the council.
The taskforce has highlighted developments in the council’s approach to community relationships and communications. RBKC has increased the number and means by which it engages with its residents including new meetings between the political leadership and some of those most affected by the tragedy. The taskforce also reports that it is seeing pockets of good practice pertaining to fostering good relationships with service users and the community.
Whilst the taskforce has noted good progress in many areas it is also clear that the council still faces significant challenges. The taskforce has identified that the pace by which the recovery is being implemented is still too slow and that this needs to be addressed. The taskforce has highlighted that strands of the recovery strategy remain in development, as well as the community programme and economy strategy. The taskforce therefore remain concerned about the capacity and corporate capability of the council to drive sustainable change. Although the rehousing programme is nearing completion the taskforce states that the council still faces substantial wider housing challenges. Whilst there is a programme to support and develop all councillors, the taskforce has noticed occasions where member behaviour has caused it concern. There is a high degree of social capital that the council has yet to fully tap into and the taskforce calls for an innovative approach to harness this enthusiasm. The taskforce has also highlighted that the culture change has still not permeated all levels of the council and silo working remains an issue.
The taskforce has set the bar high for RBKC’s recovery. It is important there is ambition and pace in the council’s recovery efforts over the next three to four months in responding to the taskforce’s recommendations, including:
Urgently implementing its recovery strategy;
Fostering a council-wide culture change so that everyone is working together;
Clearly communicating its recovery plan and develop stronger communications skills;
Ensuring that the senior team has the appropriate skills and resilience;
Making a clear commitment to creating a better relationship with its community.
I am assured the council has already set in train action to meet these recommendations. This includes a paper outlining its plans to implement organisational change at the council by 2020.
I will review the process in September, by which point I hope the council will have made sufficient further progress. I look forward to continuing to work with the taskforce.
[HCWS1733]
Victims of Crime: Code of Practice Consultation
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
Today, I am launching the Government’s consultation on revising the code of practice for victims of crime (the code), which sets out our proposals for improving the code.
This consultation is the first step in strengthening the code, one of the overarching improvements to victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system which we committed to in the cross-government victims strategy, published in September last year.
The vision we set out in the victims strategy is one of a justice system that supports even more victims to speak up by giving them the certainty that they will be understood, that they will be protected, and that they will be supported throughout their journey, regardless of their circumstances or background.
As part of delivering on that vision one of our key commitments was to amend the code to address its complexity, accessibility and language and consult on a revised version. We also committed to update entitlements in the code so they are better reflective of victims’ needs. This thematic consultation sets out our proposals for amending the code and will inform our second consultation on a revised draft code.
Some of the proposals included in the consultation are:
Greater clarity around victims’ rights, such as a right to be given information about the investigation and criminal proceedings and the right to make a victim personal statement (VPS);
A statement within the code that victims who do not report the crime or withdraw from the criminal justice process are entitled to the same support as those who do report the crime;
Creation of a short, user-friendly overview of the code to summarise the key points that all victims need to know (and a separate one for children/young people);
Creation of a guide for practitioners working in the criminal justice sector on how to apply the code;
Revising the current categories for victims entitled to an enhanced service to make it simpler, with a greater focus on identifying and meeting the needs of the victim.
However, amending the code is only part of the picture. To strengthen the code we also committed to:
Introduce improved reporting, monitoring and transparency to strengthen compliance with the code.
Bring forward proposals for a consultation on the detail of the victims’ law, including strengthening compliance with the code and the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner.
We are already working with police and crime commissioners and local criminal justice partnerships to improve compliance with the code through improved reporting, monitoring and transparency on whether victims are receiving entitlements. This goes hand in hand with amending the code. On 1 April we issued the first iteration of a framework for compliance with the code.
Once we have revised the code we will then consult on the detail of victim focussed legislation. As part of that we want to strengthen the enforcement of the code to make sure victims receive the services they are entitled to, and criminal justice agencies are held to account if they do not. We also want to explore increasing the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers to better hold the Government to account. However, to do that we first need to revise the code to make sure that the entitlements victims receive are the right ones in the first place.
In developing the consultation, we have engaged extensively with victims and victims’ groups and considered the views and recommendations made by key stakeholders including the Victims’ Commissioner and the London Victims’ Commissioner. This has ensured the consultation is informed by those who have had direct experience of being a victim, as well as those with frontline expertise.
The consultation is available in full at: https://consult. justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/proposed-changes-to-the-victims-code/
[HCWS1730]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
Good afternoon, my Lords, welcome to Grand Committee. There will be Divisions in the Chamber, when I will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.
Devolution: English Cities
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Heseltine
That the Grand Committee takes note of devolution to English cities in the light of Lord Heseltine's report Empowering English Cities, published on 2 July.
Lord Heseltine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, our country faces a constitutional crisis unparalleled in peacetime. No one knows how the debate about our relationship with our European neighbours will change in the months and years ahead. Feelings run deep and penetrate every corner of society and we each have our views. I have no intention of pursuing that issue today. I have one very clear reason for that decision.
Whether we leave the European Union, form an accommodation with it or remain within it—whichever way—our future depends principally on the success of our great cities. They are the engines of our prosperity and the rock of our stability. They made this country what it is, and all our tomorrows are dependent on their strengths and are challenged by their weaknesses. Of course, London is one of the world’s greatest cities, but government defined and imposed in detail from London can never match the pride, motivation and—yes, let us be frank—self-interest of people who live, work and enjoy their leisure in our other great cities.
I joined this debate as a junior Minister in 1970. Throughout that time, as a nation, we have failed to reform our institutions and administrative systems to match the ever-escalating rate of change. The hurdles facing our political parties were just too high. The human instinct to protect the status quo was simply too strong. The consequence has been to change at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy. Progress required compromise, consensus, fudge.
Let us again be frank—we can go on in the same old way. It is less controversial, more comfortable and the consequences will become apparent long after we, the present generation, have moved on. I ask your Lordships to reject such dereliction of duty, so careless a discharge of the legacy that we will bequeath.
My report, Empowering English Cities, attempts to portray a vision and sets out the detailed policies to achieve it. It is a tale of two cities: two interwoven cities, linked, interdependent and entwined. There is the city of excellence: great entrepreneurs, world-class companies, excellent universities, outstanding public servants, dedicated carers and social cohesion—a nation prosperous and at peace with itself. Of that city, much is heard, of which we are legitimately proud.
But there is another city—a city of the postcode lottery, the forgotten fringe, the lurking shadow. There is that place on the other side of the road, so easy to pass by: the failed school; the excluded child; and the gangland, where the moralities to which most of us subscribe and the philosophy in which we believe are objects of contempt, more appropriate for a television soap opera than the realities of everyday life. Knife crime is a symptom of social breakdown—a response requires an approach much more comprehensive than simply removing their blades.
It is nearly 40 years since I first walked the streets of Liverpool in the aftermath of the riots. Everybody there knew exactly what was wrong; you, him, them, it—everybody else, never me. But I knew what was wrong: there was no one in charge. Since then, in many of our great cities we have put somebody in charge: mayors, locally elected and publicly accountable. But it is a job half done. The fudge and compromise of politics is the DNA of the journey of reform: powers unevenly distributed, leadership constrained, Whitehall unreformed.
I want a programme of empowerment to unleash the ambitions of the British people. I want to empower them to rise to the challenges of today. We will never inspire such a vision with empty phrases or lofty exhortations. Cities are so much more than a coincidence of functional disciplines; they are so much more than the statistics of housing, education or wealth. They are the multiplication of myriad different enthusiasms, personal talent, boundless energy and the dynamic of community and partnership.
To unleash this torrent of human creativity, we need a plan of action—detailed, practical and based on experience. We need a programme of national rejuvenation. We should certainly start with our cities, but the same spirit and concepts should embrace our towns and spread the benefits deeply into the countryside and villages.
Let me set out some of the most important actions that I believe to be necessary. The Government must lead—change of the scale and urgency required simply will not happen unless the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe in it and drive it. First, a new department of the regions should be established. It should bring under one ministerial control the essential features of the devolution programme, including planning, public housing, transport, skills and the employment agenda. Secondly, all government offices outside London should be brought together in regional offices under an official at director-general level. Thirdly, Select Committees should be established in both Houses of Parliament to comment on, advise and review the devolution programme. The Government should take all necessary steps to ensure that their departments and all relevant quangos co-operate with combined authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities. Finally, the Government should publish an annual report showing the powers and resources available to city mayors in competitor countries.
Once the Government have demonstrated their commitment, mayors should be empowered to do the job properly and effectively. First, it should be the duty of each mayor of a combined authority to produce five-year rolling strategies with detailed implementation programmes. They should cover its spatial strategy, local economy, transport, housing, education and skills, and environmental policy. These policies should be given statutory status and incorporated into national policy.
In addition, each mayor should publish a “condition of the people” report. That would analyse social imbalance, health statistics, and quality of life. The job of the local police commissioner should be merged with that of the elected mayor. With immediate effect, the Government should transfer to the mayors day-to-day responsibility for the quality of education, the skills budget, and the unemployment and employment programmes. The existing European funds and a reintroduced topslice fund, as first created by George Osborne, should be allocated to the combined authorities by competitive bidding that reflects the quality of their outputs, local contributions and public support. The Treasury should agree local tax-raising powers to combined authorities, particularly a tourist tax and charges for cultural exhibitions. The role of mayor should be strengthened. The ultimate accountability must rest with the people in elections every four years. Finally, the Government should hold urgent discussions with representatives of the private sector, and legislate, if necessary, to create support for companies with the resource available to their equivalents overseas.
Yesterday I went to another great British city, Cardiff. The devolution agenda is now enshrined in our constitutional assumption. Indeed, the debate today is not about restoring power to London but whether the United Kingdom itself can withstand the stress of Brexit. No one feels the imperative to do so more strongly than I.
But alongside this debate runs another. The question is posed: why should the economies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have such empowerment, when often more populous and wealthier cities in England are denied them? I believe we need response and enthusiasm from every corner of our land as the escalating pace of change across the world overwhelms the tradition and assumptions of yesteryear. Power shared can become power enhanced. Let us breathe life into the devolution agenda. I beg to move.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, Parliament and the country owe a huge debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for his long-standing and single-minded pursuit of this subject, reflected in this great report and, indeed, by the speech he has just made to your Lordships.
I can claim an affliction that is similar to what might almost be described by the noble Lord’s party colleagues as his obsession. As long ago as 1968, I was a co-author of a political pamphlet called Power to the Provinces. We had a number of themes which are as relevant today as they were then, and I will touch on them briefly. In doing so, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that my colleagues and I are here not to dilute his message, but to enhance and empower it still further. We believed then, and believe now, very strongly in the principle that decisions in a mature democracy should be taken as close as possible to the people they will affect. That has become known as subsidiarity. Devolution implies a degree of decision-making that is more extensive and holistic than simple delegation or decentralisation, however desirable they may also be.
I would draw the important distinction between, on the one hand, the delegation of funds—which, by its very nature, is a short-term decision—and devolution of fund-raising powers on the other: once that responsibility has been given it is extremely unlikely to be removed again. Allocation of a central government funding stream, by contrast, can be at the mercy of individual Governments and Chancellors. I am not sure whether this report clearly distinguishes between these two quite separate objectives and exercises: one can lead to the other, but the evolution does not happen automatically. It also follows from our starting point of principle that devolution does not stop at one sub-national or sub-federal level. Taking power from Whitehall or Westminster to national parliaments in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay, Stormont and, indeed, to the metropolitan cities in England does not absolve them from distributing powers and resources to lower levels of governance.
As my noble friend Lord Purvis observed in a recent debate, a truly federal UK constitution would necessitate democratic accountability at all levels, and we believe that double devolution has been as systematically pursued as it should be. More local levels of governance have not received the same amount of attention; for example, I believe that town and parish councils can be very effective in hands-on representation and in management of local facilities. There has always been a good case for intra vires, enabling all authorities to exercise all powers not specifically excluded, rather than the other way round.
As a general principle, I am worried by the implication in the Heseltine report when it appears to share the criticism of mayors that,
“the powers and resources that our conurbations have are uneven and bespoke”.
Given the remarkable diversity of our country in every conceivable area of challenge and opportunity, that is exactly as it should be. When we extend the basic principles beyond the larger cities of England, this becomes even more essential.
It is surely axiomatic that more rural parts of the country cannot be shut out of the advantages of more democratic self-government. The noble Lord referred to the countryside in that context. I appreciate that this report does not purport to extend its remit beyond the major English cities, but the Minister must acknowledge that there are lessons here for more rural parts of England as well. I have no doubt that he has read The future of non-metropolitan England recently published by the LGA. I hope that he will accept that that is a very timely antidote to overconcentration on the major conurbations.
I acknowledge that my experience as a Devon county councillor and then as a Cornish MP reinforces my conviction that the urban case has been more effectively pursued than that for rurality, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. The recent Lords Select Committee on the rural economy made a similar point, and if time permits I may return to the Cornish experience later.
A persistent concern has been the lack of demonstrably effective scrutiny and accountability. We were dismayed by the overcentralisation of power implicit in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill in 2015. We warned then of the possibility—even the likelihood—that we might be legislating for new one-party fiefdoms, with the mayor, the appointed deputy mayor, and a firm majority of the only body to which they would be answerable in the combined authority, all from the same political party. Without wider accountability, the risk of partisan patronage and petty corruption is increased. Democracy must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, expressed similar concerns in those debates. He said:
“We hear about accountability. What accountability is there in local government today? … In a vast number of councils in this country, the councillors never change from one party to another. A significant number of councils do not change allegiance either”.—[Official Report, 22/6/15; col. 1397.]
Fortunately, a few weeks ago, largely as a result of the local government revival of Liberal Democrats, that was put to the test.
We also argued in 1968, and have argued ever since, that the democratic deficit has been dangerously developed still further by the tendency of Whitehall towards top-down imposition of structures, with limited menus of permitted powers and boundaries. We Liberal Democrats, like the previous Liberal Party, have always argued for bottom-up initiatives, giving the people in identifiable areas a role in deciding how, when and in what form they are to benefit from increased subsidiarity. This has led to our concept of devolution on demand, with elected authorities bidding to take on responsibilities from a menu of options. For example, current bids might start with the current powers of the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament.
That brings me back to the Cornish experience. The coalition Government, especially my Liberal Democrat ministerial colleagues, were determined to demonstrate that the city deals were not the only model for decentralisation or devolution. No longer a county council and with its newly formed unitary authority, Cornwall was judged to be ready for a degree of devolution. Although this was very modest—perhaps more delegation than full-blooded devolution—it has recognised a level of separate identity and historic self-determination. Democratic accountability has been preserved by a more traditional leader and cabinet structure, avoiding the “elective dictatorship” of an elected mayor. It has proved a popular and well-respected model, giving real leadership through the Brexit crisis. Other more rural English areas are queuing up to follow the Cornish lead, with a unitary authority being seen as the key to progress.
Inspired by Cornwall’s example, a number of upper-tier authorities—mainly rural and with no major cities—have come together to form Britain’s Leading Edge group. Their latest report both demonstrates the value of bottom-up initiatives and displays a healthy approach to non-metropolitan devolution aspiration.
In this debate, my Liberal Democrat colleagues will follow up a number of these more general points with some specific examples of the direction in which we hope the devolution process will go next. In the meantime, I repeat my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for leading us in this direction and giving us this great debate.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and I go back a long way. I was the leader of Newcastle City Council during both periods in which he was Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment with responsibility for local government. We were by no means always in agreement, but his interest was genuine. I recall being invited by him to dinner on one occasion. I accepted with some trepidation: the venue was the Tower of London—not, I hasten to add, in the Beauchamp Tower. His concern for English cities is long-standing and welcome, but I have to say that I have reservations about some of his proposals.
One major component of the noble Lord’s programme is the requirement of elected mayors for what in many areas would be not just individual cities but city regions. Newcastle was one of a number of councils required to hold a referendum in 2012 on whether to have an elected mayor. As in a number of other places, the electorate rejected the idea. Now, we have an elected mayor for the North of Tyne Combined Authority, established this year as the price for what is a modest step towards a measure of local government reform, to which our neighbouring authorities south of the Tyne declined to subscribe.
The reward for the creation of this new body is very limited from a financial perspective; a much vaunted £600 million over 30 years amounts to little more than £6 million a year for each of the constituent authorities. As I have frequently pointed out, Newcastle alone has suffered a financial loss amounting to £280 million a year since 2010, rising to £330 million by 2022, from a combination of government cuts in funding and rising costs. As in other places, this is a 60%-plus cut in the council’s budget.
Nationally, since 2010, government core funding for local authorities will have been cut by £16 billion a year by 2020. Welcome though the Transforming Cities Fund is to its recipients, the amounts referred to in the noble Lord’s report are, to put it politely, modest, ranging from £250 million for the West Midlands to £59 million for Tees Valley. In addition to the Transforming Cities Fund, the Government have announced a Stronger Towns Fund. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether a “supporting villages fund” is envisaged. The Stronger Towns Fund will dispense all of £1.6 billion up to 2026, with amounts ranging from £281 million for the north-west to £25 million for the east of England. That is hardly likely to make a significant impact. The very fact of there being two separate funds raises questions about the Government’s approach. It implies a two-tier approach to addressing the needs of our regions, instead of looking at the issues across whole areas such as the north-east, let alone between regions.
We hear references to the northern powerhouse, but there appears to be very modest progress in improving the appalling trans-Pennine rail route connecting the north-east to Yorkshire and the north-west, with the emphasis on HS2 coming at enormous expense and with highly questionable benefit to the north-east. Newcastle MP Catherine McKinnell, who chairs the East Coast Main Line All-Party Group, has pointed out that,
“there is no confirmation from the Government that the line north of York will be upgraded, which will make parts of the north even further away from that national infrastructure investment, rather than benefiting from HS2”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/19; col. 331WH.]
Local councils estimate that the line needs at least £3 billion to provide a good service and be ready for the arrival of high-speed trains. This suggests a failure on the part of relevant government departments to work together on developing a strategy. It also underlines the need for local government to be engaged in the process. This could, of course, include elected mayors, but should not depend on an enforced change to adopting that mode of leadership.
Devolution should not be confined, critical as it is, to matters affecting the local economy. There should be an enhanced role at the regional level at the least in the oversight of health and further and higher education, transport and the impact of climate change and of custodial services, but devolution must go beyond merely delegating the responsibility for the provision of local services and the health of the local economy to local government in general or to cities in particular. It is essential to ensure that adequate financial resources are available.
The plight of local councils is also exacerbated by the local government finance system. The savage cuts of the past nine years have clearly damaged the capacity of councils to address the needs of their residents and protect and promote the local economy. In fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, he replaced the Thatcher poll tax with council tax, but after 27 years, including, I regret to say, during the years of Labour Government, little has been done to update it. Thus the residents of a small house in the ward I represent as a councillor in Newcastle will be paying for a band A property worth £40,000 one-third as much as the residents of homes worth more than £1 million.
It is impossible to empower English cities without ensuring that they have the resources to tackle the problems they and their citizens face and, importantly, to promote the local economy. A system in which council tax increases are limited to the same percentage, albeit yielding widely different sums between a council such as Newcastle and its counterparts in the south-east, is inherently unfair since the gap is not closed by central government support. The noble Lord makes a welcome call for more capital funding for local government and a power for mayoral authorities to raise local taxes and charges, interestingly including a tourist tax. Such changes in my view should not be confined to mayoral authorities.
I welcome the noble Lord’s proposal to establish a department for the English regions and his call to reinstate the government regional offices, abolished by Vince Cable during the coalition, and the suggested dispersal of government offices into the regions. We always found the regional office to be extremely supportive and helpful, while it existed. I confess that I am less enthusiastic about proposals to transfer responsibility for schools’ performance to combined authority mayors. It should be returned to local councils, from which it has been effectively removed for many years and where local councillors have a significant interest. This indeed reflects a concern among some of us who strongly support the case for a regional approach to such issues as economic development and transport but have reservations about other services which are closer to local communities and which need to be accessible to local elected councillors as well as to residents. The concentration of multiple roles in the hands of elected mayors could be problematic, as we are likely to see in the potential forthcoming elevation of one, at least, noble former holder of the position.
I should declare an historical interest in Richard III, a most maligned English monarch, who presided over the Council of the North formed by his brother Edward IV. It would be good to see the revival of such a body and the creation of similar ones, not to displace existing councils but to ensure that the needs and aspirations of the regions and their constituent authorities are adequately reflected in and through their local government structure.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, while reading the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, I was at times overcome by nostalgia, having followed the history of local government finance, functions and boundaries since I joined the Treasury in 1970. I remember in the early 1980s the Treasury was proud to have got local authority self-finance expenditure—LASFE to the cognoscenti—up to more than 60%, but only a decade later it was down below 25%. Local authorities have been stripped of functions and taken out of social housing and their boundaries are constantly reshuffled. How did this happen?
There was a narrative in Whitehall and Westminster that local authorities were incompetent and wasteful, out of touch with the interests of local residents, meddling in national politics, anti-business and anti-development. Was that a fair description? It was certainly not in all cases, but there were prominent examples that fitted the bill, such as my home borough of Lambeth, Brent, the GLC and Liverpool. One response was the introduction of a poll tax on the premise that business, which contributed much of local taxes, had no vote and many voters paid little in rates. The unwinding of the poll tax led to business rates being sequestered and captured as a national tax, and rates replaced by council tax, which was less buoyant and less progressive.
The Whitehall/Westminster narrative continued for several decades and to some degree lives on. Recently, education has been taken away from local authorities and cuts in spending imposed on them have been more severe than on government departments. The first thing that strikes one about the narrative is its sheer hypocrisy, the pot calling the kettle black, as though central government never had any major failures of policy or delivery. When I joined the Departure of the Environment as Permanent Secretary in 1994, with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, then Secretary of State, it was apparent even then that the narrative was outdated. I met many local government chief executives and found them impressive, possessing skills often lacking in Whitehall, which explains why, when senior civil service positions were opened up to open competition, many of them were successful. I also found that they were keen—desperate, even—to develop their communities.
In 1997, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. I am sorry that he is not well enough to be with us. He changed the name of the department to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, recognising explicitly the regional dimension of its work. His commitment to the regions was strong and unwavering, but in retrospect I think he took a wrong turn in trying to develop a greater regional dimension by championing the creation of regional assemblies. These never took off. Most of the subsequent development of local authorities has been focused on stronger executive action with the creation of elected mayors overseen by small assemblies—more power to act, rather than power to debate.
The report from the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, makes a powerful case for city regions with elected mayors on the London model. One can spend a lot of time obsessing about the optimal size of the local authority, but we are close to a reasonable outcome. Where it is possible to make unitaries work they should be the first choice, bringing housing and planning alongside other major services. But that still leaves some functions that are too broad even for the larger unitaries, such as London boroughs and the met authorities around our big cities, such as transport, infrastructure, business development, regeneration, skills and further education, and the development of affordable housing. By the latter, I mean principally land assembly and planning, rather than the landlord function, which needs to be at a more local level, perhaps left to housing associations. It is for these wide-ranging services that the city regions are best equipped. I also endorse the recommendation that mayors absorb the unloved police commissioners, as in London.
When I arrived in the Departure of the Environment in 1994 there were still two important components of the Heseltine legacy: urban development corporations and the regional offices. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, notes that there was opposition to urban development corporations as they were taking away responsibilities from local authorities, but where they were reviving derelict industrial and port land in areas with few residents I thought that was appropriate. Indeed, the centres of our major cities are much more prosperous and completely transformed from where they were 30 years ago. The problems now lie elsewhere, in the suburbs and smaller cities. Going forward with UDCs on the original model is probably not the right vehicle. The particular structures should be for mayors to decide.
The other piece of machinery was the regional office network, which strangely the noble Lord gets to only at page 52 of his report. This was a consortium of Whitehall departments—the DoE, the DTI, employment and so on—which came together to act at a regional level. They were an essential counterbalance to the vertical structures of Whitehall. It was a big mistake to abolish them and I hope they can be quickly reconstructed.
There is one issue where I queried the noble Lord’s proposals. He proposes a separate department of the regions with its own Secretary of State and Permanent Secretary. In the 1990s the DoE and the DETR, while retaining their responsibilities for housing, planning and regeneration, were, in effect, the conveners of the network. Creating a department that has a co-ordination function but no services of its own—no skin in the game—is likely not to be effective. A department of everything that would be the DETR, which was already a monster department, plus skills and employment might be too much of an ask.
The belittling of local government has done immense damage to England, politically, socially and economically, exacerbating divisions rather than closing them up. We should welcome the mea culpa of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and his conversion to strong and effective local government, but to achieve that Whitehall/Westminster has to cast off its inbred sense of superiority.
I have one final thought: 30 years after its introduction, council tax is due for revaluation. It takes no account of changes in relative property values across the country and, without that, we will find no proper solution to local government finance.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his powerful follow-up to his original 2012 report, No Stone Unturned. I make it clear at the beginning that I have no great experience in local government. My contribution to today’s debate flows from four—or maybe three and a half—episodes. The first is the year that I spent chairing a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House looking into citizenship and civic engagement. My noble friend Lady Eaton, who was a doughty member of the committee, will speak later. We looked at some of the underpinnings of the issues that my noble friend referred to in his remarks. The second is my chairmanship of several companies, both in the English regions and abroad—they are all declared in the register of your Lordships’ House—which has given me some economic thoughts. The third is my personal belief that we have created and are creating two nations: London, with its environs in the south-east, and the rest of the country. If that trend continues for the next quarter of a century, we will create strains to our social cohesion that we will come to regret. The last—this is maybe the half—is the fact that, for a very few years, I was the Member of Parliament for Walsall North. This gives me an opportunity to thank my noble friend, who came to speak for me in my by-election all those years ago.
I share the view of my noble friend that, unless we find a way to create at Whitehall a central focus for the regions, the possibility of developing the vision that he has is doomed. There is far too great a danger that critical issues either fall between the departmental cracks or become the subject of departmental turf wars. In the civic engagement committee, we saw this in spades. Our recommendations went to the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. Indeed, my two noble friends on the Front Bench have in turn replied to them in different ways. We recommended that there ought to be a Minister with overarching responsibility for this matter. I regret to say that all that we have achieved so far is an interministerial working group and we feel relatively neutered.
A second challenge that arises from having no Minister with overarching responsibility is what we came to see in the committee as “initiativitis”. A new Minister arrives. He or she is very keen. They start up something and, a year later, they are moved on. The initiative drifts into oblivion. Nobody checks whether it worked. Nobody sees where there are lessons to be learned that could be deployed across other parts of the firmament and nobody sees whether taxpayers’ money is being wasted. There is a need to find a way to build up the institutional memory, as one might call it, of what works.
In my view, it will not be sufficient for individual regions to go it alone. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about the northern powerhouse and the rail link between Hull, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. If that is to go ahead, it will require a carefully co-ordinated interregional programme of promotion. The cities that form the heart of the region will need to be supersensitive about how actions taken at the centre will be seen in their constituent parts.
In his report, my noble friend refers to Walsall’s worldwide reputation for the leather industry. Walsall and the other towns that make up the Black Country, all with their own specialties, will need reassurance that their concerns are always being fairly addressed. For example, I chair a company based in Manchester. We can recruit people from Manchester and the immediate surroundings but from further away in that geographic area we cannot. Why not? Because the transport links are insufficiently good, the commuting times are too long and people do not want to move to work for the company as they do not want to spend an hour and a half or two hours sitting on a bus or a tram.
My noble friend will understand from my remarks so far that I support the strategic thrust of his report. I hope he will forgive me if I urge him not to try too much to cram together the uncrammable. For example, he and I have some knowledge of the county of Shropshire. Shropshire makes up part of the West Midlands Combined Authority. Take the small town of Clun, west of Shropshire on the Welsh border, on the one hand, and Nuneaton, on the eastern border of the authority, on the other. Those two places are 90 miles apart. According to Google, it takes two hours to drive from one to the other, and the environmental and societal differences between the two of them are self-evident. I hope very much, therefore, that although we are discussing the important subject of devolution from the centre of the regions, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, pointed out, there is a need for the regions in turn to be thinking about how they are sensitive to the devolution responsibilities that they have—in this case, to Clun and Nuneaton.
That takes me to my final point. Much of my noble friend’s report is focused on economic activity and performance; and the importance of those metrics cannot and should not be overlooked. If there was one overwhelming thread, however, in the evidence we received at the civic engagement committee, it was that people wanted to belong. They all feel that the developments of recent years have left them uprooted and their sense of community undermined. There is a series of qualitative aspects, some of which my noble friend referred to, which need to form part of any devolution settlement. They are not easy to measure, but are critical none the less.
As an example, when I see, on page 62 of the report, the proposal to transfer responsibility for affordable housing to the combined authority mayors, I have my concerns. It is not that I oppose the idea of finding housing for our fellow citizens, but because, far too often, “affordable” housing has come to mean bad housing: poorly designed, poorly constructed and crammed in, with no sense of community involved. In my view, too often we are in danger of creating the slums of 50 years from now. The housing market has become dominated by a handful of housebuilders who, by careful pricing, impose standardised designs all across the country. The glory of the country, and the glory of our communities, lie inter alia in vernacular, distinctive buildings. Today, if, blindfolded, one is taken and helicoptered into a modern housing estate and the blindfold is then removed, one cannot tell whether one is in Truro, Norwich or Stockton-on-Tees.
The need to create communities to which people feel committed and in which they feel proud to live is a vital part of any devolution settlement—and, indeed, as my noble friend said in his opening remarks, vital in the future creation of a society at ease with itself.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has done the House a service in securing this debate so soon after the publication of his timely and visionary report, which I read with great interest. I agree with his description of the challenge facing us here today: to harness and unleash the talents of people across England and ensure that communities nationwide feel the benefits more deeply. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation, the trade body for housing associations.
Devolution has empowered a new can-do spirit in our city regions, enabling local people to tackle local challenges through partnerships and policies which make sense for them. It has been uplifting to witness regions confront issues such as housing, social care and transport in a way that makes the most of the strengths of their region. However, there is of course more to be done. Many city region mayors and combined authorities remain beholden to Westminster for the critical investment and decisions that their local communities need. Many more areas are yet to benefit from any of the flexibilities enjoyed by combined authorities. I hope, therefore, that in his response to the debate the Minister will agree that the benefits of devolution should be extended more deeply where they already exist, and more widely where they do not, so that every place is given the opportunity to thrive.
As chair of the National Housing Federation, I am well aware of the value of empowering cities and regions. Housing associations are not-for-profit providers that invest any operating surplus into their local communities. They are shaped by the communities they serve and, in turn, shape the homes and services they provide to meet the needs of their community. They are busy putting into practice the principles of empowering people and communities across England every day.
The report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, observes that reform of our local political institutions has taken place,
“at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy”.
I would like to talk about the flagships of the convoy: the pioneering partnerships between housing associations and local authorities. There are many lessons to be learned on the opportunity and benefits that these can realise. I draw the House’s attention to Manchester. It is here that the flagship of our convoy in England can be found: Greater Manchester Housing Providers. Founded in 2010, this group of more than 25 housing associations and ALMOs manages one in every five homes in Greater Manchester. It works closely with the Manchester mayor and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to ensure that the region’s housing need is met and to offer services far beyond homes. The results of this partnership are impressive. Last year, it helped nearly 2,000 homeless people in the region into homes, supported another 2,000 residents into employment, and helped more than 1,000 community groups in the region.
Manchester has very ambitious plans across housing, driven partly by need but also by the acknowledgement that housing provides wider community and economic benefits. Secure housing is the bedrock of a thriving entrepreneurial community. There can be no stronger evidence of the real human impact that empowering our cities can have. However, neither the GMCA nor the GMHP are resting on their laurels. Last year, a new partnership was announced that will create a joint venture housing developer, which will add 500 homes to the region each year.
Co-operation between housing associations and public sector housing providers is not restricted to Manchester. Across England, housing associations, local government and private developers are partnering to meet the needs of local areas. Look to East Anglia, where the Iceni Partnership of three mid-sized housing associations has delivered 3,500 affordable, high-quality homes over 15 years; to Gateshead, where a partnership of Gateshead Council, the Home Group housing association and private developer Galliford Try will deliver 2,000 homes over 15 years; and to Brighton, where the Hyde Group housing association and Brighton & Hove City Council established a joint venture to deliver 1,000 new homes by 2020, of which 100% will be affordable.
The benefits of this partnership working are clear: local organisations empowering local communities, delivering the services and support that benefit local people. But there is potential for much more of this type of working. The good news is that housing associations stand ready to work more closely with private partners and local government; indeed, they report the difficulties they face in partnering with local authorities as a key obstacle in increasing housing supply. The National Housing Federation is already convening representatives of local government and housing associations to find ways of working together more closely. It would be of great benefit if the Minister could commit to supporting local authorities to do more of this type of working.
Housing associations are learning first-hand the effectiveness of partnership working, but they could achieve so much more with the right support from central government. The National Housing Federation’s submission to the comprehensive spending review calls for a £10 billion national regeneration fund over 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said earlier that the Government must lead. I hope the Minister can assure the Grand Committee that the Government support such a regeneration fund as a clear indication of that leadership. Ultimately, effective partnership working relies on mutual trust and understanding. Will the Minister commit to supporting this by providing local authorities with a sustainable future funding settlement, thus enabling them to lead and co-ordinate place-making in every one of their communities?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, whose focus on the economic futures of cities, particularly across the north of England, has been crucial to their revitalisation. From the 1980s, they have in many cases become places with a new vibrancy, often related to the expansion of their universities and the achievement of the Urban Development Corporation. I strongly support the recommendations and conclusions reached by the noble Lord on a new department for English regions, how to replace EU structural funds, the allocation method of capital funding by the Treasury, the need for new Select Committees in both Houses to review devolution and the dispersal of the offices of Whitehall. These are all fundamental to delivering the success that we all want.
On Monday, I was asked to meet researchers from the OECD who were investigating why productivity in UK cities and their surrounding city regions is not higher. I suggested that if they simply read the reports of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, over the years, they could save themselves a great deal of time in writing their report.
I concur with very many of the conclusions that the noble Lord has reached. However, if I may, I want to correct a small error on page 20: my noble friend Lord Goddard of Stockport was the Liberal Democrat leader of Stockport as opposed to the Labour leader. This is clearly a typing error.
There has been other work carried out, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the Institute for Government, which, with the Centre for Cities, produced a report in 2011 subtitled How Elected Mayors Can Help Drive Growth. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has just produced a report of the UK2070 Commission, and there have been many reviews and reports on the northern powerhouse.
This is not a new issue. In 1962, then Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said that he was determined to,
“prevent two nations developing geographically, a poor north and a rich and overcrowded south”.
A hundred years ago, the population of the north was 35% of the UK; it is now 25%. According to the BBC, one in three new jobs created in the UK in the last decade is in the south of England. We talk of the need to rebalance the UK economy, and that certainly needs to be done.
Let me be clear: this is not about reducing the success of London, because that is where some of the tax revenues come from that are spent elsewhere in the UK. However, we need to be careful. I keep reading in the London press that London seems to want to keep more tax income, when it should be seen as UK tax income generated through London. It is not just London’s tax income.
On the publication of the industrial strategy, the Secretary of State said that:
“For centuries, British innovation and ingenuity have been firmly rooted in our regions and our nations”,
and that:
“Government is working with regions, towns and cities to help them build on their unique strengths”.
That is clearly the intention of the industrial strategy, but the UK spends only 1.7% of GDP on R&D, compared to an OECD average of 2.4%. It is between 3% and 4% in countries with a higher manufacturing base, higher skill levels, and higher productivity and wages. Low R&D spending means less investment in businesses improving their products, leading in turn to a lower manufacturing base, and then to lower R&D spending because of the smaller size of that manufacturing base. We have to reverse that trend.
It is of little surprise to me that, despite all the fine words about the north, huge plans are being developed for the Oxford-Cambridge-London golden triangle. Where are the golden triangles proposed for the Midlands and the north?
The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, talked of the role of government as being first and foremost about leadership. I absolutely agree with that. There has to be trust of people outside London. He has talked of removing the “dead hand” of Whitehall.
Lord Shipley
I was talking about the decentralisation of Whitehall departments. A few years ago, I called for the Department for Transport to move out of London in its entirety, other than a small head office. I want to repeat that call because there is no need for the Department for Transport to be located in London when Transport for London is here. Indeed, if Channel 4 can move out of London, so can the Department for Transport, and so might other departments.
We have to allow localities to merge budgets from Whitehall to effect savings and, as a consequence, to deliver better services. If Whitehall is not joined up—and it is not—it can be joined up only at a local level. It is very important that infrastructure funding is transformational in its allocation. It is important for the Treasury to invest its infrastructure moneys in places which may not give as fast a return as places which are already better off.
I have been in the past, and still am, a supporter of the mayoral structure. I campaigned for a mayor for the city of Newcastle during the referendum. My reasons were that the powers of the leader were altered in the period just before 2010 so that a council leader had broadly similar powers to a mayor. I felt that council leaders should derive their power from all residents and electors, not just a party group.
Finally, I support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said about the role of the private sector. I was very pleased to hear his words about the Government working with the private sector to identify companies that can expand in those places where we want greater private sector expansion.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for securing this debate on an important issue. I congratulate him on his fascinating and significant report.
I speak with some trepidation because many of the noble Lords taking part in this debate bring to it so much experience of government, both local and national. I do not have any of that. What I hope to bring is experience of over 30 years in ministry, where, unlike many professions, I live where I serve. It has been my privilege to have been involved in the lives of people in Stevenage in Hertfordshire, in south-east London and now most recently as a bishop in the north-east.
I have loved reading this report. That is something I do not say very often about reports of this nature. At the heart of it for me is the noble Lord’s reflection on the three weeks he walked the streets of Liverpool following the Toxteth riots in 1981, to which he referred in his opening speech. He said that that journey opened his political eyes. He saw the unhappiness and lack of ownership and engagement of people in their communities. He saw the frustration and despair of people whose futures are decided by people who live 200 miles away and who, as the noble Lord writes,
“have never experienced your life”.
Out of this experience the urban development corporations were born, and in Newcastle, as beneficiaries of this in 1987, many of us rejoice today in the transformation this brought about on the quayside in the heart of our city. The mechanisms of investment and leadership through the UDCs and investment and leadership through devolved combined authorities are very different, but underlying both initiatives is a concern to address the effects of the chasm between London and the rest of the regions in England—a chasm which the noble Lord believes, and I agree, contributed to the social unrest and riots in Liverpool in the 1980s and which in our time is contributing to the toxic divisions in our country over Brexit.
I support the noble Lord’s 20-point plan and vision to empower English regions, and I am pleased that since its inception in November last year the North of Tyne Combined Authority gives my part of the world a chance to be a part of this. I will be even more delighted if the combined authority can reach its full potential, with the inclusion of Gateshead, South Tyneside, Durham and Sunderland, which I hope will happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, the investment by the Government that the combined authority has attracted, although welcome, is very modest. The private sector is making a greater impact and showing greater confidence. In the North of Tyne area, which is the one I know best since it is exactly coterminous with the diocese of Newcastle, we have over 30,000 businesses that provide 415,000 jobs between them. To give just one example of this private sector confidence, at the beginning of this month technology giant Sage announced plans to move its flagship offices to Cobalt Business Park in North Tyneside, which is the largest out-of-town letting ever recorded in the north-east.
However, the story in the public sector is much less encouraging. The extra funding afforded to the northern powerhouse has been more than offset by the reduction in public sector jobs. Research from IPPR North marking the fifth anniversary of the northern powerhouse shows that across the north of England we have experienced a 2.8% fall in public sector employment since 2014. The north has suffered a £3.6 billion cut in public spending, leaving 200,000 more children in poverty. Office for National Statistics data shows that between 2012 and 2018 the number of civil servants in the UK as a whole fell by 7%, but in a stark example of the chasm between London and the rest of the country, this cut has not fallen uniformly over the country. The number of civil servants in London over this period rose by 12%.
In the light of this, I was encouraged to read John McDonnell’s interview with the Manchester Evening News in which he advocated moving a Treasury unit to the north of England. As the report written by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, points out, it has often been in the power of the Treasury to help or hinder continued devolution, so it would seem fitting if that department took the lead in encouraging devolution in this way. At present, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, notes, London is too powerful and takes too many everyday decisions. This report offers a cogent and imaginative plan to change that. I urge the Grand Committee to note it.
I hope that the Government will consider the recommendations very seriously indeed. This report and vision speak not just to economic flourishing, which is important and we must have at least that, but go beyond it to the very nature of the society we seek to build.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to contribute to this debate and to join others in expressing warm thanks to my noble friend Lord Heseltine for this report. Like the right reverend Prelate, I rather enjoyed reading it, and not simply as an exercise in nostalgia. It was asserted, perhaps on this side, that we sometimes think of this as an obsession on the part of my noble friend. In fact, we do not; we properly regard it as a mission which he has not given up, and all credit to him for that.
I feel a bit like a Johnny-come-lately. Starting in the 1980s, I have been engaged in these issues for only just over 30 years, rather than going back to the 1960s and 1970s. Before I talk about them, I wish to draw attention to two of my interests. I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and I shall talk about the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, and I was the deputy director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, and I shall talk about private sector involvement in devolution, which also goes back to the 1980s.
At the end of the 1980s, when I was deputy director-general, we very nearly succeeded, on the basis of an understanding on the part of government that comparisons with other countries included an adverse comparison of the relative strength of the business community to generate infrastructure and investment and a focus on private sector decision-making at a local level, which we lacked. Part of the argument, which my noble friend was engaged in, was that we should have public law chambers as they do in most parts of Europe and around the world. We did not take that view. We took the view that we could achieve some of the benefits that public law chambers of commerce achieve while retaining private law status but taking responsibility for public functions.
I know from discussions with colleagues at the British Chambers of Commerce today that, in a sense, that is where they still are. They do not want to become part of government. They want functions that impact on the business community—including business investment, the promotion of trade and exports, and the development of skills—to be something that the business community can take responsibility for, including a responsibility for funding that activity. Back in the 1980s, we did it on the basis that one penny on the new national non-domestic rate would be available principally for the business community to invest in the training and skills of their community. In that sense, it is not unlike taking responsibility now for the apprenticeship levy or something of that kind.
I know that the chambers of commerce would want to take on this kind of responsibility. In the past, when the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry was working hand in glove with Birmingham local authorities, it was able to achieve dramatic things; including, for example, the establishment of Birmingham Airport, the National Exhibition Centre and so on. It can do more of these things in future. The problem is that government does not trust local bodies, and that extends to local business bodies.
That is where we were in the 1980s. The then Government had established local enterprise agencies, which should have been part of the responsibility of chambers of commerce, and then let them go and stopped the funding for them. We were in discussion with the Government about supporting the chambers of commerce to do training and enterprise promotion. They said that chambers of commerce were variable across the country and patchy, with quality differing from place to place. They therefore set up training and enterprise councils, which took all the money and employed all the people—who coincidentally were most of the people who used to work for the Manpower Services Commission. About 10 years later, training and enterprise councils were abolished on the grounds that they were variable in quality across the country and not reliable. That is exactly what happens time and again. It happened to local employer networks; it happened to training and enterprise councils; and it happened to Business Link in due course, which my noble friend established.
At some point in the past 30 years, we should have had the confidence to say that if the Government give the responsibility, funding and accountability to the business community, it will step up to the plate. We should not be surprised if it does not step up to the plate, when we do not give it the responsibilities and the funding. That is what I think we should do.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have a combined authority that embraces cities and countryside. It is not large; if anything, in my book it is sometimes too small for the 30-year vision required to be achieved. Arguably, for the Cambridgeshire-Peterborough city region to be looked at holistically, it is always a good idea to think about Suffolk and Norfolk alongside them to achieve scale. None the less, we are where we are. However, what should not have happened is that we ended up with one more tier of government. Parts of my old constituency have a parish council and the district council, and then there is the county council and the combined authority. People wonder what on earth they need all those tiers of government to do.
To echo what my noble friend said, at the very least the responsibilities of the county council and the combined authority must be put together—perhaps with those of the police and crime commissioner, as my noble friend suggested. Certainly, we must do that, because otherwise we are asking the combined authority to set out its vision—for example, in the non-statutory spatial strategy—without it being able to deliver it; it does not have the wherewithal to make it happen. The same is especially true of the local transport plan, and to some extent true of training and skills. If we give the combined authority and the mayor those wider responsibilities and the capacity to deliver, we will be impressed by what Cambridgeshire and Peterborough can achieve.
We are benefiting from the rebuilding of the A14 and the Government’s sponsorship of the east-west rail link from Cambridge to Oxford, but we are not asking in the long run to have more money from a limited government pot. What we want in a place such as Cambridge, which has the highest employment rate for a city in Europe, is to be able to invest for ourselves and through tax increment financing to demonstrate that the private sector borrowing that supports that can be repaid with interest. I hope that we can tackle that.
As my noble friend illustrates on page 67 of his report, we know that it is down to us to deal with the deep inequalities that continue to persist, literally only a few miles apart, in a city such as Cambridge. We know that we have to deal with that and that it is not somebody else’s responsibility.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in this debate on his latest report. I start by highlighting some key sentences that jumped off the page as I was reading it. On page 13, he writes:
“I now believe I was wrong”.
On page 15, as the right reverend Prelate said, he writes:
“The three weeks I walked the streets”—
of Liverpool—
“opened my political eyes … There was no one in charge”.
On page 18, he writes:
“Political philosophy must be tempered with common sense”.
On page 20, he writes:
“One lesson learned was simple. If the only route to success was voluntary, then there had to be a deal with prizes!”
On pages 25 to 27, there are lots of examples of leadership and partnership bringing about success.
I know first-hand the esteem in which the noble Lord’s work is held in Liverpool. Until his sad death five years ago, I had a 50-year friendship from our Aston University days with a Liverpool-based journalist, Ian Hamilton Fazey, who was at one time the managing director of the Liverpool Post and the Liverpool Echo, and then for many years was the northern correspondent of the Financial Times. He followed the forensic dedication shown by the noble Lord to Liverpool, both before and after the 1981 riots.
During some of those years, I was the shadow housing and environment Minister in the other place. I was really grateful to those appointed by the noble Lord who took me on visits to, for example, the former Cantril Farm, now renamed Stockbridge Village, and explained what was going on in considerable detail. This morning, I re-read his famous minute to the Prime Minister from August 1981: “it took a riot”. It is easy to see from re-reading it why he took the view he did then about the met counties, but in all other respects, the themes in his latest report are set out in that note, which is nearly 40 years old.
The noble Lord’s proposals are a package that I, for one, can support. Whitehall finds devolution very difficult, as I know from my experience as chair of the Food Standards Agency. It will therefore need a drive from the centre, with support from the top, to deliver the change needed to allow English cities to breathe. Like him, I do not support a wholesale reform of local government, but we need to learn the lessons from recent years and see where reform to the combined authority boundaries and some of the city boundaries is needed.
I support close and detailed parliamentary scrutiny in the form of Select Committees, but should it be committees in each House or a Joint Committee? I am not sure. There is more experience in this House, but accountability of course lies with the Commons. I do not have experience of a Joint Committee of both Houses and do not know whether it would work: would the Lords be the junior partners, or would we have a free-standing committee of both Houses? I am open on that. It is also true that now that we have a form of fixed elections—whatever might happen with the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act—it makes good sense to review the clash of dates in the electoral cycle. Good accountability requires a degree of stability. That is important in both the private and the public sector.
I have also come to the conclusion, to which I had been opposed, that the role of the mayor and the police and crime commissioners should be combined. I understand that that was the original plan. However, it would be a retrograde step if the 2017 Tory manifesto was followed and the elections returned to first past the post. That was the commitment, and it would be a disaster. The present electoral arrangements have given us a range of police commissioners that we would not otherwise have had.
We will return to a modern form of skills training only with enhanced further education. When I last counted, this House included 40 chancellors of universities but not one boss from further education—not one. I freely admit that I was a child of FE; for three years in the late 1950s, after I left school and before I entered higher education. It is a completely different world. If you have not been in FE, you do not know about it. If you went from school to higher education, you have no idea what was happening in the 1950s and 1960s with further education in this country and the opportunities it gave to a range of people that are simply not available today. We need not to turn the clock back but to have a more modern version.
Buried deep in proposal 14 is the plan for, among other things, a tourist tax. I will leave most of the detail to my noble friend Lord Hunt, but a good test bed would be the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Birmingham. A pilot scheme could be set up. The Treasury will never like local taxes and charges, and so will wreck most good ideas. Therefore, we need a Chancellor with the confidence to change. If you have the confidence in what you are doing and the policy, you can embrace change and take a risk that might not work, but if you do not have the confidence, nothing will happen.
Having someone in charge is crucial, as the noble Lord said throughout his report. In my view, while not unfettered, the mayors should be able to explore different ways of working with the support of combined authorities, and the noble Lord gives examples of what could be done. It does not have to be the same in every combined authority; that is the beauty of it.
The report’s final key point is that the recommendations and observations strike at the heart of the way in which we run the country. That is pretty crucial, and it is a positive point rather than a negative one. We are where we are, and next week we will see a new Government formed. In my view, it would be a dereliction of duty to the country if this report were not used as a central tool of domestic policy while the Government continue to grapple with Brexit. I think it is a fantastic report
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for the report and for giving a good profile to this issue, which I think has faded a bit in recent months—not surprisingly, with the attention being on Brexit. There have been myriad reports from organisations that have been working to promote greater devolution to cities. The spotlight has also fallen on this idea through the experience of some of the people that we have heard about through Brexit. In our own cities we have seen disenchantment and disillusion, often symbolised by boarded-up high streets, no local facilities to support people in poverty, food banks and all the other things that tell us that parts of our country are in great need of attention.
The whole issue of devolution, as my noble friend Lord Tyler has said, is one that we very much support but, as he also said, we mean devolution, not delegation. We have seen that through all parties’ attempts to give powers, such as the recent assemblies. I served on one in the south-west and actually it had no powers, so no one could really see the point of attending it. What happened was that all the powers went to the RDAs and the assembly, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has said, was given powers to discuss rather than to act. In my view it is essential that any devolution is about transferring powers.
I know that in my city, Bristol, when I have gone out for election, all the matters that people raise on the doorstep are things that we have very little power to do anything about. Transport is the biggest but there is also housing, schools—they are not in democratic control locally—and social care. One of the issues that we felt was important was that taxes should raise money locally. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, talked about this: in France, three times more finance for local government is raised locally, while in Sweden the figure is 12 times as much. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was saying, the money coming from the Government is not so much what people are looking for from devolution, although there would have to be equalisation as some parts of the country are much wealthier than others.
Some devolution has taken place but if you are a city leader then my suspicion is that you feel that the most enormous amount of time, attention and resource has been put into devising schemes where very little power is actually handed over to elected representatives, whether mayors, city leaders or councillors, along with a whole panoply of contracts with rules, conditions and teams of lawyers to ensure that these are adhered to. A lot of this stifles local imagination, local creativity, and local solutions to local problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, local business finds exactly the same thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, talks about other European cities. I used to represent my city in EUROCITIES and heard about the powers that other European cities have. They are astounded, and some are bemused, to hear that the Mayor of London has to go to the Government cap in hand and ask for money to support essential infrastructure. As for provincial cities, they have even fewer powers; London has actually not done too badly out of it. It would be ridiculous to expect the mayors of Hamburg, Toulouse or Lyon, as in the report, to have this much sticky tape, as I always think of it, from central government preventing them finding local solutions, unleashing energy and harnessing the creativity of their own areas.
I welcome the fact that some local tax-raising is mentioned in the report. However, until locally elected representatives—whether they be mayors, councillors or leaders of combined authorities—can raise their money and be accountable for it, borrow money locally and raise taxes to pay for it, we are seeing only a delegation from central government and not true devolution. I very much welcome the report and hope that it is a long stride on the road to what I see as real devolution.
In my city of Bristol, we have five mayors over the whole combined authority, which the public sometimes find quite difficult to understand. With accountability must come clarity of roles, transparency of powers and the recognition that one elected individual, although they may be accountable to government, cannot be the only person accountable to the people. The big responsibilities of education, social care, the environment and all the services that underpin the least well off, cannot be managed by only one person. They must have a properly accountable team, enabling decisions to be taken to provide the resources to provide that. As many organisations have said, not least Core Cities, of which I used to be a member, the enormous power to the economy that our cities could give, the pride of ambition, the feeling of recognition by people in those areas that they are not secondary to London and do not see all the money going back there, is essential and, I believe, will motivate people. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, goes into this, too, in his report. “Breathing life into devolution” is essential, and I totally agree that we need government confidence to take this forward. The only way that unleashing local energy will really happen is if there are real powers—if people feel that they are in the driving seat and have a say and, if they do not agree, can throw people out.
I am very encouraged by the noble Lord’s report and hope that we are going to advance further on this agenda. I look forward to seeing the effect, which I believe will be transformational.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is excellent, and if we were not wasting our time on Brexit, as a country we would be getting on with implementing a lot of the recommendations he has put forward. What stands out so strikingly from the noble Lord’s career is that he not only exhorts us with his great reports, but by his example. To my mind, the noble Lord is one of the two most effective Ministers that this country has produced in the last generation, the other being Roy Jenkins. It is very fitting that we are debating the noble Lord’s report in this Room this afternoon and, in the other Chamber, we are debating until a late hour the extension of rights in respect of abortion and equal marriage to Northern Ireland, which in many ways is the completion of Roy Jenkins’s work. His work will live on long after him, and nowhere more so than his own example in how to create a city; the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, substantially created modern London with the creation of Docklands, which was a phenomenal achievement. Docklands employs more people now than it did in the docks in the 1960s. It is the powerhouse not only of the London economy but in many ways of our national economy. As an exercise in both economic and infrastructure planning and sheer vision, it was a phenomenal achievement. Docklands is still a work in progress. Massive housing provision is now being added to the business communities there, and that will add to its success.
When I was Transport Secretary and planning HS2, I visited the Chinese Transport Minister in Beijing because China has more high-speed rail than the rest of the world put together. The Chinese were trying to persuade me to buy Chinese technology for the building of our high-speed line, which I said was a bit premature because we had this thing called Parliament, which had to agree to all the plans before we could do it. A senior British businessman in China said to me, “You have to understand, Andrew, that R&D in China stands for ‘rob and duplicate’”. I have always thought public policy is very straightforward: it is rob and duplicate, but you have to know what to rob and duplicate—what to copy. It is a very good rule of thumb that what one should do if one is looking at urban policy and the development of big infrastructure is to rob and duplicate as closely as possible from the schemes which the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has developed over the years, and then one cannot go wrong.
For the leader of any city to look at and understand the story of Docklands is the best possible initiation in how to plan a great city—the noble Baroness just referred to Bristol. One could go through the big challenges of all the major cities in England, and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has in many ways laid a path that others should follow.
On the recommendations of the report, which the noble Lord summarised in his speech, I agree with them all. I agree with a department for the regions, government offices outside London being brought together and Select Committees on devolution, whether they be joint or individual—I do not think it matters. I am very struck by the fact that the Select Committee efforts of your Lordships’ House are overwhelmingly focused on Europe. That is a very worthwhile thing for them to have focused on, but they should be much more engaged in the life of the domestic departments, and having a Select Committee on devolution would be a good step forward.
The annual report on cities, benchmarking them against their competitors abroad, is a great idea. Bringing police commissioners together with mayors is an absolute no-brainer. It is ridiculous to have these two great public services being managed in cities by two different elected public officials. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the Government’s thinking on that, because it would be a very simple and straightforward reform that could be transformational. Pressure on skills and strengthening the role of mayors is also important. Making business support equivalent to the best business support provided internationally, again, is a no-brainer. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are very pertinent in this respect. Essentially we have reinvented our business support networks every 10 years, when what we should do is tie them very closely to our city institutions. I think chambers of commerce should be the basis—that is another of the noble Lord’s themes going back over many years. With respect to rob and duplicate, we should just have a chamber of commerce system like the Germans. It is not complicated—we could just get on and do it.
In all these respects, the noble Lord’s report is right. But always focusing on practical objectives is the big thing. One of the biggest crises that we face in most of our cities is communities, and in many of our cities, it is housing—the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, were extremely pertinent in this regard. We need the combination of strong leadership, which is where the mayors come in, and much greater powers. As the Minister knows, I am always constructive, even when dealing with the Government, most of whose work I profoundly disagree with. However, there is one thing that the Theresa May Administration have done in the field of local government which I strongly support: the lifting of the borrowing cap for social housing. My Government failed to do it, as did the Cameron Government, but it has happened now. Can the noble Lord give a progress report on what has happened since the borrowing cap was lifted? Has it unleashed a new wave of investment? What is happening on the ground? This is a huge opportunity for mayors and local authorities to get on with what needs to be a new generation of social home building after a generation where there has been practically none, dealing with the huge social crisis that we have in many of our cities.
I will quickly highlight three other points. On the “rob and duplicate” principle, urban policy in most of the rest of England is not too complicated if you look at what is required in city leadership. The “rob and duplicate” principle should be, to be very blunt, to copy London, the city where we have developed the most successful models and institutions of leadership and powers, certainly over the last generation and in many ways going back to the London County Council and the Greater London Council in the 1880s and 1890s.
London has been the leader. The strongest city in this country has also had the strongest and most credible institutions, and we need to extend the model of those institutions to other cities. The great problem with the mayors outside London, whom the noble Lord quite rightly champions, is that they have only a fraction of the powers of the Mayor of London. They have none of the powers of the Mayor of London in respect of public transport, such as the capacity to integrate transport or regulate buses. Buses are hugely important in cities up and down the country. Far more people travel on buses, particularly lower-paid people, than on trains. Twice as many people each year travel on buses as trains. The average bus fare outside of London is twice the level within London, although wages are much lower. Levels of regulation are much lower. My noble friend is nodding her head.
When I was in Newcastle recently—I travel on buses wherever I go because it is quite an important way of seeing what is going on—I noted that one-third of bus fares there are still cash fares, which takes ages to load buses. The average cash fare, from memory, is £2.50. In London, it is £1.50. London abolished cash fares, as it has electronic ticketing, five years ago. The big cities outside London are literally a generation apart in terms of technology, level of service and regulation. I cannot think of anything more important for mayors to get involved in than buses, houses and giving them the powers.
I had a lot more to say, but I have run out of time. In concluding, I want to make one remark about the mayors. It is hugely important that the mayors have a lot of clout in London. The Mayor of London has clout in London by definition, because he is located in London, but mayors from outside, by definition, will not have the same clout which comes from geographical proximity. However, when the time comes to reform your Lordships’ House—in the great constitutional crisis we are engaged in at the moment, it may be quite soon—it is high time we move towards a federal second Chamber. The big issue in creating a federal structure for the United Kingdom has always been how you deal with England. A key element in dealing with England, following on from the noble Lord’s report, is that the mayors of our great cities and city regions should play a part. As part of that, like the Bundesrat in Germany—the German second Chamber which represents the states—the senate should represent the cities, city regions and nations of the United Kingdom. Having the mayors as members would be a big step forward.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, like other speakers I begin by congratulating my noble friend on his report, not only for what he concludes but for the way in which he has described the journey he made in getting to those conclusions.
Before going on, I should declare an interest. I am chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership; I have represented the area I live in in the European Parliament and have chaired a number of businesses there. This is relevant to what I am going to say, because I am sympathetic towards and a supporter of my noble friend’s concerns, but I will focus for a moment on places such as Cumbria, which are not in a city or its direct economic and social hinterland. This is because I do not want them to fall between the gaps which the project, as described by the noble Lord, might lead to.
First, I go back to cities. I spent 10 years in the European Parliament about 20 years ago. I was struck then by the vigour and profile of the great European cities when set in contrast to our cities. They seemed to have an identity and confidence which went beyond that of the country in which they were situated. What struck me at the same time was that when the European political institutions made overtures to the great cities of this country such as Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool, they appeared to be rebuffed by the United Kingdom Government in London. I think the reason for that was a fear of some kind of independent supranational attribute that might be generated by participating in all this.
This is a matter that does not really concern the younger generation, given that they are so much less worried by matters of nationality and jurisdiction. For them, Berlin, Lisbon, Munich, Madrid and Milan are simply places to go to and places where football is played. I do not know whether any of your Lordships noticed but, during the recent UEFA Champions League final in Madrid, everybody went to Madrid, not to Spain.
In some ways, perhaps the most prominent of all cities in Europe is London; it is, after all, one of the great global cities. For many people from abroad, it is almost a detail that London is in this country. The point of London is that it is a global city and one of the financial capitals of the world. As an aside, we ought to be aware that in this age of telecommunications, the financial centre can move from London just as the centre of European finance moved to this country from the Low Countries in the late 17th and early 18th centuries; indeed, it moved there from southern Germany and northern Italy. We should not take for granted any of the characteristics which are successful in this country. We should remember that the vanished pomps of yesterday are,
“one with Nineveh and Tyre!”
It seems to me that during the 20th century our great cities lost the domestic, commercial and political provincial dynamism—and I use the word “provincial” in an approving and not disparaging sense—that created Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow. We can see this elsewhere in the world, including in China, which, whatever its other problems, displays dynamism. Where there is such dynamism, there is civic pride, energy and commitment. That is what made these cities great in the past, as can be seen by looking at what remains. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is quite right to want to re-instil this into our country, but it has to be recreated; it cannot happen by itself. It is no good to declare ourselves optimists and assume that that will lead to a better tomorrow. There has to be substance, vision and detail to enable us to get there.
As I said in my opening remarks, this is not for everywhere. In particular, there are two areas we need to consider in this context. First, in this country there are a number of large but nevertheless smaller cities, relatively speaking. I am thinking of places such as Preston and Bolton, which are in the solar system of great metropolitan cities but tend to be overshadowed by their bigger neighbours. They are proud places and they offer a lot of potential.
Secondly, there are areas such as my own, Cumbria, which is sometimes described as the north of the north. It has half the land mass of north-west England, is at the centre of Britain and has a population of about half a million. It is not part of the economic system of any of the great metropolitan cities but is nevertheless affected by them, and by Scotland. I would like to put on record that the development of the Borderlands growth deal is an important initiative because, while we are all in the United Kingdom, England and Scotland are different countries. This initiative transcends the border, and there are not very many that do. In Cumbria, we look to the north of England, London and Europe, which is, at least for now, very important for our domestic market. Independent analysis carried out by the LEP shows that the impact of no-deal Brexit will be very serious indeed, as was corroborated by a separate piece of work carried out by the CBI.
One aspect of the report that I found most interesting was the chapter written by Tony Travers, outlining the history of local government. Things change as the world changes and, as a number of speakers have said, we are in the middle of a revolution and so things are going to have to change. The question is how. The experience we have had in this country appears to suggest that we tend to start with structures but that that will not necessarily lead to a successful result. I sense that we are seeing the beginning of a change of approach: we are starting with function. If we can change the place in the system of governance where decisions are made—and make sure that changing it does not merely mean decentralisation by moving Whitehall somewhere else but moves decision-making nearer to those who will be affected—that will encourage participation and civic pride in the communities that are going to benefit. If we can do that, it will in turn generate dynamism, regrowth and prosperity and will encourage able people from all walks of life to become engaged.
In the north, we see that the Government are now trying to re-engage through their Northern Powerhouse 11, as opposed to the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, to which Cumbria LEP is fully committed as a full partner. The very different members of the group have very different contributions and have a different emphasis on what they do. Nevertheless, it is an important initiative in which I hope that all those engaged, from the smallest to the largest, will be treated equally, in the same way that Austria and Germany sit on the European Council as equals.
Changes appear to be happening, and they are happening incrementally. It may well turn out that change of this sort will be more successful than the imposition of structures from outside, from Whitehall. Form follows function, and if functions change then I believe that the appropriate form will follow and change with it. I hope the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is an important milestone on the road to rebalancing the ways in which things are done in England.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, I find myself echoing the words of the right reverend Prelate in saying that I have no interest that I can declare. My pathway in politics includes no inside experience of local government and I therefore feel that I can speak on its structure without prejudice although, many people might feel, without sufficient knowledge.
I was born and brought up in South Yorkshire. I lived for a large part of my life in the city of Birmingham in the immediate postwar years. In the House of Commons I represented a seat in Greater Manchester and subsequently, for much longer, a seat in rural Essex. Over those years I have gained certain impressions that have led me to feel extremely well disposed to the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine.
I became the prospective candidate for the constituency of Middleton and Prestwich. At the time, as one had time in those days, I actually read the Redcliffe-Maud report. I thought it made a good deal of sense and was easy to understand, whereas I found myself dealing with a constituency containing two boroughs and one urban district overseen by a county council. I began to understand then the confusion of local taxpayers about who did what, a confusion that survives to the present day. That was a structure that led in democratic politics to a blame game in which the people who were dispossessed of their seats in an election accorded the blame to members of another authority who had apparently acted out of step with what they felt was right. I am afraid that that attitude also survives to the present time.
The next lesson that I learned was about people’s passion over boundaries. I was amazed by the extent to which people would fight and scrap over whether one particular neighbourhood should be this side of a border or the other. When reforms were introduced by the Heath Government, in which I think the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, would have been involved, all three local authorities in my then constituency wanted to be in a different local government organisation, and all succeeded in getting their position changed. That was the level of criticism that they felt about any reform, and I suspect that there is deep conservatism attached to all sorts of changes that are now introduced.
The underlying argument behind reform that has taken place at various times was size, on the basis that bigger was better. In terms of efficiency that is probably correct, but there was also a feeling that more people would be drawn into standing for office in local government if there were really worth-while decisions to make. I do not think that hope has been particularly borne out. People’s civilian lives have become very much busier and they feel less able to devote time to the increased burden that applies to any elected council these days, which has made them turn away from the prospect.
The general trend towards enlargement has continued and is of course in the Heseltine report. It is true that the smaller the units of local government, the more choice there can actually be said to be for people. However, I found, in what is a more mobile society, that people would move into Essex from, say, Gloucestershire or Wiltshire and then start complaining about the level of services they were getting in the matters that interested them. There was almost a desire that a national standard should be observed.
My other impression is that there is a battle, or has been, between London and the provinces. I sympathise with what my noble friend Lord Hodgson said on that subject. There are increasing concerns about the north/south divide, but I believe it is really about London and the rest. The question is whether this problem can be overcome best by a form of devolved government that emulates and rivals London. I am very sympathetic to the idea that that is the way forward, however long it takes.
Based on experience to date, the combined authorities concept seems the most promising thrust in the direction we need to go. These are early days. There is variation between combined authorities, but nevertheless for the most part there is a common core of devolved powers, which is also true in the other cities cited in the Heseltine report. On the basis of trying to borrow from the best, it might be that we can perfect a model that would command wide acceptance on the basis of it being proved how effective it can be. The test will be whether it will be easier to build houses, where these days one finds opposition from people who are themselves well housed, develop skills, improve transport, attract investment and better identify priorities. A challenge has been laid out for us extremely skilfully in my noble friend’s report. It is one we should not ignore.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on his report and on the strong commitment shown to our regions and cities over many years. He began his remarks with a reference to Brexit. Since he mentioned that subject, I congratulate him on his stance on that as well, with which I strongly agree.
I have an interest to declare in that I am chair of Tyne and Wear museums, which is largely local authority funded and now rather oddly finds that half the area it covers is in a combined authority and half is not, which is a strange situation. Certainly, given the importance of our wonderful museums and the culture sector to local and regional economic regeneration, this is a role I am very strongly attached to.
I was struck by the debate in this Room some time ago on the order to create the North of Tyne combined authority. I very much agreed with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Beecham on that occasion, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, who said that,
“nobody … will feel that this is anything like a sufficient answer to the critical lack of investment in the north-east”.—[Official Report, 30/10/18; col. GC 116-17.]
I was sorry that there was not agreement on a proper north-east combined authority, but I can understand it. As my noble friend Lord Beecham said, in some cases elected mayors were being foisted on areas that specifically voted against them. We were faced with a very uneasy situation. I remain an unrepentant regionalist, because I believe the regional structure suits the north-east better than anything else. However, I completely agree that one model does not fit all circumstances, and we have to look across the country at the spatial and economic realities of the situation. Indeed, that was a phrase in the noble Lord’s report that struck me very strongly: the,
“need to reflect economic and spatial reality”.
In the north-east, despite the fact that a regional assembly was voted down by a large majority some years ago now, I believe that the need for a regional assembly and a regional structure is still very strong in that part of the world. Perhaps I can take some comfort in the fact that, when the idea of a Welsh Assembly was first put forward in the 1970s, that was defeated with a majority that was rather similar to the one in the north-east referendum. Of course, the Welsh Assembly was passed by a whisker in the successful referendum 20 years later, but now, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, pointed out, it seems to be very firmly established and supported across Wales.
The regional campaign in the north-east was led by a group of people who campaigned on the theme of, “Who wants a lot of useless extra politicians?” They were helped beyond their wildest dreams by a couple of events: the announcement that the Scottish Parliament building was going to be 10 times more expensive than was first estimated—that happened during the campaign —and, secondly, when MP’s expenses were published. Many newspapers totted up the total amount claimed for staff, offices and so on, and made it look as though that was the huge amount of money that each MP was individually getting in their pockets. However, the north-east has a lot of economic cohesion, and I believe that a regional government and regional assembly would give it much-needed political clout, as well as allowing it to address economic needs and build on its economic strengths.
In many respects, where we are at the moment with the current combined authorities does not make sense. The main example I would give is that of transport. When the metropolitan counties were originally created, the Tyne and Wear area wanted to have an integrated transport system, but that rather fell by the wayside with the abolition of the metropolitan counties. It was not helped by policy decisions such as that of bus deregulation. We now seem further away from that integrated system than before. As the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend mentioned, the Tyne and Wear metro system is desperately in need of investment. When I travel on the Tube, as I do practically every day when I am attending your Lordships’ House, I am always struck by the amount of investment there has been, and how one normally needs to wait only a minute for a train. I contrast that with the 12 or 13 minutes that I regularly wait when I am trying to travel on the Tyne and Wear metro. My only consolation is that, despite the failure to get agreement between the north and south of the Tyne on the combined authority, there still seems to be a strong recognition by the local authorities concerned that co-operation between them is vital. I hope that that willingness will be translated into action.
The noble Lord’s report has many recommendations that I strongly support, including the creation of a central government department of the regions and combining departmental work in the different regions in the kind of way that was very successful with the former government offices. I think that the noble Lord is quite right to address structures at the centre as well as the need for new structures in the regions and localities of the country. I agree with the proposal about Select Committees and with the idea of a committee of combined authority mayors—and the necessary co-operation of the combined authorities with other bodies, whether it is the Environment Agency, Network Rail, or the other bodies that the noble Lord mentions in his report.
Some recommendations could work for some authorities, but perhaps not the one that we currently have in North of Tyne. For that reason, I would not be keen on strengthening the powers of the mayor until the boundaries are more satisfactory and we have a more viable organisation in that area. I am also not totally convinced about the idea of combining the role of mayor with that of the police and crime commissioner, and I have some concerns about admission charges for local cultural facilities. I think there are various ways in which you can encourage donations which should be looked at before charges.
Finally, structures are important but trust and leadership are also very important. Sometimes it is quite difficult to decide what makes a successful authority in terms of leadership. We recognise it when it occurs, but it is not always easy to design it into a system.
I shall conclude by mentioning my pride in Gateshead council, and all the wonderful projects that it has fostered and encouraged—the Angel of the North, the Gateshead Millennium Bridge, Sage Gateshead, the BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art, the Gateshead International Stadium and so on. It is an astonishing achievement which should be trumpeted; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, that we need to recognise when local authorities have achieved things and applaud them for it. The Conservative businessman Sir John Hall, who is known to many people, described Gateshead council as a “public entrepreneur”. I thought that was an excellent description. It seems to me that the report published by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, will help to unleash that public entrepreneurship, and for that reason he deserves all our thanks.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, I believe in the importance of cities. I look at the great northern cities of our country and at how they languished. They could have been the engine of growth for the whole country. Thanks to the noble Lord and others, we now realise the importance of our cities and our city regions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reminded me of the Toxteth riots. My house was at the top of Lodge Lane. The riots were not about race; they were about policing. Locals joke and say it took a riot for Margaret Thatcher to come to the city of Liverpool. She came, and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, came with her. I was quite taken with Eric Sorensen, as I remember. I was also quite taken with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, at another event I went to where he said, “I stood and looked at the Mersey from the Liver Building with a glass of wine at the end of a difficult day wondering what had happened to this great city and what had gone wrong”. As I think he said, he spent three days listening to people and then he put some of those thoughts and ideas into practice. That listening is so important, as is having a vision about where you are going to go.
I became leader of Liverpool, that great city, in 1998. There were 99 councillors and we won 52 seats. The following year we won a further 10 and we won a further nine the year after that. Trying to lead 71 Liberal Democrats was the hardest job in the world. I though, “What do I do here? Where do I go?”. I thought, “Why don’t I visit two cities which have had very difficult times and talk to the leadership?” I went to New York and Dublin. The mayors of those cities separately said exactly the same thing. They said it is about having a vision of where you want to go and confidence—I think an earlier speaker mentioned confidence—and that even if the cupboard is bare you should talk up your city and your region and then count the number of cranes on the skyline. I did that, but I soon realised that the structure of local government made it very difficult indeed. We had a committee structure. A decision would go the sub-committee, then it would go to the main committee, then it would go to the performance review committee and then to the policy and finance committee and finally at the end of a 10-week cycle it might come out of the sausage machine at the end.
New Labour was looking at the idea of the modernising agenda for local government. In Liverpool, we embraced that with an executive board, scrutiny panels and councillors having a powerful role in their communities. Then the modernising agenda, which I think Hilary Armstrong—the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top—brought in, meant that local authorities could adopt it if they chose.
I probably agree with everything on the 10-point or 20-point plan, with a few little changes here and there, but what is perhaps missing from it is this. You can have all the vision and powers in the world, but if you do not have the quality of the leadership it does not happen. One of the proposals is that the mayors should,
“establish a leadership academy for city governance”.
That is crucial.
Secondly, and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, will agree with me completely on this, it is about accountability. Noble Lords will recall that the Localism Act allowed local authorities to establish elected mayors. Of the 10 that had a vote, only one—Bristol—decided to have a mayor. Doncaster decided to retain its mayor. In Liverpool, we never had the opportunity to vote on whether to have a mayor. I think there was an agreement between the city leader and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, to establish a mayor in Liverpool. I regret that, because it would have given more strength and power to the mayor of Liverpool.
Accountability means that you have to listen to people. It is very alarming that the scrutiny panel in Liverpool has been abolished by the mayor. There is no scrutiny of his decisions. For example, it takes 60,000 people to sign a petition to stop their park being sold to Redrow developments. The mayor does not want to listen to them , so they have to go to the High Court to get an injunction to stop that development. That should not be the case.
I was very taken by the briefing, which perhaps all noble Lords saw, from the London Assembly. It said:
“London has made a success of devolution … Devolution works. It makes government more open, more accountable and more relevant to local voters”.
I agree. It also says that there needs to be overview and scrutiny to be effective and hold the Executive to account to contribute to better public policy and decisions. To my mind, that is the other key element we must never forget. We have a system of elected local councillors, and they need to have an important role in the work of the council as a whole. They should not be there as sheep that just follow the leadership. They should have a clear role and be able to hold the leader to account.
I went to the presentation of a book by Professor Michael Parkinson from Liverpool University. At the time of the Militant tendency in Liverpool, he wrote a book called Liverpool on the Brink. He has now written a new book called Liverpool Beyond the Brink. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was the guest of honour there. One of his great legacies will be not only the huge contributions he has made to Liverpool: we now have the Heseltine Institute in Liverpool to carry on his work, which is hugely important.
The importance of cities to the national economy must never be forgotten. The challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, points out, is that we need more of our cities to be successful. It should be not about problems, but about solutions, wealth creation and entrepreneurship. Cities do not create jobs; they create the conditions where jobs can be created and businesses can be successful. We need to devolve sufficient powers and policy, because we continue to live in a very centralised society.
Professor Parkinson also talked about the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, as I have. He said, “Trust the people”. They deserve nothing more.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, not only on the content of his report but its presentation, which makes it a pleasure to read. I should not have been surprised about that latter aspect because he has access to a good firm of printers.
I take part in this debate with diffidence. Unlike my noble friend Lord Turnbull, I never served in a local government department, and I lack the local knowledge that so many of today’s speakers have shown, but there are some aspects of my experience in government which bear on the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. First, from my experience, I confirm that you cannot make things happen in local areas from a desk in Whitehall. The second thing I am sure the noble Lord is right about is that the best way to get something done is to make an identified person on the ground accountable for making it happen and give that person the necessary powers and resources to do so.
When I became Head of the Civil Service, I inherited a programme of reform called “Next Steps”. Its essence was that the delivery of services—for example, issuing passports or driving licences—was set up in the form of an agency under a chief executive. The agency was responsible to a Minister—it was not a quango—but the chief executive was given a budget, which he or she was empowered to use with wide discretion to achieve objectives set by the Minister. Despite initial opposition by the Treasury, I believe that this structure not only raised the morale and the sense of responsibility of civil servants delivering services but produced a real improvement in the quality of the services they gave to the public. The same principle should be applied to decisions about local infrastructure. Local people will be the best judges of where infrastructure is needed.
The million-dollar question—as shown in the chapter by Tony Travers—is how one gets the balance right between local services controlled locally and local services controlled centrally. There have to be some locally delivered services that are controlled centrally. Social security is an obvious example. People think it unfair if the benefit received in one area differs from that received in another. A difficult current example is community care, where there are now complaints about a postcode lottery following central government’s devolution of responsibility to local authorities.
We should not disguise from ourselves the fact that centralising pressures are very strong, not least because when voters are dissatisfied with the quality of their life, it is on central government that they wreak their revenge, and then excessive centralisation demotivates local people. That is the essence of the problem. Moreover, when responsibility for services is centralised, it leads to silos. Those responsible for education policy become distant from those responsible for health policy, who are in turn distant from policing policy and so on. Yet on the ground, local problems—for example, drug dealing—often can be dealt with only by a combined effort from all these services.
What does this amount to in relation to the proposals in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine? I support the proposal for more combined authority mayors with greater powers and resources delegated to them. I like the idea of delegating to them responsibility for affordable housing, schools’ performance, the skills budget and unemployment programmes. I also like the idea of the requirement for each of them to produce five-year strategic programmes for their regions. However, like my noble friend Lord Turnbull, I am sceptical about the proposal in the noble Lord’s report for a super -department of the regions on the lines of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment in the 1970s. Such a department, combining responsibility for planning, local government, housing, transport and employment, would be too cumbersome for a single Secretary of State, as the experience of the 1970s showed.
However, like my noble friend Lord Turnbull, I strongly support the reinstatement of collocated regional offices led by a single official. In 1994, when my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Turnbull were successively Permanent Secretaries at the DoE and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was President of the Board of Trade, a structure of regional offices was established, containing representatives of a wide range of Whitehall departments. The aim was that they should work together with local government in co-ordinating the central government responsibilities for which they were responsible to make the most effective impact on local problems. In my view, which my noble friend Lord Turnbull shared, it was a great mistake when in 2011, as part of the austerity programme, those local offices of central government were abolished.
I believe that the outgoing Prime Minister cares about the matters covered in this report. Sadly, preoccupation with Brexit and, I suspect, an innate caution have prevented anything effective being done in the past three years. The resolution of Brexit, which we all profoundly hope for—by which I mean resolution of the question of whether we go or stay—together with the arrival of a new Prime Minister, offer a fresh opportunity. The leading candidate for the post of Prime Minister, whatever his other characteristics, has the ability to enthuse and inspire. The noble Lord’s report provides the fertile field on which enthusiasm and inspiration can flower, together with a number of very useful practical proposals. It is important to the future of our country that the new Prime Minister takes advantage of it.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest in local government as a Local Government Association vice-president. I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for initiating this very interesting debate.
Giving people greater control to shape their communities is a good thing. It makes decision-making more accountable, allows for local discretion and delivers better value for money. Councils, as leaders of their communities, are best placed to bring communities together and transform lives for the better. Local government already provides more than 800 different services to local communities, supporting residents each and every day. As well as supporting vulnerable and elderly residents, councils also help build vibrant local economies that create the conditions for businesses and communities to prosper.
Frankly, councils continue to do a great job, but local government is ambitious to do more and can do more. Give councils the freedom to decide, certainly over the future and new funding, and local government will build great communities. I welcome the report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. Importantly, it supports the LGA’s case that we have an opportunity for change, so that the most centralised country in the western world, which we are, could become more devolved.
As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and the LGA both recognise, we need to empower local leaders to deliver better outcomes for their communities. That is why the Government must show more ambition than they have done to date. The combined authorities have demonstrated the real, tangible benefits of devolution, but the combined authority model does not suit everyone. We need a flexible devolution settlement that all areas of England can get behind so that no part of our country is left behind. Put simply, if we are to tackle the challenges and seize the opportunities, we need devolution to be made available right across England, including to non-metropolitan areas as well as to our great cities.
At its conference in Bournemouth earlier this month, the LGA launched its manifesto for change, #CouncilsCan. As the LGA’s new chairman, Councillor James Jamieson said in his speech to the conference, this manifesto is a bold call to arms asking the Government for the powers, freedoms, flexibilities and funding to deliver great communities. With the Government absorbed by responding to the demands of EU exit for the foreseeable future, there will not be capacity at the national level to negotiate individual devolution deals. A new localism settlement is needed, a step change in the way we think about devolution that looks to a package of sustainably funded, locally led service reform. #CouncilsCan sets out a positive case for a new localism settlement underpinned by a devolution Bill and a local government finance Bill in the next Queen’s Speech. Of course, by closing the £8 billion funding gap facing councils by 2025, the spending review can deliver financial certainty to hard-pressed councils up and down the country.
It is not just the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and the LGA who are making the case for devolution. I am pleased to say that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution, of which I am co-chair, is bringing together parliamentarians and those working on public service reform to look into these issues and build cross-party support for the new devolution settlement the country needs, from a devolved and integrated approach to skills and careers to a revolution in broadband and transport infrastructure, from reform of the common agricultural policy to the future of local industrial strategies. Our group is asking the big questions and helping form the big ideas that will ensure that the LGA’s new devolution settlement becomes reality. In recent years, the pace of devolution has slowed. We need to bring our focus back to this agenda and realise the long-held promise of devolution. This means devolution to all areas of the country, with bespoke arrangements that give us postcode choice, as I much prefer to say rather than postcode lottery.
I bring my remarks to a close by noting that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and organisations such as the LGA, have provided us with a roadmap to achieve the goal of devolved services. I commend them for this. I also support those local leaders, represented through the LGA, who are calling on our new Prime Minister to use the next Queen’s Speech, Budget and spending review to deliver a new localism settlement. I hope the Minister and the Government will act on their advice, thereby ensuring we renew our efforts to empower communities through local government.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He has tirelessly worked on decentralisation and the improvement of urban life in this country and this is another a great step. He started by saying that we are in a constitutional crisis. I shall take up that theme because, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, a crisis is also a time of opportunity. The crisis is the crisis of Brexit. To make a long story short, I believe that Brexit is an English crisis. It is because England is the only non-devolved region in the union, because we are one of the most centralised administrations in the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and other noble Lords said, and because the other places are devolved that England faces the full burden of centralisation. That is why we have created mayors, combined authorities and so on. The power to decide what they can do and what they will have by way of money is very much in Whitehall. You may want to decentralise by putting Whitehall ministries all over the country, but the power will still remain in Whitehall. Therefore, one of the issues to tackle would be how we can devolve and decentralise England.
That is what I want to speak about, because I believe it is a challenge. My link is going to be reform of the House of Lords, which is one of my hobbies. The last time we had a House of Lords Reform Bill we had a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament but the Bill came to nothing, for reasons that I will not go into. However, at that time I submitted a note to the Joint Committee saying that what we needed was the three devolved regions, plus England being carved up into 10 regions, each sending 30 elected representatives to the reformed House of Lords. Each region would send those 30 representatives on a list system, so that MPs would not feel threatened that in their constituencies they had rival representatives. The House of Commons could remain the House of Commons, and the House of Lords could be changed into a federal Chamber. The idea was that some of the representatives would be mayors, for example.
We need the regions to be able to come here and exert direct influence on the Westminster Government. If that process could be furthered, we could reform a lot of these top-down reforms and all this ordering about, especially the dependence of local authorities on central government for finance, and so on. For example, we could allow different regions to have different tax systems. As was mentioned, we have an unreformed council tax system, because although house prices have risen, we have not revalued those houses. That was the crisis on which the poll tax was created. If different regions could revise their local house prices in the way that they like, that would in some cases relieve their financial problems.
I do not want to go on because I am the 19th speaker and people must be getting pretty tired by now. We need to crack the problem of over-centralisation without devolution in England. If we can tackle that, we shall make a lot of progress.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is a great delight to take part in this debate and to have listened to the energy and passion that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, still brings to this, decades after he first started his work. Of course, it is not just the reports; it is a record of success, not just in London but, in particular, in Liverpool. As somebody who represented a constituency in the north-west—in Greater Manchester—I am well aware of the breath of fresh air that he brought to the whole region by his work and the commitment he showed there.
When we look at the pattern of devolution activity in the United Kingdom, it is very much something that a new Government do for their first three years, and then it peters out. In 1997 the incoming Labour Government proceeded vigorously, with Liberal Democrat and other support enthusiastically given, with Scottish and Welsh devolution. However, their reforming rather sputtered out when it got to the north-east regional referendum, and not a lot happened on that for another 10 years. In 2010, there was a three-year burst of activity by the coalition Government. I must admit that after two and a half or three years, that petered out as well. I will say something about the Localism Act and its implications in a moment.
Time after time, after the initial burst of activity, Governments take fright. Avoidance of mistakes becomes more important than promotion of change and regimentation becomes more important than innovation. The simplicity of imposing national norms trumps the complexity of having local solutions for local challenges. The antithesis of the devolution of power is the one-size-fits-all event, which freezes the reform process.
I shall give an apparently irrelevant anecdotal example of exactly that. Running through my old constituency of Hazel Grove is the A6. At the time I am talking about, it was a trunk road with a terrible accident record, particularly at one junction controlled by traffic lights. The solution seemed obvious—to have a right-hand filter on the A6—but that was impossible because somebody in Whitehall had decided that the criteria were not met. Accident after accident occurred. Petitions, debates and all sorts of representations failed to produce an answer. An answer came eventually when the A6 was detrunked and became the responsibility of the local highways authority, which promptly installed a right-hand filter traffic, since when the accident record has been very good.
I hope to make the point by a simple anecdote that the idea that people behind desks 200 miles away have the solution to local problems is completely mistaken. That brings me to the Localism Act. I was one of two Ministers in the other place who steered the Localism Act on to the statute book. I will not speak a great deal about it, but I will pick out just two further snapshots. One is about neighbourhood plans. The planning system in this country consists far too much of a two-stage process where developers propose and the community opposes. Neighbourhood planning is designed to be the community proposing and the developer delivering. It has so far been surprisingly successful—surprising even to me, never mind the civil servants who thought it was preposterous. Neighbourhood planning areas are self-defining, a theme that I want to pick up in a second or two. Funnily enough, it has resulted in more homes being designated for planning, not fewer. When the community has the chance, it shows the responsibility necessary.
My second brief example is local enterprise partnerships. One very small flaw in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is that he refers to LEPs as conforming to government boundaries. That is exactly not the case: they were self-identifying and have a wide variety of configurations, from the 10 unitary authorities of Greater Manchester as one LEP to Cornwall County Council and the Isles of Scilly as another. They are of all sizes and shapes. They are not limited to the then existing regional structures. On the Midlands and south-east England boundary, one LEP crosses three pre-existing regions. They have been bafflingly successful in many cases.
The idea of leaving it to local organisations to decide how to organise themselves stunned the bureaucratic mind. Devolution is about treating people as grown-ups, capable of making good choices, not treating them like three year-olds who cannot be trusted with a bag of sweets. Power must move down to localities because there are get better outcomes when it does: the A6 kills fewer people. When you have neighbourhood plans, you get more homes. I thoroughly applaud the report’s analysis and strongly support the many recommendations in it that can lead to stronger and more effective local democratic leadership and economic growth.
However, I have some queries. First, what use would a regional government office for the north-west be? It did not help with the A6 problem. We have to be clear about whether we are talking about devolution or decentralisation. An idle regional office will be very much more tempted to meddle in combined authorities and mayoral activities than the present fragmented structure in central government.
My second point is that I am puzzled by a wish to synchronise elections, thus maximising the risk of catastrophic discontinuities in taking local strategic decisions and direction. Maybe this May’s local elections are an illustration of what can happen when that happens.
My final point is that I detect a lingering hankering after the creation of a uniform system of equal powers and competencies. History and all the evidence and experience show that diversity and pluralism are more likely to produce better outcomes for local communities than a centralised system and structure. I wish the report well and I hope very much indeed that it is taken forward in large measure by whoever turns out to be the next Prime Minister but, bearing in mind that it is something that will happen only in the first three years of a fresh Government, perhaps we might not hold our breath.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I was born in Preston—proud Preston, I say to my noble friend Lord Inglewood —in Lancashire, went to school in Wakefield in Yorkshire and in my first incarnation in the House of Commons was Member of Parliament for Gateshead, so I am a fully paid-up northerner and therefore inevitably, to some extent, a regional policy junkie. I even managed to persuade the good burghers of Orpington, who I later represented in Parliament, that it had some merits as an approach to policy.
I too pay my respects and send some gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for his lifelong championing of regional policy. No one will ever forget his intervention in Liverpool after the Toxteth riots. I am sure, as he will understand, that he is not quite on a par in the Liverpool pantheon with Bill Shankly, but none the less there is still a great deal of respect and affection for him in Liverpool. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out, there was also his work in the Docklands.
Collectively, I am afraid, for Governments over the years, Labour or Conservative, the results of regional policy are very mixed indeed. There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, pointed out, vast improvements in the city centres of our big cities, but too often there are long strands of dreary suburbs and sad small towns that have lost their purpose. There is still far too great a gulf between London and the extremities of the United Kingdom.
I go to Germany quite often and, remembering that it started from what it calls “Stunde Null”—ground zero —when it was a mountain of rubble, what it has done in the intervening period is remarkable. It also went through the refrigeration of East Germany for part of that time. Going from Stralsund in the north to Munich in the south, there is a much greater sense of modernity and equality between the various cities and towns.
I welcome the report from the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, which is another brave, considered stab at doing better next time. First, I totally agree with the need to have someone in charge. Historically, the model is Joe Chamberlain in 19th-century Birmingham, but now we have Andy Street, Andy Burnham, Ben Houchen in Teeside and so forth. I hope that they can become the model for a new period of dynamic mayors. As the noble Lord also said, we need drive at the centre to match up the drive at the regional and city level. He was such a person when he was in government. I served with him in the Cabinet Office and well understood the drive he put into it so successfully. That is essential.
The second thing is skills. We have lots of graduates with lots of skills but we do not have enough non-graduates with plenty of skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, pointed out in a debate the other day on apprenticeships, secondary education and further education, we need a way through, an uncapping of the further education side of our educational system so that it is on a par with university education, which we have done so well in. Until further education becomes an equal and sensible course, we will not get the skills we need in our non-academic young people.
Infrastructure is the third thing. Of course we need the right things in transport, housing and so on, but we must not forget the value of cultural spending in our regional and city developments. Who can deny the impact of Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao? It was transformative and an example of how sensible and frankly gigantic spending has reaped rewards on a massive scale. All this will cost money, but as Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in a very good article in the Times the week before last, there is at the moment a particular space for more public spending. After seven or eight years, the deficit is now quite low, thank heavens, although the national debt is high. Interests rates are extraordinarily low and will remain low over the next two or three years as a result of the Bank of England’s term funding scheme. We can therefore increase public spending. We should do that much more than reducing taxation which, particularly for the rich, is a very bad idea at this time. The state needs every penny of income to finance the expenditure we need not only in this area but in other areas as well, not only on regional issues but on the police, social care and justice which have become underfunded. If we do that, and if at the same time we look to devolving more powers to our city regions and to our cities, we will be doing the right thing. If that shows that we are becoming more European, how ironic it is that on leaving Europe we should be becoming more European. I am afraid that whether we like it or not it is the right thing to do socially and economically as well as regionally.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up the Back-Bench speeches. I am not sure whether the Whips are punishing me or rewarding me by giving me this position. Like every noble Lord who has spoken, I welcome the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He analysed the historical role of cities in driving this country’s development and economy. If we compare English city regions to the devolved authorities, they have less clout and less resource. Yet, if we are to make progress in very difficult times the noble Lord is surely right that the potential for city regions, like mine in the West Midlands, to help drive forward the economy of the country again is very powerful.
I do not think that all noble Lords quite agree with the structure the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, proposed, with a very powerful department of the regions in Whitehall and mayors and combined authorities locally that will take this forward, but I do not think we have to agree with the structure to agree with his powerful premise about the role of city regions. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, put his finger on it when he said that it will not happen unless we change Whitehall’s view that it is superior in every way to local government and local public bodies. Having spent 10 years as a Minister espousing the Whitehall supremacy philosophy, I recognise the challenge that we face if we are to see changes. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out, centralising pressures in this country are very strong. Most pressure groups are nationally based and put huge pressure on Ministers to intervene and make sure there is no variation at the local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, mentioned social care. Health and social care are the areas for which I had the most responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, did not mention health and social care in his speech, save, I think, in relation to the “condition of the people report”, which he wants mayors to publish and which would have stats on health, social care and well-being. The National Health Service presents in a nutshell some of the dilemmas about what we mean by devolution. The NHS is a huge employer. It has major responsibilities for the health of a population and has links to R&D investment, life sciences and the pharmaceutical sector. It is crucial to our economy. Any mayor must want to embrace health and social care in any development plan they have; they would be very foolish not to do so. On the other hand, we know that the public regard the NHS as a national service. We know that if we were to suggest the devolution of the NHS and that we could change it from being free at the point of use—that is the implication of devolution —there would be major opposition. We also know that concepts such as postcode prescribing are deplored by the public, pressure groups and just about everyone.
If we think that devolution will really cover most of our great services, we then come to the issue of how we would deal with the NHS. Greater Manchester has made a start and it is a useful model. Interestingly, in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, the submission from Greater Manchester claims that health and social care was devolved in February 2015. In fact, nothing was devolved to Greater Manchester relating to health and social care. What happened was that the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Care were delegated to Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester has some responsibilities related to budget and some to operational management, but it has to carry them out within the rules set by the Department of Health and Social Care. That seems a very sensible first step because it maintains the concept of a national NHS but gives the mayor and combined authority more say over strategy and how it is to be run. If we extend this, it may well be that the national aspect of some services means that we cannot devolve them in a way that we could other parts of the economy. At PMQs today the Prime Minister answered a Question about the reconfiguration of services in Shropshire. It brings home that, while devolution sounds great in principle and is a route worth taking, when it comes to actual services it will be hard to work through.
I finish on a point raised by my noble friend Lord Rooker. Of course the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has no chance of implementation unless there is a new financial settlement. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly pointed out an example in Cambridgeshire of why greater flexibility is needed if we are to make sense of the combined authority there and the huge potential for developing the economy that there clearly is. At one point in his report, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine says,
“the government should allow mayoral authorities to raise local taxes and charges”.
He then says,
“it is ludicrous for British tourists to pay to visit historic collections and buildings abroad while millions of visitors to this country enjoy free access”.
I am so keen on this because we have the Commonwealth Games coming to Birmingham in 2022, and 75% of the costs will be met by the Government and 25% by the City of Birmingham, whose finances are not as strong as one might wish. It would like to be allowed to set hotel tax to help contribute. I understand that Edinburgh will be allowed to go down this route. I know that, traditionally, the Treasury will be opposed to this, but, just as a pilot we ought to allow Birmingham to have a go at it and see if it has an impact on tourism and hotel usage. If we are serious about devolution we should take a living example where a city council needs to rate some resources and give it a go. I hope the Minister will at least be able to give some positive words on that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we have all enjoyed this fascinating and detailed report. It has formed the basis of a very worthwhile debate. I will start, if I may, by looking at one or two of the tensions within it—most of all, the tension between the mayor as a model for efficiency, leadership, effectiveness and regeneration and what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, refers to in his conclusions as the need for this to be based on,
“our families, our schools, our communities, our social services”,
so that government at all levels must work,
“in partnership with communities and businesses”,
and individuals.
That is part of the difficulty we have in Britain at the moment. I was very struck by a long article in the Financial Times yesterday looking at those who voted for Brexit three years ago and who still feel left behind now—why they voted as they did and why they still feel immensely discontented not just with Brussels but with London. The article said that they are as much against London as they are against Brussels. There is a sense of hopelessness, a fear that there are no decent-quality jobs, poor education, deeply inadequate skills training, obstacles getting to work and shrinking public services. As a result, as they see less government—I certainly see this in Bradford—and as local government and local services shrink, ordinary, poor people have less and less contact with it. It is there in London, not providing you with local services which you see—or even with police whom you see, as community services deteriorate.
If we are going to restore confidence in democracy and government, we must care about that as well as fundamental and essential regional regeneration, which is the core of this report and with which I strongly agree. I have spent much of my career teaching and researching European international politics. I am deeply conscious that those who designed the European Economic Community, Jean Monnet above all, believed that it would receive legitimacy by providing results and did not need a whole complex of democratic accountability and scrutiny. We all know where that got us. It provided results, but it did not achieve legitimacy. My worry about the strong mayor model, particularly without the scrutiny, is that we risk reaching that point of continuing alienation among much of the population, even though the effectiveness is there.
As a number of speakers have said, we face a deeply divided country, with deep regional inequalities and deep mistrust. The country has become increasingly centralised over the last 40 or 50 years. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about the problem of Whitehall attitudes. They are also Westminster attitudes. When my daughter was in the Department of Health, I remember being very struck when she said that most of her colleagues did not think it at all attractive to go up to York and visit the outstation of the department that was there. She was very happy to do so, because she could come to Saltaire at the same time.
I also remember an astonishing conversation on educational matters I had some weeks ago with a Minister. When I started in politics, the West Riding education authority was one of the best in the country. It did things that people in the rest of the country did not and experimented with new attitudes. Now I represent a music education charity of which I am a trustee. I went with the heads of our education programme. I found myself having an argument with the Minister about the detail of initial musical education in primary schools around the country. That is the extent of centralisation. It is also why the Department for Education is much bigger than it needed to be in the 1960s.
It is also, incidentally, why I am sceptical about the need for the restoration of regional offices of central government. If we have effective city government and regional government, we do not need central officials checking on them to ensure that they do the right thing and do not put the filter light in on the A6, or whatever it may be. I am not sure whether the UK Government need a large embassy in Edinburgh and Cardiff to keep watch on what they do. If we have effective city and regional government, they ought to be able to manage on their own. Whitehall officials can come up to visit them from time to time and learn how well they are doing.
The Heseltine model, which I on the whole approve of, is a regional revival through concentration on the cities as the hubs for regeneration. It is a far more substantial devolution than the Government have yet been willing to accept of infrastructure, skills education and training, land use, planning, industrial strategy et cetera, and partnership between political and private sector leadership.
I shall focus on some of the obstacles we face in reaching that excellent model. Let us recognise how much we have to change if we are to achieve that vision. First, there is finance, as several noble Lords have said. There is the depth of cuts in local finance and the shortage of resources. Local government in Bradford started with public sanitation in the early 1810s to 1820s. Last year, Bradford closed 42 of its 49 public toilets, so it is going out at the point where it started. It also involved the provision of clean water. That is of course privatised and mainly owned by Australian and Canadian pension funds. Yorkshire Water is now in trouble because it is releasing raw sewage into the wharf upstream from where people bathe.
We have lost our sense of control and some of our local private as well as public leadership. As I look around the Aire Valley, where I live, I am conscious that we have lost a lot of our small companies and that when new small companies develop—we had had two in Saltaire 15 years ago—they get taken over by multinationals. Salts Mill is now owned by an American multinational. That means that we do not have the local industrial or financial leadership that we need to help with the regeneration. The regional CBI and the regional Institute of Directors represent the regional branches of a large number of multinational firms. That is a problem.
It is also a real problem with banks and the financial sector. My father spent his career working for Barclays Bank dealing with funding for small companies and reporting to his local head office in a federal bank, as it was organised. Banks are now very much national and multinational and do not retain that link. We must rebuild a whole host of things that we have lost at the local or regional level. We are about to lose EU structural funds. Perhaps I could persuade the Minister to say a little about the shared prosperity fund, what he sees it doing and whether it will be entirely direct from Whitehall or whether the regions will have some say in how it is distributed. That is of real concern to the less prosperous regions of England. Perhaps we ought to begin to discuss whether financial equalisation across England is something that ought to be much more public and much more politically debated. When I look at Germany, I am struck by how Finanzausgleich is one of the things that is most bitterly argued between the different Länder—quite rightly, because the rich areas do not like transferring funds to the poorer, although it is one of the things that has to be done within a national community. Let us have that argument out in the open rather more. We have it on the Barnett formula; we do not have it for the English regions. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, this is absolutely no time for tax cuts. What we need now is long-term investment.
I am not entirely sure that city regions are the answer and I am very struck that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and others have suggested that larger regions may in some ways be what we need. In Yorkshire we are stuck in our devolution with the Government because, as the Minister will know, the majority of local authorities prefer a one Yorkshire model. The Minister for the northern powerhouse is trying to make us accept a three-city region model and a sort of rural powerhouse—whatever that means; he could not explain it—for north Yorkshire. A one Yorkshire model is preferred because our city regions overlap, the city boundaries are very difficult to draw and that is what suits the people in the region. I hope to hear a little more from the Minister about whether there may possibly be a little movement at some point on that, although perhaps it will not be until we have a new Government.
The damage to confidence in democracy that has been done over the past two generations, inflicted by repeated reorganisation of local government and increasing Whitehall interference, is a real problem that we face in this country. We need a new settlement, one that can be agreed between the parties and between successive Governments. Devolution to city-led regions is key, but is not enough on its own to restore confidence in democracy and close the gap between people in the provinces and our governing elite. We desperately need action to narrow the gap between the prosperous metropolis and the regions and cities outside the south-east.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, may I say how pleased I am to be able to respond to this debate on a motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine? I commend the work he has done in this report and also over many years to empower our great cities, support communities and enable them to face up to the challenges in our world. That is not to say that I agree with every word in the report; but, like my noble friend Lord Rooker, I say that it is an excellent report and an important contribution. There are many recommendations in the report that I fully agree with and would want to take further.
When he introduced the debate, the noble Lord talked about two cities. You could feel that you are living in two different worlds, but actually be living close by the other. In my own borough of Southwark, we have the very prosperous south of the borough, which is a wealthy and nice place to live in, and we now have a much more regenerated north of the borough. There are lots of tourists there and things have improved dramatically in the last 20 or 30 years. In other parts, though, in Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham, the borough is still struggling and there are all sorts of problems in terms of drugs, knife crime and housing. You really could be living in a different world in the same borough, so that was a very important point that he made.
I should also at this point declare that I am vice-president of the Local Government Association—my usual declaration that I make on the numerous times that I speak in this House. Among other things, I am a Londoner, as you can probably tell; but for many years I lived in Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham, so I know the east Midlands very well. It is a great place to live and needs to have power to be developed and to move forward. As the noble Lord said in his introduction, such places have to be able to compete in a world that is changing at a pace unprecedented in our history. Things are moving so fast now; new technologies arrive in our country, become obsolete and then something else moves in, whereas before, things used to never change. We need to address this bigger picture to ensure that our great cities and institutions are fit for purpose.
I have raised several times in the House the issue of the combined authorities. We seem to be creating a confused patchwork for local government, and for me that is not good. We need a sense of what is going on in each area and who is governing it. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, and I am conscious of the number of different bodies that potentially can be involved in taxation and so on. Not too far away is Bedfordshire, which is a very different operation. We need to understand how places are governed. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, does not agree with me on that but it is my view, and the report gives some welcome structure to the combined authority model.
My noble friend Lord Beecham made a point about the sums of money made available by the Government to the combined authorities, and I agree that they are still quite small sums of money over 30 years or so. If any of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, are to be taken up by the Government, much greater sums of money will have to be made available. If we contrast the money presently available with the money that has been lost to local government since 2010, we see that there is a huge gap.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. If we want something to happen in a local area, it is not going to be delivered from behind a desk in Whitehall. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, made a similar point when she called for further devolution. Local people have a much better understanding of the problems and challenges in their area. If they can get that job, they will do it well. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, said that we need people in charge, and one thing I have learned in my life is that if there are not people in charge to make decisions, you get drift; nothing happens, and there is a lack of focus and then failure. Having people in charge is very important.
Looking at the proposals in the report, I agree that reform of government and of Whitehall is a crucial first step. I like the idea of a department for the English regions, but it would involve significant restructuring and there must be reform as to how Parliament and elected MPs would relate to any new department with such a clear focus. Others might not, but I would welcome the return of the government regional offices; it is disappointing that they were abolished. I have no problem with the Boundary Commission looking at local authority boundaries and at what the authorities do.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made a good point about how some of our cities work. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made a fair point when he talked about city boundaries. I have served on a number of local authorities, including one with 59 Labour members, one Green and a Labour mayor—to be honest, that did not always make for the best government. It does not matter which party it is, we need people on councils to say when a budget is not very good and what should be done instead. If you do not have that, you need it, so we need to find a way for that to happen. I am not an advocate of PR, but in many towns and cities we now have one party dominant in the council chamber. That is not good. I do not know whether we can do anything about that, but we need to find a way of getting somebody else into the chamber—but I do not know how. There is an issue there.
Select Committees of both Houses have an important role to play, but as I said earlier, we need to think about how Members of the House of Commons engage with the governance of English regions. We might not like it, but the world did not come to an end with a Conservative Government in the UK, an SNP Government in Scotland and a Labour Government in Wales. Clearly, parties of different perspectives can work together and function. We need some broader thinking they are about where we are in England. My noble friend Lady Quin talked about what we do there as well.
There is also the point about bringing the heads of the combined authorities together with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. That would give a good focus, but if that happened, it should be expanded to some of our bigger cities, such as Nottingham, Derby or Leicester, where the mayor there, Sir Peter Soulsby, makes a big contribution. Getting them wired into the policy challenges and the policy solutions nationally would be a good thing to do.
I very much liked the idea of looking at what goes on in cities around the world. We can learn much from our partners abroad, and it is a very good thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, mentioned that. I was not so keen on his football analogy, though. As a Millwall supporter, we do not get any European football. Our trips are normally up to Birmingham to play Birmingham City, or perhaps to visit my noble friend Lord Beecham in Newcastle. Getting together and working with other cities is an important thing to do.
Greater Manchester, which in many ways is the most developed of all the combined authorities, is a very good example. As a noble Lord said in a previous debate, many of the authorities in Greater Manchester have changed control in recent years, but they still work together very well as a group. There is clearly maturity there. It is a really good model and other parts of our country can look at what goes on in Greater Manchester: even when political control changes, there are still the same problems and challenges, yet they work very well together. It is important that that happens.
I can see the logic of combined authority mayors taking over the roles of the police and crime commissioners. That would be a very good thing. Again, I am not convinced, and many other noble Lords were not, by the idea of transferring various services, such as affordable housing and schools, to the combined authority. I do not necessarily see the merit in that.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who spoke about housing. We have debated this many times. Housebuilding is in the hands of four or five developers. It does not always necessarily get us what we need. As my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe said, partnership between local authorities, housing associations and builders could get the housing we need built. We need to build more social housing in this country. For all sorts of reasons, that would help all of us deal with the problems we have to face.
I agree with the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle about the northern powerhouse and the need to provide additional funding and support for the north of England. I am also conscious that we often debate transport. Try to get from Bradford to Manchester: it is impossible. That is really important to talk about as well, as there are important issues there.
My noble friend Lord Beecham made a welcome call for more funding and power for mayoral authorities to raise taxes and charges, including a tourist tax. I very much support the call from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in that respect regarding the Commonwealth Games. I also agree with his point about the NHS. Again, this is something where Greater Manchester is certainly ahead of the game.
Finally, I was a very young councillor in the 1980s in Southwark. It is fair to say that we were not that happy with the setting up of the London Docklands Development Corporation. It was not universally popular locally, but looking back it is fair to say that what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, did there was absolutely right. Much good was done in the area. Significant regeneration happened and lots of money was brought into the area, with new housing, better transport, with the Docklands Light Railway, and a new financial sector in Canary Wharf. That might not have happened if he had not pushed those things forward. We are very grateful to him for that. In north Southwark, maybe William Shakespeare and Sam Wanamaker had a bit of a role in that too, but we were very lucky with what happened there and what he did. We are grateful for what he pursued there.
I am also really pleased, because the early 1980s were a difficult time for local government: there was a great fracture between central and local government. For all our difficulties, local and national government have a much better relationship nowadays, and we should all welcome that.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for bringing this Motion to Grand Committee today. It has been an excellent debate. He started off by mentioning Brexit, so I will finish on it as well. I agree entirely with his remarks on Brexit. I had the privilege of being in Parliament Square when he addressed the People’s Vote rally. I believed every single word he said then, as I do today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords immensely for what has been an excellent debate. Most importantly, I thank my noble friend Lord Heseltine for bringing this forward and for a thought-provoking report with excellent ideas—making this a full house of compliments from every single speaker, which is a rare event in any debate—and for a first-class introduction to this debate.
I do not necessarily always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but I do on the point about my noble friend’s lasting contribution to British life and the impact he has made. It is singularly rare for somebody to make the sort of impact across the board that he has made in British life, both at the Board of Trade and in the massive impact he has made on regional policy, particularly during his time in Liverpool. I had the privilege of being in Liverpool about three weeks ago, in Berry Street in Toxteth—it is not necessarily an area where people would always vote Conservative, but my noble friend is held in massive affection there, as he is throughout that great city.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just said, his contribution to the Docklands area of London is immense. In Wales, I remember the opening of the National Botanic Garden in Llanarthney, which my noble friend did so much to help with. He was there with Lady Heseltine on that occasion. In terms of lasting contributions, the same is true in Wales.
Turning to the debate, I will make some general points and then try to go through and pick up on the contributions made by noble Lords. I should say in advance that I will make sure that a record of this debate is sent to all relevant government departments, because there is a great danger of silo thinking here. This is not just about the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Probably every single government department needs to see this debate, not least the Treasury. If I miss any points in replying to the debate or run out of time I will make sure that all the points that have been raised are answered in correspondence.
There have clearly been differences over some issues in the excellent contributions—whether people are in favour of having a department of the regions or of having regional offices. There has not necessarily been uniformity on that issue. Where there has been complete agreement is that this is unfinished business in England. I happen to think that responsibility should lie with a metro mayor; not everybody does, but everybody accepts that there has to be somebody there. There has to be accountability for this to move forward. I believe strongly in having someone at the helm, such as Andy Burnham. He is politically different from me, but I do not think one could argue that he has not made a good fist of carrying things forward for Manchester. He is there at the helm, and that is important. The same is true of Andy Street in the West Midlands. I happen to believe that that is important, and so do the Government.
There is also the importance of localism, trusting people locally with things that should be decided locally. As I go around the country—this morning I was in Oakham and then Peterborough; as I have said, I have been in Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester and Cornwall within the last month—what consistently comes across is that people want that sense of belonging to something and being able to help decide things locally. The most responsive way of doing that in most cases—clearly some decisions have to be made at a different level to the most local—is having people doing it locally. That sense of localism is important.
I also believe that we cannot go for a rigid blueprint. We have heard very different stories from different communities, partly because of their size and partly because of the nature of where they are in the country. A town of 50,000 people just outside London is very different to a town of 50,000 people in Cumbria or Northumberland; their needs will be very different.
We are at a pivotal point for the country, with a new Prime Minister and a new Government, and clearly there are decisions to be made—the in-tray will be substantial. I agree with a sentiment that has come across that because of Brexit, whatever view one takes of it, our eyes have been taken off the ball as a country, and probably as a Government, on all sorts of decisions that need resolution. Again, there is a very real sense of that up and down the country when one visits communities, whether people are for remain or for Brexit. There are things that they say the Government and Parliament should be getting on with. There is a sense of alienation—that might be too strong a word, but there is certainly a sense that, as a Parliament, we are perhaps losing the plot. This is something that a new Government must grapple with.
I will turn to individual contributions and once again thank noble Lords for a very wide-ranging debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, spoke of Cornwall, with which he has a close connection and expertise. As he well knows, we have a devolution deal in place for Cornwall. It is the one area in England where we have a devolution deal where there is not a metro mayor. I agree with the noble Lord that there are issues relating to Cornwall that are very different from other parts of the country—I had better not say other parts of England because one thing that much of Cornwall is united on is that it is not part of England. There are issues of language and culture; I was down there last week and understand very well their importance. It is very different from metropolitan Britain, and we must not forget those important distinctions.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, reminded us quite rightly that this is not just about the money; it certainly is about the money, but that is not the only point of regional policy. I very much agree with that and the point he made about levering in private sector funding—a point also made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I also agree with the noble Lord on Richard III, but that is perhaps by the way; we can discuss that at leisure at some other time.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, spoke of nostalgia and welcomed by and large the report and the sense of direction from it. He had some doubt about a department for the regions but agreed with the main thrust of what my noble friend Lord Heseltine says in his report.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson spoke with great authority from different perspectives—from the committee perspective, from being MP for Walsall North and from his commercial experience. That was extremely useful. He referred again to the need to belong and the sense of alienation, which I think was referred to as well by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. There is a great danger of alienation, not just from Brussels. Perhaps alienation is too strong a word, but there is a turning away from London and wanting things to be done more locally and pride in the local area. That is something we need to be aware of, as well as the sense of two nations. We need to be wary, as we always have been, as a party and as a country, of the danger of the two nations to which Disraeli referred in Sybil; we do not want that in any shape or form.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, whom I thank very much for her contribution and her expertise from the National Housing Federation, asked whether we were going to be doing things more deeply and more widely. To deal first with the “more deeply”, it is very much unfinished business as far as the metropolitan areas are concerned. If they want to come forward with proposals for further devolution, we are very open to that. Touching on the issue of police and crime commissioners, that too could be brought forward by the areas that already have devolution. There is, of course, one example other than London where we have a police and crime commissioner who is also the metro mayor: Manchester. The issue of coterminosity of boundaries would need to be looked at in that connection, but that is certainly a point.
As for the “more widely”, certainly there is unfinished business, as we have heard quite rightly from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on Yorkshire. There is unfinished business in South Yorkshire, where, having had authorities sign up to the agreement, we have not got all of them over the threshold to carry things forward. That has caused frustration across parties. We have been doing what we can, and we will still do that across parties to try to achieve that. In Tyneside as well, we have heard that there is unfinished business. I think we all would want to end what is a patent absurdity of devolution north of the Tyne but largely not south of the Tyne, except for transport.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, referred to the great things achieved in Gateshead, which is absolutely true, including the Sage, the BALTIC and the bridge. However, for them to be part of the agreement with Newcastle must follow, as night follows day; it is crazy for one part of the Newcastle area to be devolved and not the other part.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that this was not to detract from London, but that the aim must be to bring economic development elsewhere—although that is not the only aim of what we seek to do. However, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that he then seemed to round on Oxford and Cambridge. Following on from what my noble friend Lord Lansley said, by the same token, they are not seeking money and this is an area of growth that helps the whole country. The aim must be to help all areas flourish, and that is what we are seeking to do.
The noble Lord raised the question of the northern powerhouse. The north in general is benefitting from £3.4 billion of investment going to locally determined projects, and specifically £337 million going to transport in the metro area of Newcastle, an area that includes places south of the Tyne. Government money does find its way to the north, but I understand that people will want to argue the case for their own area.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for her positive and powerful contribution, as always, on behalf of her area and more generally. She cautioned against the creation of two nations and alienation, which is absolutely right.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his point about the chambers of commerce. I will take that away and underline it with BEIS. It is a very important point in carrying this forward. We must note the concrete examples he gave from Birmingham of the NEC, the airport and so on. I thank him for that. He also talked about the nature of Cambridge, the most prosperous city in Europe, which is something that should benefit the whole country.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was very supportive of the report and referred to the transformation of Liverpool. He said quite correctly that Whitehall finds devolution difficult, which I know about from the Welsh perspective. It has got better in relation to Wales—much better—but there is still work to be done. I recognise what the noble Lord said.
I neglected to mention earlier the Select Committee, which I think is a good idea. Whether it is in the shape of a Joint Committee or not is above my pay grade and expertise, but it is an idea worth pushing.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others referred to the tourist tax. From going to Europe, we are all familiar with the bill at breakfast time for the tourist tax. We all pay it very willingly, and so it seems like a good idea. I had better be careful in going any further than that, except to say that we will forward the idea and the comments made to the Treasury.
Recently, I was in Birmingham for Windrush events, and was taken to an event in support of the Commonwealth Games. There is a growing enthusiasm, as there was in London, but I agree that it needs financial underpinning. Presumably the Treasury will be aware of that and will want to make sure that it is at least as great a success as the Olympic Games in London in 2012.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, spoke from her experience in Bristol and talked about the great European cities. The politicians on the continent who have come forward from being mayor are notable, including Jacques Chirac and Sarkozy, Matteo Renzi in Florence and, a generation previously, Willy Brandt in Berlin. There is a much closer link there, whereas here we have previously been able to offer only Joe Chamberlain. I suspect that that is about to change next week when it comes to mayors who have gone on to other things.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked about the borrowing cap. I will give him more details in a letter, if I may, but work is progressing on that, with examples in Brighton and Hove and in Stoke. It is beginning to happen, but it is early days; I will enlarge on that in a letter. He referred also to the general position on constitutional reform, for which a case could certainly be made. He also asked about the issue of mayors and police and crime commissioners, which I think I have covered.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood also talked about the great European cities and the global nature of London. Many people referred to the growing imbalance in Britain and the centralisation. It is true of France, to some extent, but it is possibly greater in Britain. Part of that is just because of the global nature of London, which it would be very difficult to do anything about even if we wanted to. We do need to encourage the provincial dynamism that he spoke about; it was a point very well made.
My noble friend Lord Haselhurst, with his great experience of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Birmingham and, more recently, Saffron Walden and north Essex, recognised how valuable it is to seek to ensure that we get a rebalancing within the country and have local power going to our great cities and, indeed, beyond, throughout England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, spoke powerfully about what is going on in Gateshead, as did my noble friend Lord Horam. In terms of Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, where she does so much, she recognised that the current structure does not make sense. Anything that we are able to do in a pragmatic way to make it work more effectively would be really welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, who has roots in Liverpool, referred powerfully to the situation in Toxteth and how that was turned round, so that now one goes to Liverpool and there is a great sense of pride about the Albert Dock, the cathedrals and Toxteth. It has changed massively and, although there are still challenges, it is very different from how it was previously.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, gave a great welcome to the report. He talked about putting someone in charge, which is a theme that came across and with which many agree. He had doubts about a department for the regions and talked about the dangers of silo thinking, which I think we all recognise. He also talked about the focus on Brexit, which has meant that we have not paid attention to other things, and indicated that there is a “fertile field for enthusiasm”. That is a message to carry forward and I thank him very much.
My noble friend Lady Eaton talked about councils being best placed to deliver for local people. Again, that theme came through.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, perhaps gave this more of a Brexit spin. I am not sure that I agree with him totally that Brexit is an English crisis. For example, Wales voted almost the same way as England. That is not something I am happy with, but it is a fact of life, so it is a little bit wider than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, talked about the energy of my noble friend Lord Heseltine and how he brought this issue to bear, which has been a mission for him through the years—and thank goodness for that. He had some very valid points about traffic situations. Again, I recognise that from Wales, where if you wanted to get a speed limit changed in a village you had to wait for an accident and pray that there was not going to be too serious an accident before you could do it. That has all changed and is very much better.
My noble friend Lord Horam talked about his experience from Preston, Gateshead and, more recently, Orpington, and the importance of putting someone in charge and having drive at the centre.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, welcomed what we are seeking to do and, though not necessarily agreeing with all that was in the report, talked about the importance of a new financial settlement. I agree with that. Clearly, it is going to be a matter for a spending review and the new Government, but these things will come with a price tag. It is not just about the money, but money will be needed for much of this. I have dealt with the point on the Commonwealth Games and the tourist tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made valid points, some of which we have been dealing with in the public lavatories legislation, such as the position in Saltaire and Bradford. He talked about how we need to break the logjam in Yorkshire, not least because the area he represents and is from is unrepresented by a metro mayor—my personal view is that that is not a desirable situation—and an impasse exists in South Yorkshire. He asked about the shared prosperity fund. I fear this is the usual line, but there is no change on it; it will be a matter for the spending review. It will obviously take into account the interests of different parts of the country and seek to ensure that those which most need the shared prosperity fund—perhaps those which previously benefited from cohesion funding—will continue to receive benefits.
Lastly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the points he raised. I agree with much, but not all, of what he said. As usual, he made some very good points. He spoke about the transformative changes brought about in Docklands in London, which is absolutely true. I should perhaps say in parenthesis that, in Wales, something similar happened with the Cardiff Bay development, which Nicholas Edwards, the late Lord Crickhowell, took forward. The docklands in Cardiff is a larger area than the docklands in London, but the project has been similarly transformative.
With that, I thank noble Lords very much. I will write to answer points of detail that I have missed, but I once again thank my noble friend Lord Heseltine for ensuring that we have had such a great debate. This must be a rare occasion on which there are probably more people in the Moses Room than in the Chamber of the House. That is another tribute to him.
Lord Heseltine
My Lords, I am overwhelmed by the generosity of the tributes paid to the report. I am overwhelmed to speechlessness by the generosity of the words of the Minister—I am even tempted to wonder whether I have been forgiven. I am doubly grateful that he is preparing to send a full record of this debate to the civil servants in every relevant department. They will be grateful for a clear steer coming from any Minister on any subject. I have taken the liberty of sending the report to the two people who will have a chance to do something about it, so it is getting wide coverage across the globe.
It is the convention that I do not respond in detail to the remarkable contributions. I may perhaps clarify that the report was commissioned by the six conurbation authorities and published on their behalf. The issues which have flowed have perhaps widened the debate in a way that I did not intend.
Classically—the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Beecham, made this point—the contrast between what has happened to the west and the east of the Pennines is a microcosm of my experience over 40 years of why it is easy for local people to say, “Give us the money, give us the power”, until you say, “Produce a structure that gives us the confidence that you know how to deal with it”. I find it tragic that the proposed new arrangements in Newcastle and the debate in Yorkshire are still proceeding, when in other great English cities they have managed to find an accord. I hope that this debate can make some contribution.
What comes out of this debate, and the most generous compliment that is made to your Lordships’ House on occasion, is the quality of the contributions, based upon that one immense human asset: experience. Everybody who has spoken knew and cared a lot about what they were talking about. They were able to contribute a dimension from their background and experience. I found that enormously impressive, and it meets my personal experience of engaging on the ground with politicians of all parties who are dealing with these complex issues. The moment they become part of the manifesto sloganising of party politics, it becomes divisive, too much and all somebody else’s fault—we all know the language used, and I am a past master at exploiting it. But when you have a piece of derelict land, there is not much Marxism or wild capitalism about what you do; you have a problem to solve, and the sort of people involved in this usually can come together, have a discussion and find a solution.
That is what the vast majority of local decision-making is about. You want people with the power and the free sense that they are responsible and accountable to be in a position to do something about it. However many messages you send, if you are sitting in London, you are not there. It is just words coming out of the ether, but the derelict ground still needs to be dealt with.
The Minister self-evidently has a problem, with which we all sympathise. Like everyone in this debate, he has no idea what next week will bring. What is certain is that there will be no clarity next week, or next month. Whichever way the debate goes, traumas of one sort or another will continue to dominate Britain’s public life and to paralyse a great deal of it.
Always the optimist, looking on the bright side I have one new proposal coming out of today’s debate, which the Minister might care to circulate, not just to the civil servants but to his parliamentary colleagues. This House knows, understands and cares profoundly about this issue, so while the Government are sorting out Britain’s future and its relationship with the European Union, why not give us the chance to initiate legislation? Why not relax the Whips and let us get on with trying to produce the framework for legislation that could take forward the broadly consensual thrust of everything that has happened today? When ultimately the Government come back to us and tell us that they have sorted out the big strategy and know where Britain’s future will be, we will have for them a document that they can then introduce in another place—and carve up in a way that politicians always do.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Wednesday 17th July 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2019 View all Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text
Interfaith Dialogue
Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to work with European leaders and the leaders of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths to develop a comprehensive plan for inter-faith dialogue for areas of religious conflict which includes methods for mediation in order to facilitate improved ways of working between communities.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the United Nations Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes. However, we have concerns over how the plan will be implemented. In the UK, following the publication of the final report of the independent review of FCO support for persecuted Christians, we are working across government to see what else we can do to support members of faith and belief communities around the world.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that constructive response. The tensions between adherents of different faiths, and subsets within them, are of course an inescapable part of the story of humanity, including between Judaism, Christianity and Islamism. That trio have common roots in the area that centres on Jerusalem, but they are now present in all the continents alongside other faiths. I draw attention to the crucial innovation in Africa of a hotline between the bishop and the imam in the proselytising borderland of Kaduna in northern Nigeria, which has already saved thousands of lives. Do Her Majesty’s Government agree that, in line with the global UN principles that the Minister mentioned, we Europeans have a vested interest in providing wherewithal? I do not mean just in rapid response; I mean helping to engender permanent co-operative arrangements on the ground in critical areas based, inter alia, on the competences from European agencies such as providing help to train mediators and experts in logistics and communications.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for the practical and interesting example he has shared with the House. I am pleased that the Government are committed to preventive diplomacy such as mediation, and are working closely with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to enhance the UK’s work in this area. The UK believes that mediation requires a concerted approach from a range of actors. These include regional and sub-regional organisations, civil society, religious leaders and the meaningful participation of women. The Government are happy to facilitate a telephone conversation between the most reverend Primate and the leader of Nigeria’s Muslims, should he require such assistance.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I am the president of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. We have conducted a survey about anti-Semitism among young Jewish people in every EU state. Sadly, we have discovered that nearly half of all those young people have suffered from some form of anti-Semitism activity over the past 12 months. The UK has the second-largest Jewish population in the EU and it is clear that the leadership required to combat anti-Semitism has to start at the top. I therefore salute those members of the Labour Party in this House who signed the letter published in this morning’s Guardian to try to deal with anti-Semitism in the party. The Government of the United States have appointed a special envoy to deal with global anti-Semitism, Mr Elan Carr. Will the United Kingdom Government consider doing the same?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord depicts a troubling scenario in the result of the survey to which he referred. I assure him that the Government are committed to combating anti-Semitism both internationally and domestically. At an event at the United Nations General Assembly last September, my noble friend Lord Ahmad reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to education and dialogue to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism in all its forms. Where we are aware of or witness it, it behoves us all to stand up, call it out and condemn it without equivocation.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I widen the question: have the Government developed a social cohesion framework or action plan for post Brexit, or post a decision to remain, that ensures that individuals and groups who seek to divide and to promote extremism cannot play to fears within some communities? For example, have the Government any views on Canada’s intention to introduce a new digital charter to combat hate speech and misinformation?
Baroness Goldie
The Government have strict laws to deal with such matters, as the noble Lord will be aware. As he will also be aware, my noble friend Lord Ahmad is special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, and I think the Chamber will want to acknowledge his tremendous work. Indeed, the reason he is not here this afternoon is that he is in Washington representing the UK at the US Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. That is one example of what the United Kingdom is doing both domestically and globally to address the issues that rightly concern the noble Lord.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, in April my colleague the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and His Holiness Pope Francis together hosted a spiritual retreat at the Vatican for civil and religious leaders of war-torn South Sudan. This was a clear demonstration of the kind of ecumenical joint initiative between religious leaders that can promote reflection and reconciliation in troubled parts of the world. Does the Minister agree that such initiatives benefit all communities, not only those of faith, and that the global Anglican Communion would be a valuable partner in any scheme such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lea?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the right reverend Prelate and pay tribute to the work to which she referred. It is to be commended and is an interesting example of what can be done with both determination and imagination. She is correct that such initiatives can produce broader benefits beyond the immediate arenas of the parties involved.
Lord Chartres (CB)
Does the Minister agree that British universities, with their diverse student and staff bodies, are particularly hopeful and unexploited places in which to do precisely what the noble Lord proposes? Is she aware of the work done, for example, by the London School of Economics interfaith centre, especially its oversubscribed faith and leadership programme? Could this be commended more generally?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for raising an extremely important point. The FCO has extended training on the influence of faith on foreign policy, commissioning the LSE Faith Centre to deliver a training course on religious literacy and introducing a series of regular seminars. We certainly invite other government departments, including DfID, to join this training.
Lord Turnberg (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I admit to knowing a bit about anti-Semitism and not a little about Islamophobia. Both those pernicious doctrines are on the march across Europe and now, unfortunately, in our tolerant Britain. Will the Minister encourage our religious leaders—the rabbis, imams and bishops—to produce several joint statements in which they show their abhorrence for these doctrines to their followers?
Baroness Goldie
We all listened to what the right reverend Prelate said. It is perhaps not for me to tell communities of faith what to do but everyone will have listened with great sympathy to what the noble Lord said, and I imagine that our communities of faith will want to respond positively.
Plastic Bag Charge
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hayward
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the response by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 17 June (HL Deb, cols 645-7), whether they plan to announce the introduction of the 10p plastic bag charge in England in the next month; and if not, what was meant by “very soon”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this important measure affects small businesses. To ensure effective policy, we have asked the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise our evidence of costs and benefits, as set out in the impact assessment. That is in line with the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. We expect the comments in mid-August and, subject to them, we intend to publish our proposal as soon as possible afterwards. An affirmative SI will be required to introduce any changes.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. His department indicated previously in a Written Answer that usage of plastic bags among small and medium-sized retailers will drop by some 2.2 million a day when the policy is introduced. Therefore, since my last Oral Question on this subject on 17 June, 75 million plastic bags have been brought into the waste stream unnecessarily, into the nation’s rivers and the world’s whales. Will my noble friend please indicate more specifically when he is likely to implement a policy that has worked well in Wales and Scotland for a number of years, and how much charities have lost in the period since his last Answer to me?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I first salute my noble friend’s tenacity on this matter. We do want to make progress. We estimate that, overall, surplus income to charities from charging would be £29 million in year one. Clearly, I recognise the importance of reducing bags in circulation, and it is important to register that six out of seven supermarket chains are phasing out the single-use carrier bag by the end of this year. The whole point of the charge is to change consumer behaviour—that is really what this is all about.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has hit the nail on the head. The Secretary of State has been strong on rhetoric but weak on action. Yesterday, he made what was billed as his farewell landmark speech. The truth is that this Government have failed to bring forward a single piece of primary legislation on waste since the last election. So, before he goes, will the Minister put in a special plea to his boss for urgent action to end single-use plastics and introduce the plastic bag charge for which we have been waiting for a very long time?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I very much hope that it is not the Secretary of State’s farewell message, because he has shown great leadership in ensuring that the enhancement of the environment is in everyone’s mindset. We introduced a world-leading ban on microbeads in rinse-off personal care. We announced a ban on the sale and distribution of plastic straws and stirrers, and plastic-stemmed cotton buds, which is due to come in next April. There is plenty of work. I always wish to take speedy action on this, but we need to get it right and we will need to do research on things such as biodegradable plastics so that we make the right choice for the environment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, £50 million was raised from the plastic bag levy last year. Given that retailers do not have to say where the money goes, and last year only 60% chose to do so, what confidence do the Government have that this money will end up going to good causes?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Baroness is right that it has gone to very good causes, and it is a matter of social responsibility that the charities that benefit from the charge should receive that money. I mentioned in my earlier reply that six of the seven supermarket chains are phasing out single-use carrier bags this year, so we will see a change. Although we will continue to have charitable donations, this is about changing consumer behaviour, and charities will need to recognise that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Does the Minister accept that, while the primary objective is clearly to reduce the use of plastic bags, with the benefits that will come from that, our experience in Wales is that there is a secondary benefit in tidying up the environment, particularly the hedgerows, where there are far fewer plastic bags now lodging? Will he bear that in mind in driving this policy forward?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
We discussed these matters earlier this week in relation to littering. The evidence is very clear that the reduction in the number of single-use carrier bags has had a dramatic effect, particularly in terms of marine litter. There has been a very considerable reduction in the appearance on beaches and in the oceans of carrier bags. Of course, most marine litter comes from land sources—so I agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, while I appreciate the 10p tax, why can the Government not go further and ban these bags? Certain plastic items are being banned. There are 500 billion single-use plastic bags made in the world and they have a shelf life of 12 minutes, apparently. New York is about to ban them. California has banned them and so have 32 countries around the world. We can see where consumer interest is going. Why are we not doing this?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, what is happening with the supermarkets—and, indeed, with the 10p charge —shows that we are changing consumers. Yes, we can ban certain things, but if we are to command the consent of most people in this country we have to encourage each and every one of us to change our consumer behaviour. That is why the 5p charge has already had a dramatic impact and why we believe that the 10p charge to all retailers will have a considerable impact. I think that that is the way forward. Banning things is a last resort.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
While the noble Lord is struggling with the problems of consultation in relation to plastic bags and their distribution by supermarkets and others, will he perhaps turn his undoubted abilities to something nearer home: namely, the plastic bags in which we have mail forwarded to our domestic addresses? They are very heavy plastic, they are almost impossible to open and they come at great cost to the taxpayer.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with that. It is obviously a matter for the House authorities. Those of us who subscribe to various societies and organisations are now starting to see that, for instance, the Royal Horticultural Society has biodegradable envelopes rather than plastic ones. That is the way forward. Everyone who is a member of a society or an organisation should perhaps encourage them to start thinking more about the circular economy and not using plastic in it.
Defence: Expenditure
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether current defence expenditure is sufficient to meet the United Kingdom’s responsibilities (1) nationally, and (2) to international partnerships and alliances.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we continue to meet our commitments, both to our defence strategic objectives and to our international partners. The Government have committed to meet the NATO defence investment pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence every year of this Parliament. We have the largest military budget in Europe and are the second largest spender in NATO behind the US.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, those are soothing assurances, as always, from the Dispatch Box but, in reality, we have weekly warnings from the noble Lord, Lord West, on naval stretch, the number of combat of aircraft has fallen from 210 in 2007 to 119 today, and the Army has serious deficiencies in manpower, logistics and equipment. Encouragingly, Boris Johnson, in a letter to Julian Lewis, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, said:
“I can give you an absolute commitment to fund defence fully … I guarantee, of course, that we will exceed the minimum 2% NATO spending target and the defence budget will continue to grow at a minimum of 0.5% annually”.
Given Mr Johnson’s reputation for integrity, consistency and preciseness, how would the Minister prioritise these promised extra resources?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is undoubtedly true that the spending review later this year will be an important event for defence. It will build on the modernising defence programme, which will take forward our threefold agenda to mobilise, modernise and transform defence so that the Armed Forces can tackle new threats. As for equipment, we expect to publish our financial summary of the equipment plan in the autumn, and we will address the longer-term affordability of the plan in the spending review.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I feel considerable sympathy for the Minister because he is defending the indefensible. The Foreign Secretary, who I think probably has a reasonable understanding of our foreign and international commitments, has said that we will double the percentage of GDP spent on defence. The former Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, continually argued against me, saying that there was lots of money for defence, but three weeks after coming out of the post he said that there was a crisis and we needed to spend a lot more on defence. His successor said the same. Clearly, there is a real problem. Come this summer, will we make sure that there is no further hollowing out of our Armed Forces—I emphasise that they are hollowed out—to ensure that we meet our procurement budget?
Earl Howe
I think we can take some reassurance from the fact that the last Budget settlement gave defence a substantial boost, enabling us to say with confidence that we do not have to make any cuts, particularly on the equipment front. However, it is true—as I have said publicly before—that the forecast cost of our equipment plan exceeded the budget over a 10-year period, and if we took no action the plan would not be affordable. We are taking action, however, particularly through effective management to control costs and drive efficiencies, and, as I said, there is additional funding in the Budget. However, the spending review will count for a lot.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Notwithstanding the Minister’s reassuring words, the well-documented pressures and the level of risk in the defence budget are real. Can the Minister provide an assurance that the stock levels of the department’s weapon, ammunition and stores inventories will allow ships, planes and soldiers to deploy with the necessary resilience to conduct sustained operations?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, and can tell him that resilience is one of the priorities of his successor, the current Chief of the Defence Staff. We are acutely aware of the need not to run down munition stocks and a programme is in train to ensure that those matters are addressed.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday the Defence Select Committee report found that MoD expenditure has been cut by an eye-watering 25% since 2010. The former US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs said that during this time there has been,
“a steady decline of Britain as the partner of first choice for the US military”.
Does the Minister accept that austerity has undermined the UK/US defence partnership and that ultimately you cannot do security on the cheap?
Earl Howe
My Lords, no, I do not think it has undermined the partnership. It is true that defence expenditure has declined as a proportion of GDP since the 1980s, but we have seen total defence expenditure steadily increase again since 2014. I would add only that, when we look at defence spending, it is not necessarily appropriate to try to compare like with like, because the nature of defence spending changes year by year, particularly the nature of operational spending. As I said, the core defence budget has been increasing and is currently £39 billion.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, the defence of the realm is the very first responsibility of any Prime Minister and not a laughing matter. Over history, the frigate has been absolutely key. The old ship of the line, the battleship, gets all the glamour but the frigate is key. Taking into account what happened last week with HMS “Montrose” and HMS “Duncan”, does the Minister agree that, with our global responsibilities coming up in the very near future, we need about 25 frigates ready to do the job properly?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. I am not sure about the number he cites but I agree with the tenor of his question. We can be proud of what defence has achieved and the investments it has made in recent years, but we must also be vigilant. We must respond to growing threats, especially more persistent and aggressive state competition, and the disruptive effects of rapid advances in technology. With those things in mind, the MoD has established a set of policy approaches and capability investments designed to keep us on track to deliver the right UK defence for the coming decade.
Gambling: Children in Africa
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of British gambling companies and football clubs in encouraging children in Africa to gamble illegally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the Gambling Commission expects operators which it licenses to obey the law in other jurisdictions in which they operate. It is first and foremost for the Kenyan authorities to investigate the alleged breaches of Kenyan law, as reported by the Sunday Times. Operators licensed by the Gambling Commission are required to report any regulatory investigation or finding into their activities in any other jurisdiction. This lets the commission assess their suitability to hold a licence. We are proud of English football’s global appeal, and want this to continue to grow. At the same time, our clubs and sporting organisations must ensure that they are responsible when it comes to their relationships with betting partners, both in the UK and abroad.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. Companies with British links use techniques banned in the UK to appeal to African youngsters by using cartoon characters and free branded merchandise. The weekend before last, several Everton players in SportPesa-branded kit took part in a DfID-funded event for a project for slum girls, Let Our Girls Succeed. Why are the Government aiding and abetting the steep rise in unscrupulous and illegal gambling aimed at children in Africa?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely understand the worries behind the noble Baroness’s Question. It is important that companies obey the law, but I do not understand why she thinks the Government are aiding and abetting that. We expect companies to obey the law in jurisdictions, and if they do not, they are required to report to the Gambling Commission. It is up to the Gambling Commission to take regulatory action if it deems it correct. Ultimately it can take a gambling licence away from an operator if it is not regarded as suitable to hold one.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, is not the most egregious issue here that the sort of activity witnessed in the reports, and referred to already, is being used in this country, where high-visibility celebrities endorse the active participation of those watching the sport to gamble in it? This may well account for—and the Minister is aware of this—the quadrupling of the number of 11-16 year-olds who have now been classified as problem gamblers. All we have at the moment is a voluntary code. Is it not time for this to become a statutory code?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The code has made significant progress, and this is in response to evidence, when it appears. If there is evidence that there is a problem, the Gambling Commission will look at it. It is the adviser to the Government, and the Government have said many times that if there is a problem that needs addressing, we will do so. There has been substantial change, both on advertising and gambling activities, to restrict the amount of gambling advertised and its availability to young people. The issue is that there is a difference in this country because those regulations are enforced, and there is also substantial progress on a voluntary basis.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that if individuals or companies break regulations or commit offences to do with gambling in this country, it is a matter for the authorities, be they prosecutors or regulators, in this country? If they do so abroad, it is a matter for the overseas jurisdictions. Can the Gambling Commission take into account misconduct proven abroad when considering the licensing of relevant companies in this country?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My noble and learned friend is right. I agree that it is the responsibility of sovereign countries to enforce their own gambling laws. Certainly, as I think I said in my opening Answer, the Gambling Commission in this country can take account of action abroad. The commission can also help and advise foreign countries if they so require. Indeed, in 2018-19 the Gambling Commission responded to 115 formal requests for assistance and hosted a number of jurisdictions planning reform for their gambling legislation which wanted to learn about the approach in the UK.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister has already explained, holding a UK gambling licence requires relevant companies to comply with relevant legislation in all the other countries in which they operate, but the amount of evidence they have to provide of compliance is somewhat limited. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to require the chief executive of each company to sign a certificate of compliance, and then treat any fraudulent certificates as a matter of criminal law, alongside the potential fines by the Gambling Commission or the possible loss of a licence?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I certainly agree that that is an interesting suggestion, particularly the bit about chief executives taking responsibility for the companies. I would not go so far as to say that it should be a matter for the criminal law but it is an interesting suggestion. As I said before, the Gambling Commission is the Government’s adviser; I am sure that it will bear the noble Lord’s suggestions in mind.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why it is not a matter for the criminal law?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I was suggesting that that would be a change to the existing arrangements and that I do not think it right to suggest a change in the criminal law from the Dispatch Box without considering it fully.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, an earlier Minister referred to corporate social responsibility. Clubs such as Everton and Tottenham Hotspur have corporate social responsibility not only in this country but abroad; they should not be allowing their players to endorse gambling in Kenya and other foreign countries in ways that would not be allowed in this country.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do not completely agree with the noble Lord. I agree that they have social responsibility and must protect not only their own good name but that of football, which is an asset to this country. But corporate bodies have to obey the laws of the countries in which they perform. That is their legal duty and what the Gambling Commission will take into consideration.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 July.
Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 July.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 4 June be approved.
Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 July.
Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 17th July 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 View all Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 180-R-I Amendment for Report (PDF) - (15 Jul 2019)
Baroness Fookes
“Guidance
(1) Not later than 20 November 2019, the Secretary of State must issue guidance on the provisions of the Act, including on the scope of the offence in section 1 and the significance of “travelling circus”.(2) The Secretary of State may issue revised guidance at any time.(3) Guidance under this section may not be issued unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I will explain briefly the reasoning behind this amendment. During earlier stages, some concern was expressed about the meaning of certain points in the Bill, notably “travelling circus”. It was not included on the basis that this was a widely understood, everyday term, but concern was certainly expressed that it might be interpreted in an unexpected way that might widen it unattractively.
I would have preferred to have this on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I am ultra-sensitive, but as a former member of the Delegated Powers Committee, and its chairman until I stood down owing to serious illness, I am particularly sensitive about anything which is not dealt with in a proper parliamentary fashion. My noble friend the Minister was willing to offer guidance about this after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is very welcome, but I am still concerned that this guidance is what I would call untethered: it is not attached to any proper delegated legislation. I have tabled this amendment to offer the guidance in a proper, regulatory, reformed manner. I am aware that we are anxious to get the Bill through, but I would welcome my noble friend’s telling us considerably more about his intentions to give this guidance. I hope he will be able to give a substantial slice of the loaf, rather than a few measly crumbs. I beg to move.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in seeking assurance from the Minister that appropriate guidance will be issued in a timely fashion to clarify some of the definitions in this short Bill, notably “travelling circus”, and to help ensure that the Bill does not set a precedent of restricting further activities involving animals for which there is scant evidence of harm. With the indulgence of the House, I would like to make a few brief but important points.
We live in a liberal democracy in which activities are allowed unless there is evidence of harm to persons, property, animals or the environment which justifies their abolition. On that definition, this Bill fails. As the Minister knows, I am a passionate advocate for animal welfare, but there is no evidence of a case to answer on animal welfare grounds in this instance, despite this activity having been under close inspection as a condition of its licence.
Even if there were, and even if, as in this case, the justification for this legislation is ethical, this Bill fails on any test of proportionality. There are 19 animals involved. The various and multiple conditions to which these animals are exposed are not, I would submit, significantly different from those to which millions of other animals are exposed in all manner of activities with which I—and, I suggest, many in this Chamber and most of the public—acquiesce. Members of the circus community have suggested that this legislation is discriminatory against them, because it singles out circus people and circus animals, and regrettably I feel they have a point.
This Bill will go through, and I do not mean to oppose it. The three main political parties support it. However, I make a plea to this and succeeding Governments that they base their evaluations and decisions involving animal activities on sound evidence of harm, estimates of the severity of that harm and objective measures of the quantum of that harm—how many animals are involved. Otherwise, I fear that we are moving—and indeed this Bill takes the first steps—from animal welfare legislation to animal rights legislation. I do not doubt that this is not the intention of Her Majesty’s Government or the Minister. I continue to commend them, as I have in the past, for their previous excellent measures to improve animal welfare, but I fear that others may interpret the passing of this Bill differently.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I add the support of our Benches to the noble Baroness in seeking reassurances about the critical issue of guidance. This is an important piece of legislation, albeit one that affects a very small number of wild animals. Ensuring that we have clear guidance on the definition of “travelling circus” and who can seize these animals is critical, but it is equally critical that we get it done soon, as these licences will expire in January. Given that critical timing, if there is not time for this House to have further scrutiny, it would be beneficial if, in summing up, the Minister could reassure us about who the Government are talking to when compiling appropriate guidance to take this matter forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have great respect for the positions of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and I agree that decision-making in this House should be based on sound evidence. That is always how we operate.
The issue of guidance was raised at Second Reading and debated again in Committee. It is important that we have detailed guidance to support the core objectives of this Bill, which has widespread support. At Second Reading, we were pleased that the Minister placed on record that the guidance will be published by 20 November, two months before the Bill comes into effect. We were also persuaded that the common-sense approach to spelling out the details of many of the issues that noble Lords were raising—such as the definition of “travelling circus”—would be to include them in the guidance, rather than on face of the Bill.
Let me make our position clear. Our priority is to finish all stages of this Bill before the coming recess, so that it can be put on the statute book. It is a good Bill, which delivers on my party’s long-standing commitment to ban wild animals in circuses. Any amendments passed today would jeopardise it. I therefore urge the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, to consider that and to withdraw her amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on the provisions of the Act by no later than 20 November 2019. It would also require guidance to be approved by resolution of both Houses, including if and when guidance is revised. I say particularly to my noble friend Lady Fookes and to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that I have already stated on the official record during debates on this Bill at Second Reading and in Committee that the Government will be producing guidance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has said, that guidance will be issued by 20 November 2019, two months before the commencement of the Act.
As I confirmed at Second Reading, we do not consider it appropriate for the guidance to be statutory. The aim of the guidance is not to set out additional requirements or obligations but to provide clarity on the Government’s interpretation of certain terms used in the Bill and the approach that will be taken to enforcement. If a challenge is brought, ultimately it will be for the courts to interpret the Act. This is the position taken by the Scottish Government, who have produced well-considered non-statutory guidance to accompany their Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018, which is a good example of the type of guidance Defra will be looking to produce.
The Government’s commitment to issue guidance is on the record; I put it on the record again. I should also add that the Government have committed, during debates on the Bill in the other place, to consult with welfare groups, the police and other stakeholders on the guidance. Defra officials have already begun the process of drafting the guidance. If my noble friend Lady Fookes, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, or indeed any other noble Lords wish to see the guidance in draft before it is issued, I would of course be pleased to share it with them.
There is also a timing and practical point, which a number of your Lordships have already raised, with regards to my noble friend’s amendment. I recognise that my noble friend is speaking to the principle of having statutory guidance, but I have made it very clear as to the work that we will undertake on the contents of the guidance and the timings for publication. I am concerned that my noble friend’s amendment does not allow sufficient time for both Houses to consider the guidance between the Bill gaining Royal Assent and the deadline for the guidance to be published on 20 November.
As I have said, it will, and it should, be for the courts to provide the ultimate interpretation of this Act. The guidance that we will produce will aid circuses and enforcers in understanding the requirements of the Act by providing an explanation of some of the key terms used. This is a particular point that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, is getting at—I understand it. The Government have no further intention beyond this measure in terms of wild animals in circuses and travelling circuses. The guidance will set out examples of the types of activities that the Government consider would and would not constitute a “travelling circus”. So, for example, the guidance will make clear that we do not consider that the Bill affects activities such as travelling bird of prey displays, festive reindeer displays, educational visits to schools involving small zoo animals or wild animals used in television or film work, for example.
The guidance will give examples of what the Government intend to be meant and not meant by performance and exhibition, as used in the Bill. So, for example, “exhibition” would include positioning a wild animal in a manner calculated to promote the circus, whether or not a payment is required, whereas a wild animal spotted in a field by a passing member of the public grazing unadorned—where that viewing is not being encouraged by the circus—would not count as being “exhibited”.
My noble friend Lady Fookes also spoke at Second Reading about the definition of “wild animal”. The guidance will provide examples of animals considered not to be commonly domesticated in Great Britain from the definition of “wild animal”. The guide to the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 provides advice on what animals may fall into either the normally domesticated or not normally domesticated categories, and we plan to draw from that approach. So, for example, the guidance will explain that cats, dogs and horses would not be deemed “wild animals” under the Bill, but tigers, wolves and zebras would be.
That brings me to the final reason as to why we do not believe this amendment is necessary or desirable. The purpose of our guidance will be to aid interpretation and provide clarity on the approach that the Government will take in relation to enforcement; it will go no further. It will not introduce any additional requirements or obligations with which circus operators would have to comply. Accordingly, it will be quite different from the type of guidance which would usually be statutory, such as the codes of practice that Defra issues under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. These codes of practice set out what animal owners should do to meet the welfare needs of their animals, as required under that Act. They can be used in courts as evidence in cases brought before them relating to poor welfare of animals, and as such are rightly subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Defra guidance on this Bill will merely explain in more detail the Government’s view of how the Bill will work in practice.
The Government feel that, given the circumstances, and the fact that the guidance will explain only what is already covered by the Bill, non-statutory guidance is not only desirable but appropriate. As I have said—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, was seeking this confirmation—the guidance will be considered with welfare groups, the police, stakeholders and, in particular, circuses, and will be published no later than 20 November this year.
As I have said, if any noble Lords would like to see a draft copy of the guidance, given that officials are aiming to have a first draft ready for wider circulation by the time the House returns in September, then I would be very pleased to hear from them. I will ensure that there is an opportunity to comment on the draft.
I understand the intention of my noble friend’s amendment, but we should now be making speedy process on this legislation. I very much hope that, with the reassurances I have given today to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, she will feel in a position to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Fookes
My Lords, as I explained at the outset, this was a point of principle about always challenging Governments when they introduce legislation to ensure that they do not go beyond the bounds of what I would call propriety—just taking off into the sunset with whatever they fancied. I am entirely with the noble Baroness: I have no wish to see this Bill deferred or put at danger in any way whatever, but I felt it important to put the point of view that I have expressed on the record.
My noble friend the Minister has also done a very good job in reassuring me. He has been kind enough to make a number of detailed points. As for inviting anybody who would like to see the draft guidance to do so, I shall take him up on that at once. Please will he let me know when it is available? That may well be the case for other Members of the House, though I dare not speak for them.
I am grateful to my noble friend for the care he has taken in putting the case for the Government and, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Wednesday 17th July 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:39 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 3 agreed.
20:43 - Division on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 37 - Amendment 12 agreed.
22:17 - Division on Amendment 16A (to Amendment 16). - Ayes: 39 / Noes: 138 - Amendment 16A (to Amendment 16) disagreed.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 2 and 3 but I do not intend to press Amendment 2, which on reflection adds nothing of substance to Amendment 3. These amendments, which are identical to those moved with cross-party support in Committee, provide that Parliament is to sit at specified intervals between September and, at the latest, December to consider the progress reports already provided for by Clause 3.
Amendment 3 serves a useful purpose in the context of this important Bill. As pressure is exerted to reconvene the Executive, there is every reason for both Houses of this Parliament to review and interrogate such progress as is made. The strong interest of this House in the content of those reports is demonstrated by the amendments agreed on Monday and by those which are yet to be considered today. But the greater significance of Amendment 3 lies less in the subject matter of the debates for which it provides than in the more fundamental fact that Parliament must be in session for such debates to take place.
If enacted, these amendments will express Parliament’s expectation of being consulted on not just these reports but an even more pressing political issue: the future of our relationship with the European Union. If Parliament were to endorse a no-deal Brexit, as it has not done to date, then from my point of view there could be no democratic argument against it. But for that decision to be left to our next Prime Minister, elevated to that office by members of his own party and freed of any requirement to obtain the consent of Parliament, would be another matter altogether. Before the beginning of the current leadership campaign, the notion that Prorogation might be used for the express purpose of silencing Parliament on Brexit could safely have been dismissed as fantasy but, extraordinary though it may seem, that prospect has not been disavowed by the leading candidate and, if reports are to be believed, cannot even now be ruled out.
The situation is uniquely grave because if we are driven over the cliff on 31 October, there is no way back up. An event that occurs while Parliament is prorogued cannot simply be reversed once Parliament is sitting again. So even a short Prorogation, if suitably timed, would permanently deprive Parliament of its voice on this most significant of political issues. Advice to Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament in such circumstances would subvert the principle that the Government are accountable to Parliament and present the monarchy with a highly unwelcome dilemma: no one could safely predict the possible consequences. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Attorney-General is reported to have told Cabinet last month that Prorogation would be unconstitutional and improper. My noble friend Lord Pannick, who cannot be in his place today, described it on Monday as “unlawful” and “a constitutional outrage”.
The legal effects of Amendment 3 will no doubt depend on the circumstances. It would be a matter for any court that may be called on to consider the matter. Others of your Lordships are better placed to judge their political force, but that too would surely be substantial. The Minister helpfully accepted on Monday that it was right and proper for this House to find a means to hold the future leader of this country to account, but when challenged on his statement that,
“there are other means by which it can be done”,—[Official Report, 15/7/19; col. 38.]
explanation came there none. That put me in mind of Iris Murdoch, who wrote, in a rather different context, that we can pass,
“in a second from the time when it was too early to struggle to the time when it was too late to struggle”.
Your Lordships now have an opportunity to assert the necessary role of Parliament in these strange and alarming times. I invite your Lordships to do so by supporting Amendment 3.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 3A in this group, which is in my name. It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that it is not my intention to move this amendment, largely because it does not add substantially to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord who just spoke with great eloquence. Suffice it to say that I very much support his amendment and if he is minded to test the opinion of the House, I shall vote in favour of it.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I think everybody agrees that this is a very curious device and in many ways a very curious amendment. I am sure that the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House will look forward to receiving regular reports about the situation in respect of Northern Ireland; it might help move things forward very marginally. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, that is not why this amendment is being proposed. The amendment is considered necessary by him and me only because we face the constitutional outrage of a potential Prime Minister refusing to rule out proroguing Parliament to get through the most major public policy decision of our lifetimes without debate, because he knows he cannot win a vote in a debate. This is the activity of a banana republic, not the mother of parliaments; we should do whatever we can, however strange, to stop it. This is a clever, ingenious device with that in mind, and it has our full support.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I too support this amendment, in the context of the European dimension, which has been mentioned. It would indeed be outrageous if Parliament were not sitting when the clock is running down to 31 October. Whichever side of the referendum debate we were on, we well remember the arguments about bringing power back to this place. If this device of not allowing Parliament to sit at a crucial time is used, it would fly in the face of the assurances and pleas made at that time. We face an extremely difficult time: surely, we should be sorting this issue out within Parliament and not leaving it to others to seek remedy in the courts.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, it seems to me that it does not matter whether one supports leaving the European Union permanently or remaining in the European Union. That is not the issue before the House. The issue is whether Parliament should be allowed a say on whether we leave by crashing out, leave with a deal or do not leave. It does not, in a sense, matter which of those three situations it is. What matters is that Parliament has a voice. For that reason, I support this amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, they say that Brexit drives people crazy and I think there is something in this. It certainly makes people cerebral. May I put forward a few general points? First, it has been said that Her Majesty might be embarrassed by such a request. Her Majesty has been on the Throne for 70 years or so and faced many a constitutional crisis. I think she would survive.
Secondly, be careful what you wish for. Suppose we pass this amendment requiring Parliament to meet in October. It is not for the benefit of Northern Ireland. I feel rather sorry for the people of Northern Ireland, who are being used as a sort of wedge in a door—not for their benefit. Suppose there is a general election in the meantime. Suppose there is a vote of no confidence in the Commons. Is it seriously considered that requiring Parliament to meet in October would take precedence over these other events, which may very well occur in the next few weeks? If there is a general election before October, what will happen to the will of some that Parliament should meet in the run-up to the possible leaving of the European Union? If there is a vote of no confidence, the same thing might well happen.
It seems to me that the constitution is not clear on what motives have to lie behind the call for a general election, the call for a vote of no confidence or the Prorogation of Parliament. It is a somewhat ambiguous area. The speculation about this has led people to believe that it is better placed in the hands of the judges than of politicians. That may well be. I am not disputing for a moment that the rule of law is upheld by judicial review and allowing judges to decide. However, where an issue is as ambiguous as this, noble Lords should realise what they are doing in putting these decisions in the hands of judges, who might very well be summoned to meet in a great hurry; the issue would then be rushed all the way through the courts. We would be leaving it to judicial wisdom.
A great deal may happen between now and the end of October. It worries me that we should be using parliamentary procedure in this way. It would be an unfortunate precedent. As I said, think about Motions of no confidence; think about a general election and the assumption, so readily made, that the notion of Prorogation would be a terrible breach with everything that has ever happened in the 1,000-year constitution of this country.
Moreover, the action of judicial review, which is already being talked about in this House—somewhat prematurely—will depend on one wealthy individual bringing that action. Suppose there is a vote of no confidence and by some method the Queen is advised that Mr Corbyn should be summoned to form a Government. Unfortunately, I cannot afford the services of my noble friend Lord Pannick, but I am sure there are those among us and in the country who would say that the possibility of a Prime Minister widely regarded as an anti-Semite was a constitutional outrage and must be judicially reviewed.
I beg noble Lords to consider what sort of precedent might be set by using the people of Northern Ireland, speculating on what might happen with judicial review and not allowing the normal course of events to continue. To support this amendment will have repercussions way beyond what we might expect this afternoon.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, reads far too much into this simple amendment, which is unambiguous and makes the point that power should rest not with the Executive but with Parliament. It would require Ministers to report on a Bill’s progress where progress is essential, such as with this Bill. Of course, most importantly, we should not give the Prime Minister of a minority Government, whoever he may be—let us all, particularly those of us on this side of the House, recognise that we are talking about the Prime Minister of a minority Government—the opportunity to suspend our constitutional proprieties.
I should like to make another point. I deplore the fact that the rules of my party have allowed this decision to be protracted over almost five weeks and to be taken by 0.3% of the electorate, a number of whom are 15 years of age; they are entirely eligible to vote, as I established earlier today. Many people do not realise that; I did not realise it myself until two or three days ago. The party in the country has had great power—way beyond what any party should have, particularly when it represents such a tiny percentage of the electorate. I believe that the real constitutional impropriety that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, seeks to deal with is that of conferring on the Prime Minister of a minority Government—I repeat: a minority Government—the powers to dispense with the services of Parliament and to absolve himself of being answerable to it. As I said on Monday, the Government are answerable to Parliament, which must never be the creature or subject of government. This is a safeguard. We should support it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My noble friend Lady Deech would have made a marvellous Permanent Secretary. We heard about a dangerous precedent, unripe time and the risk of judicial review. I cannot see that risk; the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, seems designed to reduce the risk of a situation that might go to judicial review arising.
I support the noble Lord’s amendment. As he said, it is strange and alarming that we should find ourselves in this situation, having to resort to a device to prevent a constitutional outrage—which it would be if Parliament were sent away so that the Prime Minister of the day could follow a course that both Houses of Parliament have consistently and regularly rejected.
To add one more point, I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader—I am sorry she is not in her place—is pursuing with the other place the proposal that we in this House put forward a fortnight ago for a Joint Committee to examine the costs and implications of a no-deal crash-out. In this House, the Leader represents not just the Government but all of us. We put forward the proposal but, to my knowledge, the other place has not yet done us the courtesy of even considering it. I hope that the noble Baroness is advancing our proposal and urging the other place to respond positively to it. I support the amendment.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I spoke against these amendments in Committee, and will not repeat all my arguments. But there are four strands in why I believe that these amendments are unwise and unwanted. Before proceeding, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson —who, again, introduced his amendment with great courtesy, charm and skill—that, on a point of fact, 16 out of 23 Prime Ministers of this country have first come to office without a general election, as a result of actions within their own party and within Parliament, including, I say for the benefit of the Liberals, David Lloyd George.
The idea, therefore, that the next Prime Minister would somehow be constitutionally dubious—a proposition that has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—is, frankly, absurd.
Lord Cormack
I did not suggest that it would be improper. I was merely stating a fact. The next Prime Minister will be a Prime Minister of a minority Government—as the present Prime Minister is.
Lord True
The noble Lord also said other things, which the Hansard writers will record, including his saying that somehow a power was being conferred on Mr Johnson to do something that Mr Johnson has never said he would do, which is to advise the monarch to prorogue. That has been an inherent right of the Prime Minister and of the Crown for generations. It is an absurd statement, I am afraid, by my noble friend.
The first reason that these amendments should be resisted is, of course, one that I share but most of your Lordships will not: they are clearly designed to frustrate one route to Brexit on 31 October. That is freely admitted by all concerned. I can see that that is not a clinching argument with many of your Lordships, and, if we have learned anything in this House, it is that there is a dialogue of the deaf in this place between the remainer majority who wish to stop at nothing to prevent Brexit and those of us in the minority who believe that the vote of the public should be respected.
I fear that your Lordships’ House is getting itself into a worse and worse place in resisting Brexit. The very future of your Lordships’ House is now in play. That was made clear, not by me, but in the recent campaign for the European elections. I think these amendments take us to the outer fringe of where an unelected House should go.
The second strand of why I think they should be rejected is this canard of “constitutional outrage”, et cetera. This is an Aunt Sally. Mr Johnson—its target—has never said that he would use Prorogation to secure Brexit on 31 October. This danger, this threat, this crisis, this calamity, this catastrophe, this outrage—it is all got up by the remainers.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
What the noble Lord says is clearly true, and I do not dispute it. However, Mr Johnson has been invited on a number of occasions to say specifically, in terms, that he would not use that device, and he has declined to do so. Would the noble Lord agree that that is the case?
Lord True
Outrageous? Let us be grown-up here. Everybody understands the purport of the remark. Mr Johnson does not wish to prorogue Parliament. He has not said so, and he does not need to, because, following the Gina Miller case, there has been an Act of Parliament, passed by this Parliament, in this Session, requiring the UK by statute to leave the EU, as requested by the British people, on 31 October. It is simply rubbish to say that there might be an attempt stop Parliament legislating on Brexit. Parliament has already legislated, and talk about a so-called unlawful shutdown of Parliament or hyperbole about a ban on Parliament sitting reflects nothing Mr Johnson has ever said. It is so much chaff thrown up by the ditchers among the more extreme referendum deniers.
If Parliament wishes to stop Brexit, the route is open: a vote of no confidence in the Government, and the installation of a new Government. That new Government can turn to the British people and say, as I often hear people say in this House, “Sorry, 17.4 million, you are stupid, you did not know what you were voting for, you do not understand the facts as we clever people do, so, sorry, Brexit is off”. If you want to change the policy and say that and do that to the British people, change the Government. That is the proper way to proceed.
It is indicative of the state of the Labour Party—the consistent deliverer, as I said the other day, of 220 votes in Division after Division in the other place—that instead of taking that open and honest course, challenging the Government in a vote of no confidence, it footles around in the small print of a Northern Ireland Bill, shuffling courageously sideways under the genial cloak provided by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and into the arms of the Liberal Democrats, who, given half a chance, would snuff Labour out.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I would like to make two points. First, I voted for Brexit, not for a no-deal Brexit, and that must be true for a lot of other people. Can the noble Lord please stop dividing us into these two camps? Secondly—I am sure that this is unparliamentary—I cannot see the point of what the noble Lord is saying. He is ranging so far across this debate that he is losing sight of the very simple amendment before us, and he is not taking the House with him. I can think only that he is doing this for the newspapers or for—I do not know; do we have constituents?
Lord True
My Lords, I admitted at the outset that I am unlikely to take this House with me. However, there are certain things that someone who has the privilege, right and duty to be in Parliament and come to this place has the right and duty to say. While I may be saying things that are not congenial to many in this House, they are not disagreed with by some people in this country.
It is germane to point out certain facts about the Labour Party—a party that will campaign to remain in any election or referendum provoked by a Conservative Government, but which will campaign to leave in the unlikely event that it ever forms a Government. Brexit on Monday, remain on Tuesday, Brexit on Wednesday, will not say on Thursday, does not have a clue on Friday—that is the official policy of that apology of an Opposition on this great question of our times.
The third strand of my argument against this amendment is that by floating claims that only use of the royal prerogative could secure Brexit and that Mr Johnson wants to do that, it is not him but the peddlers of that canard who risk dragging the monarchy into political controversy. Prorogation is perfectly normal after a Session so long, a new gracious Speech is normal, with the formation of a new ministry, and, heaven knows, we can surely do better than the ragbag of legislation and off home before dinner that has been the staple of both Houses lately. At some point, a new Prime Minister must be able to seek a Prorogation and a gracious Speech. That is the right and proper routine of our parliamentary life, and why should Mr Johnson be asked to deny himself that right? It does no service to that incontestable fact to besmirch the act of Prorogation as if it was some kind of shabby and little-known political manoeuvre. All of us, on every side of the argument, have a duty to show restraint in relation to the role of the Crown. As I said in Committee, I cannot conceive how the courts could, or wisely should, construe the motive for the advice given by a Prime Minister to a Sovereign in a private audience. I would rather we did not go there. We have the right to do many things in life, but we have the duty to ask ourselves sometimes, “Is it wise?”.
Here is the fourth and final strand of why I object to these amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, put his finger on it on Monday. What on earth are we doing here, discussing all this on a Bill that relates narrowly to the future of the Northern Ireland Executive? Only last week Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which I have the honour to belong, restated our concern—we all assented to the report, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place—about the persistent fast-tracking of legislation on Northern Ireland. Yet here we are, not only fast-tracking a Northern Ireland Bill but trying to festoon it like a Christmas tree with barely related measures which have never properly been considered. That is a bad way to treat Parliament—
Baroness Altmann (Con)
May I put to my noble friend some alternatives to his four points? This amendment is not about stopping Brexit but about preventing the use of Parliament to force through a means of Brexit which has been expressly rejected by this House and which has no democratic mandate. If our future leaders have refused to rule out doing that, this is something which we in this House are faced with having to do, reluctantly. Prorogation is normal in Parliament, but will my noble friend recognise the difference between Prorogation in order to force through something that has been expressly rejected by Parliament rather than the normal means?
Lord True
I did not count how many words there were in her conditional thing about “expressly used to force through something that has been rejected by Parliament, blah blah blah”, if I may say so, with respect. That is a construct that was created, and we have heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is not possible to construe what the motive of a Prime Minister in a private audience might be for seeking a Prorogation. I do not think we should ask the courts to do that, although we have the right to do so. On her other point, we have statute. This is not about stopping Parliament legislating. I tried to make this point earlier: after the Gina Miller case, Parliament legislated. We are leaving the European Union, and in law we are leaving on 31 October. I am afraid her arguments do not stand up.
I want to finish, and that will please noble Lords. I believe it is a bad way to treat Parliament to festoon a fast-tracked Bill with extraneous matters such as this. In my submission, it is a particularly insulting way, in this case, to treat the good people of Northern Ireland. They deserve far better than having their future provision made the plaything of others with other axes to grind. This is a Bill about the formation of a Northern Ireland Executive, which we all very much wish to see. We should return to that.
Amendments such as those before us were rejected in the House of Commons. Elected Members have had their say on this matter. Are your Lordships really going to reopen all this and slug it out on this Bill—this Northern Ireland Bill—day after day on a fast track in an undignified ping-pong to provide a battlefield for hardline remainers and devoted respecters of the people’s choice? Surely we can do better than that. Let us dispense with this parliamentary chicanery, reject these amendments and deal with the important business relating to Northern Ireland. The Commons rejected the amendments. Let us do the same and move on to the business in the Long Title of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, as I said on Monday, I reject the idea that this amendment does not have an important impact on Northern Ireland too, not only because it ensures that the supervision and reporting provisions that are now in the Bill can be considered constructively by Parliament, but because—and who has forgotten this?—Northern Ireland has been at the centre of all the debates that we have had in this House about Brexit. The possibility that we should be forced to leave without a deal, I would have thought we would all agree, is one that deeply affects the people of Northern Ireland.
I had thought that on this issue we were approaching something like unanimity that it would be constitutionally improper and wrong in principle to suspend Parliament in order to push through the final stages of the Brexit arrangements without Parliament being in a position to oversee, comment on or effectively have any role in that. Those who have said that this would be wrong are not only Cross-Benchers—the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made it very clear, in an extremely good speech, why that was so—but others on this side of the House, such as the Liberal Democrats, as well as many distinguished Members of the Conservative Party. We all know about Sir John Major’s statement that he would judicially review an attempt to push through Brexit without a deal, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has been reported as saying that it would be wrong and a “very bad idea” to suspend Parliament, and I respectfully and fully agree with him.
As I said in the debate on Monday, none of this means that the amendment would stop Brexit taking place. There is, as others continually remind us, existing legislation. What is more, we cannot unilaterally stop our departure on 31 October because, as a matter of international law, unless that is extended by agreement between the EU and ourselves we will leave on that date. But that does not mean that Parliament should not have a role in what takes place. It can change its mind. It can do many things, including change the law. It would be grossly wrong—a perversion of our constitutional traditions—and irresponsible, in my view, to prevent Parliament being able to present, comment, oversee, supervise and, if it so chooses, take other action. That, and nothing else, is what this amendment is about.
Of course, the incoming Prime Minister—let us assume it is Mr Johnson—may wish to proceed without further inconvenience from Parliament. Let him persuade Parliament of that. Let him persuade Parliament that the route he has chosen will succeed. That is what parliamentarians should do and what we should do in a democracy. He cannot and should not adopt a royalist approach, as King Charles did. That is what we are trying to prevent, and so many Members of this House are concerned about that. It is Parliament that safeguards our freedoms and ensures that we remain a free land; that is how we do our democracy. To allow that to be set aside would be wrong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, we have begun a debate today on the extension of Executive formation opportunities in Northern Ireland. I take the opportunity to return our focus to Northern Ireland for a brief moment. I do so recognising that precious few of the noble Lords who have thus far spoken chose to focus on Northern Ireland today. There have recently become a remarkable number of experts on Northern Ireland, but it appears they are not here during this part of the discussion.
It is no surprise that this is a challenging time for Northern Ireland. It had been our hope that by the coming August we would have secured a resolution and brought the parties together in such a way that an Executive could have been formed. I believe we are moving in the right direction; I now genuinely believe that there are real prospects of doing so.
This Bill has a very simple purpose. As it began its journey, it was simple and in very few paragraphs. We need a little more time, and the ambition is to extend that to 21 October, with a possible extension thereafter into January to allow for that Executive to re-form.
The request for updates on the talks in Northern Ireland is important; I do not doubt that for a moment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, rightly says that Northern Ireland has been at the centre of so much of Brexit, but I must draw a distinction between Northern Ireland at the centre of Brexit as the border question has played through and the talks themselves. They need to be recognised as being in two different categories, and it is important to do so.
A number of noble Lords—not least the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who opened the debate—said that this is really not just about the reports. The debate that followed expressly shows that it is not just about those reports. He quoted Iris Murdoch. I am a big fan of Iris Murdoch. I was reading her book not long ago. Thinking about these reports coming in in small doses, there is a quote from The Sea, The Sea:
“One of the secrets of a happy life is continuous small treats”.
Whether these reports will be continuous small treats remains to be seen. My fear is that those reports will not show a great deal because the discussions within that room are not particularly useful for wider debate at this time. But I dearly hope that we do not need this extension and that we will return to normal government in Northern Ireland. But I fear right now that it would be remiss of us as a Government if we did not seek to extend.
The amendments touch on much deeper issues than I am normally called on to talk about. It will not come as a surprise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that I have not received a call from Mr Johnson. Who knows? I might receive one next week. Who knows what is going on at this particular moment.
The important thing for me to stress today—and I do not think it is labouring the point—is that we need to be sure that when we speak of Northern Ireland we are clear in the message that we are sending to the people of that Province. The message that we send today with this particular suite of amendments is a simple one, which is that we can use Northern Ireland for different purposes when we choose to do so. I know that the rest of the debate will focus very significantly on the serious issues of Northern Ireland, but we have not started that part yet. This part is about a constitutional question and, as a number of noble Lords have said, it is about Brexit. So be it. I cannot change the motion in which we have moved in this particular direction. But a number of noble Lords have expressed their views on different sides. For me, the key thing is to keep us focused on the important aspect, which is the delivery of an Executive in Northern Ireland. That must be our principal aim. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
We all hope that the Minister receives a call next week, whether from Mr Johnson or Mr Hunt. We want to see him back in that place. But does he not agree that for the people of Northern Ireland, whom I know—although maybe not as much as the Minister—because I was Attorney-General for Northern Ireland for six years, the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, which have been widely described as so damaging, would be just as bad for them as for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The aspect of a no-deal Brexit that has been discussed here is an important one and has been discussed on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. It is important to Northern Ireland: I do not doubt that because I have seen it myself. I recognise and have said on more than one occasion how important it is and how different it would have been had an Executive been in place during this period, when those voices could have been part of a wider debate. There is not a single person who does not regret the fact that those voices have been silent for far too long when we could have had them contributing, not least on the question of the Irish border. But we are talking today about a simple and focused aspect, which is extending the window during which there shall be no elections in order to secure a newly formed Executive. That is the key to the discussions today and should be the focus. I am also very happy to get a call from Mr Hunt.
The important thing to stress now is that at this point, I do not believe that the amendment takes us in the right direction. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and in particular to the Minister for his courteous response, I do not think that we should prolong things by hearing any more from me. The issues are clear. I do not propose to press Amendment 2, but I want to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 3.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
“(2A) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—(a) a copy of each report published under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament by the end of the day on which it is published,(b) a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the report, to be moved in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, and(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report to be tabled in the House of Lords and moved by a Minister of the Crown.(2B) The motions required under subsections (2A)(b) and (c) must be moved in the relevant House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the report is laid before Parliament.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“( ) The report under subsection (1) must include a report to be published on or before 4 September 2019 on progress on the arrangements for appointing independent guardians under section 21 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. The report must cover—(a) the number of children for whom an independent guardian has been appointed—(i) for whom a reference has been made to a competent authority for a determination as to whether the child is a victim of trafficking in human beings; and(ii) who have been determined to be a separated child by the Regional Health and Social Care Board;(b) the immigration status of the children for whom an independent guardian has been appointed;(c) the length of time for which an independent guardian assists, represents and supports a child; (d) the number of persons for whom an independent guardian has continued to act in relation to a person after that person attains the age of 18 but is under the age of 21, with the consent of that person, according to section 21(10) of that Act;(e) the processes established to ensure relevant persons or bodies recognise and pay due regard to the functions of the independent guardian and provide the independent guardian with access to relevant information in accordance with section 21(8) of that Act and the effectiveness of those processes.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 I will speak also to Amendment 10, which is consequential upon it. I declare my interests as in the register, which include my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery.
There is a good Northern Ireland Act on modern slavery, human trafficking and exploitation, but it does not include one aspect of the Modern Slavery Act 2015: that is, the child trafficking advocate, popularly called the independent guardian. It seems an odd omission because, following the research done by Bedfordshire University, the Government accepted that the independent child trafficking advocates are doing a good job. A number of pilot schemes are out across England and Wales—there is a similar system in Scotland —and the Government are committed to putting this right across the country in due course. So it is highly desirable and seems entirely uncontroversial that there should be similar independent guardians to look after those children brought into Northern Ireland from abroad, who have been slaves and who need the support of a mentor as they go through a process equivalent to the NRM and through the general process of coping with having been a slave and having emerged from that.
Having had a discussion with the Minister, I understand that there are some practical difficulties in Northern Ireland with a lack of guardians. The short answer to that, it seems to me, is that more guardians should be appointed. I do not wish to embarrass either the Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom Government by pressing this amendment to a vote, but I do ask the Minister to keep this under review and see that, as soon as the Executive and Assembly are up and running—which I am sure we in this House all hope will be relatively soon after this very long gap—we will have more guardians, who should become part of the system in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I would like to make some brief comments on this modest amendment. It provides an excellent companion report to that already required by the Bill regarding the support offered to victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland, after they have been confirmed to be a victim by the national referral mechanism known as the NRM. I look forward to the report that will be produced on the progress made to implement the provision enabling extended support, and the debate that will, of course, follow as a result.
Similarly, I support Amendments 4 and 10 because here also there is much that could be learned for England and Wales from examining the independent guardian service in Northern Ireland. This service is designed to provide separated migrant children and children who have been trafficked with someone who will support, advocate for, represent and accompany them as they try to find their place in our communities while dealing with complex immigration processes, unfamiliar schooling and child protection systems, as well as, sometimes, police investigations.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on this issue. It is a very important one, but there are some difficulties. Before I get on to those, I hope that the noble Lord will support my amendment later this evening about unaccompanied child refugees in Northern Ireland. At the moment, because Stormont is not in action, it is impossible for unaccompanied child refugees to be referred to Northern Ireland, although I know the very hospitable people there would like to see this happen. There is a blockage at the moment because of the impasse at Stormont.
Having said that, I will turn to the substance of the argument about guardians. I talk not only about young people who have been trafficked and exploited but about child refugees generally. The idea of a guardian is a good one, because these people face a whole range of issues, having gone through appalling experiences, and nobody is there to pull everything together. Social workers may do some of this, but the range of issues is wider than might be susceptible to social worker intervention. That is where guardians come in, who take a holistic approach to the needs of the individual young person and can then intervene, help and mobilise other agencies. So I think it is a good idea.
The difficulty is this. As I understand it, there are some guardians in Northern Ireland and some in Scotland. They tend to be social workers with at least five years’ professional experience. These people are pretty hard to come by. I have talked to local authority leaders in London, who say they would love to do this, but they do not have enough qualified social workers with the right experience to take on that responsibility. I am aware of the difficulty. It is a good idea. If we can find a way of dealing with resourcing difficulties, fine. We could start with young people about whom there is evidence that they have been trafficked or exploited more than most child refugees. I would like the Minister to be positive about child refugees in Northern Ireland generally later on.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is an example of the fact that a number of things which would normally be dealt with by the Executive have become sufficiently urgent to be considered. This seems to be a sensible idea—and, as I understand it, the Minister is going to produce appropriate warm words.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her brief introduction, and other noble Lords for their remarks, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Ensuring that victims of human trafficking receive the support and care they require is an important issue, which this Government take seriously. It is important that the right safeguards and checks are in place to protect this group of people. This is also true in Northern Ireland, where independent guardians must be qualified social workers with at least five years’ post-qualifying experience of working with children and families, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. Our approach in this space needs to be guided by the principle of ensuring that we do not expose these vulnerable people, or the excellent individuals who care for them, to harm.
As I said in Committee, noble Lords will be aware that these are matters for which responsibility in Northern Ireland has been devolved, therefore falling outside the responsibilities and scope of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In line with the principles of devolution, it is the Government’s view that those Northern Ireland departments charged with responsibility for these matters should be accountable not to Westminster but to the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, the Government acknowledge that if it is the will of Parliament that the Secretary of State should report on these issues, the Northern Ireland Office will engage with relevant Northern Ireland departments to ensure that she is able to do so, as far as possible, in a meaningful way, where information is available. I hope this provides a degree of reassurance for the noble and learned Baroness.
I also wish to advise on the limitations of the Secretary of State’s capacity to report comprehensively on matters of devolved competence, and to emphasise that it may not always be possible to make available the required information. We must approach these issues carefully, and with heightened sensitivity. Releasing information in relation to the number of children supported by an independent guardian could, given the very small number of individuals involved, compromise their identities. Clearly, this is not the intention of this amendment, but it is a risk we must be aware of and mitigate.
We can accept Amendment 4, on the introduction of a requirement to report on the work of independent guardians in Northern Ireland for victims of human trafficking, noting, as I said, the need to approach sensitively. We should not cut across devolved powers but, given the importance of this issue, it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to provide a report to Parliament. However, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 10, on debating the report. I am happy to meet the noble and learned Baroness or the noble Lord to discuss the report when it is published. It would be most unusual for obligations to debate reports to be placed on the Government by primary legislation. As this is a devolved matter, I am happy to facilitate a meeting between the noble and learned Baroness and Northern Ireland’s Department of Health for a detailed discussion of its work in this area, as its staff are the experts in this devolved work. Based on that explanation and commitment, I hope the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness will feel unable to put this to a vote.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I am very grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate, and to the Minister, who I spoke to briefly before we started. I entirely understand the issues he has raised. As I said in opening, I do not intend to divide the House on this issue. I am, however, concerned that a system of child trafficking advocates in this country is working well and will eventually come straight across the country, and the Government are committed to that. Consequently, it would be highly desirable for there to be enough guardians in Northern Ireland for this to be provided for those children who are as vulnerable in Northern Ireland as they are in this country. However, having had assurances, together with the generous offer to discuss this with the Minister and the Minister for Health, which I and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will be glad to take up, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Empey
“( ) The Secretary of State must, on or before 21 October 2019, publish a report on progress on the establishment of a Renewable Heat Incentive Hardship Unit in the Department for the Economy (unless an Executive has already been formed).”
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. They may not be in the same order as they were in Committee, but they cover the same areas of substance. I draw the attention of the House to one change. Members may recall that in a discussion on these amendments in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who is not in his place, indicated that children’s health had been omitted from this list. It was after a discussion involving him that the Minister was happy to include a reference to the waiting times for children, as well as on other matters.
I have drawn to the attention of this House on a number of occasions the serious delays in the Northern Ireland health service. It has reached a stage where, last week, the Nuffield Trust produced a damning report on the length of time for which people had to wait. Their health, welfare and quality of life have been dramatically affected by this, and I have no doubt whatever that life expectancy, and life itself, have suffered and been extinguished while people have been waiting on these lists. There are enough noble Lords in this place, particularly those from the medical profession, who know the dangers of delay in cancer diagnosis. The breast cancer waiting times for one of the trusts last year were absolutely outrageous. Noble Lords should think of the anxiety and suffering in a family when that situation arises. I hardly need to draw any clearer a picture.
I shall deal with other matters, such as the renewable heat incentive hardship unit; the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, gave an undertaking in March that it would be established. While some steps have been taken, they have been faltering and insufficient, and rely purely on a European Union ruling that it is able to offer loans for only six months at commercial rates, which is absolutely pointless and of no value whatever to the people on this scheme who have found themselves, through no fault of their own, in dire financial straits.
I also point out that the purpose of this scheme was to encourage people to move from the use of fossil fuels to the use of renewables. That was the objective, but what do we have today? I was speaking to a boiler operator the week before last and he has gone back to oil. This is happening in other areas, so what has happened? We have taken a sum of public money and put it into a scheme, the objective of which was to provide renewable energy to reduce our carbon footprint. So, what have we done? We have got many of the people who took up that scheme into serious financial trouble and just left them sitting there. We are now back to the stage where fossil fuels are their only option and they are back to using them. The money has been completely wasted and people have been put into dire straits in the meantime.
I know it is difficult for Ministers here to have their will in Northern Ireland departments over which they have no direct control—that point was made in the debate—but this issue will not go away. There are quite a number of noble Lords in this House who will persist with this until we get justice for the people who have, through no fault of their own, found themselves in dire financial straits. I hope that the amendment will focus attention as we go through.
On Amendment 6, the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, made a very impressive contribution in Committee on Monday, but the Government did not feel able to accept his amendment. However, we know that the law on libel in Northern Ireland is outdated and poses a threat to a number of areas of activity. I firmly believe that it has to be addressed.
Turning to Amendment 7, Northern Ireland has the highest suicide rate in the United Kingdom. A strategy, Protect Life 2, has been prepared and is sitting on a shelf, unable to be implemented because of the present crisis. Many noble Lords here, from Northern Ireland and other places, know what I am referring to. Because of our recent past, we have a higher level of mental health issues plus a lower level of mental health provision. The combination of those things compounds the fact that we have a strategy that is perfectly sound but cannot be implemented. It is just sitting there because no Minister is in place. That is not the fault of the Front Bench in the House today. I understand that, but the facts are the facts. I hope that the parties will yet surprise us and come up with an arrangement—sooner rather than later. But in the event that that does not happen, even on humanitarian grounds we owe it to people to ensure that the strategy at least begins to be implemented, so that the departments can take steps to alleviate a serious problem.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 7, as tabled by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as a trustee of the mental health service for adolescents which is the Brent Centre for Young People in north London, as noted in my entry in the register of interests. That centre’s work has been in progress for 50 years; originally, it dealt principally with young people at risk of taking their own lives. The clinicians there tell me that they have never had a young person take their life while under treatment in that centre. They have described to me how when a young person meets a clinician who immediately understands where they are coming from and their concerns, it is immediately effective in assuaging the fears of the young person.
What I am trying to say is that where appropriate services are available, they can be very effective. It troubles me very much to hear that this strategy, developed in Northern Ireland, has been on the shelf for two and a half years because of the vacuum of power. I warmly welcome my noble friend’s efforts to highlight these points today. I hope that the Minister may have something comforting to say on the matter of young men, in particular, taking their lives in Northern Ireland because there has been insufficient action to address their needs.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has put his finger on urgent issues to do with Northern Ireland. I congratulate him on his persistence in that approach. Today he has once more alerted the Committee to an urgent need that can be traced back to the fact that we have no local administration. The extra strain of business and of making decisions passed on to our Civil Service has been a consequence.
I want to speak particularly about the amendment to address the rising suicide rate in Northern Ireland. This is one more example of the legacy of our past, of what we have been through; it has cast its shadow not on that generation but on the new generation. I have had personal, recent experience of the rector of a parish coming to me, even in my retirement, to seek advice for the son of one of those involved in our Troubles. The son had only recently learned of some of the actions and involvement of his father, and this preyed on his mind so much, even in middle age, that he saw no alternative but to end his life. That is an exceptional case, I accept, but it does something to illustrate that this issue is not just for now: it is a legacy reaching back to us from the past.
The report to which the noble Lord referred is gathering dust. Lives are being threatened. Thank God that in some cases prevention intervenes, but if this Bill produces nothing other than a new recognition of human need—nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with “us and them” and all the usual phrases we have in Northern Ireland—then the opportunity could be seized to put pressure on those avenues that can directly relate to the human need, which is a legacy issue and an overlap. There is a crying need at the moment in Northern Ireland to address prevention of the taking of human life and I urge the Committee to remember that.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments, which I hope the Government will be able to accept—I think they have indicated that they will, as they are asking for reports. This is valuable work that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is recommending, covering what I regard as the people’s priorities in Northern Ireland. The reality right now is that these issues are adversely affecting people in a whole range of services across the Province, as he rightly says. I respectfully and slightly diffidently suggest that these are probably the issues that exercise people day to day, more than some of the issues that apparently divide the parties in the talks. Those who are in talks should look at these issues and the consequences of their not being able to establish an Assembly to address them, because I think that is what the majority of people in Northern Ireland want their Assembly to do.
As I said on Monday, in one sense it is easy to ask for reports and easy, perhaps, for the Government to agree to reports, but I underwrite what I said on Monday: if those reports are going to happen, can they be considered and produced with a view to being the basis of policy action, rather than just a statement of events? That at least will have made use of the time that has been lost, so that if, as I hope, we have an Executive and Assembly in place, they will have some meat that they can start to action sooner rather than later. If the worst happened—even direct rule—there would not be a hiatus before we got to grips with things. The situation has gone on for so long that the consequences are becoming more serious every day. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, says, we are talking about lives being lost. The longer it goes on, the harder and more costly it will be and the longer it will take for Northern Ireland to catch up.
My plea to the Minister, which I hope he will take positively, is that this not be just a gesture of good will —that there is a real, practical determination to ensure that, if reports are produced, they are valuable and help to implement policy decisions sooner rather than later in the event of the Assembly being established, or of Parliament or the Government recognising that action needs to be taken even in the absence of an Assembly.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, in the debate on Monday evening I joined many noble Lords in supporting the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has brought before the House. These amendments certainly focus our minds on issues that in many ways cross every boundary in Northern Ireland and are not divisive. If your Lordships were to speak to practically every party in Northern Ireland, they would find that they came together on these issues. As we have suggested before, is it not possible that the Assembly could come together and an Executive could be formed, that they could function and take forward these priorities which unite us, and that in the talks process they could continue on the other contentious issues that divide us? Until now, that has gone unheeded. I believe that most parties agree with that manner of taking things forward, but unfortunately that has been hindered.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly says that the Front Bench is not currently responsible for many of these issues. I could accept that, but it does not have the responsibility for two major social issues on which it is legislating in the Bill. It feels that it can take those issues forward, but it leaves this behind. What is more important? People are left dying while waiting for operations or cancer treatment—left lying on trolleys, waiting for their operations or even appointments to take place. There is a long waiting list for appointments to see a medical practitioner. The elderly are left without community care. These are life and death issues.
I agree with each and every one of the amendments. In the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Morrow, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, gave a list of other things which are certainly sitting there. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is right to give the example of suicide. The strategy is there, but it has not been operated. The Government feel that they can get involved and have agreed to take forward in legislation the issues of same-sex marriage and abortion, but they will not get involved in something which is indeed life and death.
The House may not have realised that, before this debate, we debated the wild animals in circuses Bill. I know there are plenty of clowns in circuses, but nobody is laughing in Northern Ireland over the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has raised. They bring great concern to the people of Northern Ireland. We could debate each one, but I will not take the time of the House, because I have spoken on them before. It is right that we should have a report on suicide. Amendment 7 says that:
“The Secretary of State must, on or before 21 October 2019, publish a report on progress of the implementation of the Protect Life 2—Strategy for Suicide Prevention in Northern Ireland”.
It is sitting on a shelf. We certainly want to see progress. I therefore believe that the debate has allowed us to raise issues that are very relevant to life and death in our Province at this time.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I want to make two points in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has done. He has been consistent over quite a period of time, particularly in raising issues regarding the health service.
For a long time, I worked as a doctor and psychiatrist in Northern Ireland; I am familiar with the situation there. I was asked to chair a Royal College of Psychiatrists commission for the whole UK on suicide, on which we produced a report. The noble Lord is absolutely right to keep asking this question and pressing the Government on a range of issues, particularly those regarding health- care. We want to see many other issues brought forward—the noble Lord mentioned RHI and libel law, for example —but he is right to point out that suicide and healthcare are matters of life and death and that the longer they are postponed, the more people’s lives will come to an inappropriate end. I welcome what he has done and support him in it. I ask the Government to support what he says.
There is another element that is very much the meat of the Bill. Effectively, the noble Lord points out that we are moving towards direct rule because, simply, there is no other way of getting any business done in Northern Ireland. There is no government there; that is an impossible position and it is simply not acceptable. I heard a lot of talk about what is democratic and what is not, but not having a Government is a very serious matter. There are a number of ways in which the Government can address this. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, mentioned one that has been floated several times by a number of us: getting the Assembly to meet and debate these kinds of issues. We could have an election to an Assembly, although part of the point of this Bill is to postpone that; I accept that the summertime is not a good time to do that, but this situation cannot continue.
We will either have an election or move into direct rule. The Bill and the amendments to it take us in that direction. It is regrettable but inevitable that we move in that direction if there is no other option; we cannot continue not having a Government. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and point out the import of what he says about not just specific issues but the issues in this Bill. I plead with the Government to take serious action after the Summer Recess in respect of either an election or some other way of returning government to Northern Ireland.
Lord Empey
To clarify, while I understand how the noble Lord has interpreted what I am doing, does he accept that I believe in devolution and want to see those departments there? My purpose has nothing to do with pushing us in the direction of direct rule; I want to push us in the direction of devolution.
Lord Alderdice
I wholly accept what the noble Lord says: he does not intend to push things towards direct rule. However, the implication of him having to raise these matters through amendments here, rather than them being raised by colleagues back in Belfast—despite what all of us wish, which is to move towards devolution—is that we cannot continue with no Government in the medium term. That is what we have. I entirely accept his bona fide commitment to devolution but that is an inevitable consequence.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was here on Monday, for reasons that I am sure we all understand. The message then was exactly what he says: we are moving inexorably towards direct rule.
I want to make one point to the people of Northern Ireland. They are being served incredibly well in your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and my noble friend Lord Trimble, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. They are active in your Lordships’ House after all the distinguished service they have given, and continue to give, in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will send a reassuring message.
I hope, above all, that their unity on the subject of devolution will spur on our colleagues from the DUP and others to redouble their efforts to get the Assembly meeting and an Executive formed. If we have to wait a little time, as the noble Lord has said, and many of us have said, time and again, can we please have the Assembly meeting, its committees meeting? That, at least, is something. I very much hope that long before any of the dates in this Bill come, we will at least see that happen.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the view that what we need is a devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Paying attention to items that separate us is very detrimental to making progress. On the items that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has cited, perhaps reliable legislation is not quite so important as the others, but all the others are vital for day-to-day life in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that the Northern Irish parties, all elected to the Assembly with the responsibility that they have, can come together on such items to get things done. Otherwise, if we have a progress report on implementation, what is it going to tell us? That nothing has happened. That is absolutely useless.
What we really need is to do our level best to get the Executive into action. I understand that there are some matters that divide the principal parties in Northern Ireland. In fact, there are things that divide people continually, but having a Government who can carry out the essential matters referred to in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is an urgent matter, and the responsibility primarily lies with those who have been elected to the Assembly. I hope that the Government will do the best they can on these items, but surely the main message is that those responsible, elected by the people to serve in the Assembly, should come together and form an Executive to carry these things out.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for bringing forward these amendments. There seems to be a consensus in the House on the importance of forming an Executive as soon as possible. The noble Lord serves that cause by illustrating the serious issues that have not been processed. We are 100% behind the re-forming of the Executive, and we hope that the people and the politicians of Northern Ireland see the wisdom of that. The amendments are interesting and useful, and I hope that the Government will be saying appropriate warm words.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has raised important issues and made some very valid points, and I add my name to those who have expressed their gratitude to him for doing so. My noble friend Lord Duncan has been keen to update the House on progress in establishing the RHI hardship unit, and I am very happy to accept the requirement to publish this report by 21 October or earlier. The reports that the noble Lord requests are on libel and suicide strategy.
I note the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble and right Reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and I have taken note of the tragic anecdotes that have been told. The issues of NHS waiting times and welfare mitigations were also raised. All are matters of great importance, as my noble friend Lord Duncan set out in Committee earlier this week, and we fully understand the reason for raising them in this place. We are without a sitting Assembly in Northern Ireland to debate these matters and to consider ways forward that serve all of the people of Northern Ireland.
These are all 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. We have had some passionate speeches to this effect during this short debate. As these are devolved matters, I do not purport to be able to significantly enlighten the House on the substance of the important issues the noble Lord has raised. But in light of the great value of these amendments, I am happy to accept them today and to commit to one-off reports on the issues specified.
In conclusion, I will answer a question that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, on what might happen upon the production of the reports. I say on behalf of the Government that it is our sincere hope that the incoming Ministers in Northern Ireland will draw from these reports to make progress on these important issues. They will be published and will therefore be public documents.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and for the consensus that has emerged. Like many noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I would be much happier if we were not sitting here debating these matters. Clearly, we have a unique situation: yes, Stormont has been suspended before, but it was replaced by direct rule. This is the first occasion when Stormont has been suspended and has not been replaced by direct rule. Therefore, we have a most unique situation—a Civil Service that is working but which is not accountable to anybody. To use the vernacular, it is bonkers, and the question is how long we can put up with it. However, let us focus on the issues, which are worth looking at on their own merits. Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, said, they could provide at least a basis upon which policies could be implemented when a suitable Government are established. In that spirit, I commend the amendments on the Marshalled List to your Lordships.
Lord Empey
“( ) The Secretary of State must, on or before 21 October 2019, publish a report on progress on libel legislation in Northern Ireland and any plans to align Northern Irish legislation with libel legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom (unless an Executive has already been formed).”
“( ) The Secretary of State must, on or before 21 October 2019, publish a report on progress of the implementation of the Protect Life 2 – Strategy for Suicide Prevention in Northern Ireland (unless an Executive has already been formed).”
“( ) The Secretary of State must, on or before 21 October 2019, publish a report on an assessment of how much demand there is for elective care services and how this is exceeding health service capacity for both new and existing patients across Northern Ireland, and detailing each of the current measures being taken to reduce health and social care waiting times, as well as those that are planned, and the impact of NHS waiting times on children (unless an Executive has already been formed).”
“( ) The Secretary of State must, on or before 1 December 2019, publish a report on the future welfare mitigation support measures that will be in place after March 2020 (unless an Executive is formed on or before 1 December 2019).”
Lord Hayward
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision so that—(a) two persons who are of the same sex are eligible to marry in Northern Ireland, and(b) two persons who are not of the same sex are eligible to form a civil partnership in Northern Ireland,provided that, apart from the question of sex, they would be eligible to marry or form a civil partnership (as the case may be).(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must be made so as to come into force on or before 13 January 2020 (but this does not in any way limit the re-exercise of the power).(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make any other provision that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in view of—(a) the extension of eligibility to marry in Northern Ireland to persons of the same sex, and(b) the extension of eligibility to form civil partnerships in Northern Ireland to persons who are not of the same sex.(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision about—(a) parenthood and parental responsibility of parties to a marriage or civil partnership;(b) the application by a party to a marriage or civil partnership for a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, or the issuing of such a certificate, and the consequences of that application or issuing for the marriage or civil partnership;(c) the financial consequences of marriage or civil partnership (for example, in relation to pensions or social security);(d) the treatment under the law of Northern Ireland of marriages, civil partnerships or relationships similar to civil partnerships formed outside of Northern Ireland.(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for and in connection with a right to—(a) convert a marriage into a civil partnership;(b) convert a civil partnership into a marriage.Such regulations may, in particular, make provision equivalent or similar to that contained in or authorised by section 9 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.(6) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make any provision that the Secretary of State considers appropriate in order to protect the ability to act in accordance with religious or other belief or opinion in relation to marriage or civil partnership (including the conversion of marriage into civil partnership and vice versa).(7) Regulations under this section—(a) may make provision for fees to be payable;(b) may make provision conferring a discretion on a person;(c) may make provision enabling a person to make regulations (and such regulations may make provision for fees to be payable);(d) may include provision amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by an Act of Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation;(e) may, in so far as made in reliance on section (Regulations: procedure and supplementary 1)(4), include provision amending or repealing provision made by an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of the Scottish Parliament.(8) In this section—(a) references to marriage in Northern Ireland (however expressed) include references to marriage outside of the United Kingdom by virtue of eligibility to marry in Northern Ireland (in accordance with Part 1 or Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013);(b) references to forming a civil partnership in Northern Ireland include references to registering as civil partners outside the United Kingdom by virtue of eligibility to do so in Northern Ireland (in accordance with section 210(2)(b) or 211(2)(b) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004).”
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I will speak also to Amendments 15 and 22 in my name and, on a cross-party basis, the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. I will not go over a large amount of what we discussed both at Second Reading and in Committee, but will explain briefly my background and interest in this subject.
We have discussed on a number of occasions during the previous debates the history of the Northern Ireland Assembly and a number of votes on the question of same-sex marriage. I came to this relatively recently. In January last year, I hosted a party here at the House of Lords for members of the Kings Cross Steelers—whose tie I wear with pride this evening. It is the world’s first gay rugby club, based in London. When hosting this event I discovered how many members of my club were from Northern Ireland, and I realised that they did not have the same rights. One of those present was John Henry, a former head boy at Wallace, and his brother, Chris Henry, an Irish rugby international, who was showing support for his brother. The world has changed, and that was the indication—that a rugby international was willing to stand alongside his gay brother and say, “The world has changed”. Arising out of that, I started working with Conor McGinn in the other place to produce a Private Member’s Bill, which I submitted on 27 March last year and he submitted in the Commons the next day. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, had a very enjoyable evening at that party alongside all the rugby players.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I assure the noble Lord that I had a great time. I hope for an invitation to the next party.
Lord Hayward
I will look in my diary and make sure that the noble Baroness has a free slot in her diary to come. Hopefully, it will be a celebration of the introduction of same-sex marriage. I said I would wear this club tie each time I spoke until we had changed this law, and I intend to continue to do so—but I hope I will not be bound by that for too long.
The purpose of the amendments I have tabled, with other Members of this House, is to improve and extend the drafting of Clause 8. This will enable the Secretary of State to deliver a comprehensive and effective regime for same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. The amendments would also allow the Secretary of State to introduce opposite-sex civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that all couples in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their sexual orientation, will have equal rights to enter the form of relationship of their choice. At this stage I thank not only the Minister and Conor McGinn but the officials, who have been so helpful in drafting these amendments.
Amendment 11 would replace subsections (1) to (4) of Clause 8 with new subsections (1) to (8). New subsection (1) enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to extend eligibility so that two people of the same sex may marry in Northern Ireland and two people not of the same sex may form a civil partnership. Noble Lords will recall that we debated extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples in England and Wales earlier this year; I contributed by tabling an amendment, which I ultimately withdrew. This was part of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019. Last week the Government announced their plans to allow such couples to form civil partnerships, and last month the Scottish Government committed to introducing legislation enabling Scottish opposite-sex couples to form civil partnerships. It is only right that we now extend this entitlement to opposite-sex couples in Northern Ireland so that we ensure full equality of access to relationships across the United Kingdom.
New subsection (2) requires that the first regulations under new subsection (1) come into force on or before 13 January 2020. The combined effect of the amendments is that Clause 8 itself would come into force on 22 October, unless the Northern Ireland Executive is reformed on or before 21 October, and the regulations on same-sex marriage and civil partnerships would follow early next year. Pushing back the commencement date for these regulations would allow the Government and the Northern Ireland Civil Service more time to make the necessary changes to legislation, as well as the essential operational changes. I understand that any less time than this would jeopardise the Government’s ability to extend the full set of rights and entitlements to both same-sex married couples and opposite-sex civil partners.
Our amendments would also allow for other necessary amendments to be made by regulations. New subsection (4) outlines the areas about which the regulations may make particular provision. These include: matters relating to parenthood and parental responsibility; the financial consequences of marriage and civil partnership, which may include pensions and survivor benefits; and the recognition of equivalent same-sex marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships entered into in Great Britain and overseas as marriage and civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. I stress that this list is not exhaustive but is intended to give a clear indication of how the powers in new subsection (3) are likely to be used and the numerous other changes that will be needed as a consequence of the extension of marriage and civil partnerships.
New subsection (5) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations governing conversion rights. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 allows same-sex civil partners in England and Wales to convert their civil partnerships into marriage, without first having to dissolve the partnership. The Government are now consulting on whether opposite-sex married couples in England and Wales should similarly have the opportunity to convert to a civil partnership. New subsection (5) would allow for both eventualities in Northern Ireland.
New subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that protect the ability to act in accordance with religious belief in relation to same-sex marriage, opposite-sex civil partnerships and conversion between marriage and civil partnership and vice versa. I am conscious that this is a particularly sensitive issue in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may be familiar with provisions of the 2013 Act, known as the quadruple lock, which we have debated in this House on many occasions. Essentially, the quad lock ensures that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit that to happen on their premises. The 2013 Act also provides an opt-in system for religious organisations that wish to conduct marriages of same-sex couples and ensures that no discrimination claim can be brought against religious groups or individual ministers who refuse to marry couples because they are of the same sex. The Government have noted that they intend to extend similar protections to civil partnerships on religious premises in England and Wales.
The protections for Northern Ireland will need to be adapted to fit the specific circumstances there. That is because the system for religious marriage is different in Northern Ireland as it operates through approved celebrants, rather than approved premises, and marriages can be conducted by belief organisations, such as the humanists, as well as religious organisations.
Northern Ireland also has constitutional protection against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion. The power in subsection (6) is therefore drafted in a way that enables appropriate protections to be crafted to fit the particular conditions in Northern Ireland, although I understand that they are likely to be broadly the same as those applicable in England and Wales and in Scotland. 1 hope that that reassures noble Lords that no religious organisations nor individual ministers will be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages or opposite-sex civil partnerships in Northern Ireland against their will.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
I notice that Amendment 11 often states that the Secretary of State “must” do something, but new subsection (6) states:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make any provision that the Secretary of State considers appropriate in order to protect the ability to act in accordance with religious or other belief or opinion in relation to marriage or civil partnership”.
In the debate on Monday, I thought that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was giving assent to or accepting something. This is certainly very far away from giving protection for those of religious belief.
Lord Hayward
During the debate on Monday I indicated my willingness and understanding and, I must say, determination to ensure that the protection in Northern Ireland was as it was in England and Wales. In fact, I checked my comments in Hansard earlier today; I could refer to the column but I will not do so. I checked with the lawyers and pressed them very hard—they have been enormously helpful—because I gave that commitment to the noble Lord and his colleagues on Monday. I am clear in my own mind, following serious and quite lengthy discussions, that the amendment as drafted will cover the protection to which I referred on Monday and broadly achieves the protections. I say “broadly” because of the difference between Northern Ireland and England and Wales in terms of certain practices. Because I gave that assurance to the noble Lords, I have checked it out and I am told that the protections, which I know noble Lords were seeking, are there. That is why I do not think the manuscript amendments that they have tabled are necessary.
I am sorry that this is a lengthy explanation, but this is quite complex and it is important that the House understands the objective of each of the individual subsections on the Amendment Paper.
Subsection (7) enables the regulations to provide for fees to be payable; for example, for registering civil partnerships and converting marriages to civil partnerships. It also enables the regulations to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, including consequential amendments to legislation made by the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. This is to allow the Secretary of State to make the necessary consequential changes to all relevant legislation, some of which may be cross-jurisdictional.
Subsection (8) ensures that the regulations can also provide for those who are eligible to enter a same-sex marriage or opposite-sex civil partnership in Northern Ireland to do so in a British consulate or on an overseas British Armed Forces base.
Amendment 15 introduces a new clause after current Clause 9. It provides that regulations made under Clause 8 are to be made by statutory instrument and subject to the negative resolution procedure. I appreciate that it is highly unusual for powers such as these to be subject to anything less than the affirmative resolution procedure and I note the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, expressed in its 59th report of the Session. The other place, in accepting Conor McGinn’s amendments, strongly endorsed his approach to extending same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland, including use of the negative resolution procedure. I hope that our amendments have given noble Lords a clearer indication of how the regulation-making power will be used.
Finally, Amendment 22 makes consequential changes to the commencement provision in Clause 10. It replaces current subsection (2) and clarifies that Clause 8 will come into force on 22 October unless the Northern Ireland Executive are formed on or before 21 October, in which case Clause 8 will not come into force and it will be for the Executive to take forward these measures. That is to prevent the Secretary of State and a reformed Executive both having a power to introduce same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.
I started by saying that the world is changing. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act in this country faced substantial opposition. A few years on, it is now accepted as a part of life: there is no question about that. I then referred to how society was changing in Northern Ireland and I referred to my club tie. We are not allowed to refer to what is seen or heard outside the Chamber, but some Members of the House may notice that there is a similar tie within vision. It is worn by a product of Rainey Endowed School, a school that both noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord McCrea, will recognise. It identifies someone who is another member of my club, who in their community would benefit from the changes that I propose this evening. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I should tell the House that if Amendment 11 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 11B by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 11A (to Amendment 11)
Lord Morrow
“(6) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make any provision that the Secretary of State considers appropriate in order to protect the ability to act in accordance with religious or other belief or opinion in relation to marriage or civil partnership (including the conversion of marriage into civil partnership and vice versa) and such regulations must, in particular, make provision equivalent or similar to that contained in or authorised by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013”
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said. He said that it was very clear in his mind, and I suspect that it is. But neither the noble Lord nor I—nor indeed any other noble Lord in this House—will be here forever, and that is the reason for my amendment.
I feel that the tweak to Amendment 11—because that basically is what it is—ought to be entirely acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, to the Government and to your Lordships’ House. First, it makes it mandatory, rather than discretionary, for the Government to use their order-making power to protect religious liberty. I emphasise that the protection of religious liberty is what this is about. Secondly, it pegs those religious liberty protections to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. That Act contains a series of strong protections, including the famous quad lock, which the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, referred to. I call it the gold standard. We must make sure that the religious liberties of the people of Northern Ireland are definitely protected, that there is no room for ambiguity and that it is not merely discretionary for the Government to act. We must make sure that those protections are not less than those enjoyed by the citizens of other regions of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 11 states:
“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision”,
for same-sex marriage. However, subsection (6) begins:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make … provision”,
to protect belief. There is no “shall” or “must” there; it is optional. Protection of religion or belief should not be left as a “maybe”, and nor should it be possible for some future Government, when none of us is around, to use the same order-making power to simply abolish such protections by saying that they no longer consider them necessary.
So my first tweak in Amendment 11A simply replaces “may” with “must”. In my book that seems rational and reasonable. I know that there are other “mays” in Amendment 11—I accept that—but it is for others to argue whether those, too, should become “must”. I am arguing that the word is essential in subsection (6) because we are talking about the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. I ask your Lordships’ House to think on that for a moment.
When the 2013 same-sex marriage legislation was being debated, many people said that their support for it was conditional—this is on the record—on the comprehensive set of protections that guarantee religious freedom, including, crucially, that no place of worship would ever be forced to take part in a same-sex wedding. I hope that the same people who said that in 2013 will reaffirm today that their support for same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland is conditional on the same level of protection being put in place.
The 2013 Act gold standard brings me to my second tweak. I have borrowed phrasing from subsection (5), which requires that regulations made under that power may,
“make provision equivalent or similar to that contained in or authorised by”,
the relevant part,
“of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act”.
Again, I made it a “must” rather than a “may” because it seems very obvious to me that whatever protections are introduced ought not to be less than those enjoyed by citizens on the mainland.
I could also have invoked the Scottish same-sex marriage legislation, since Scotland, like Northern Ireland, has a system where the emphasis is on the celebrants or officials being registered to conduct marriages, not on the premises. However, I wanted to keep it simple and to trust the good sense of the Government to uphold the same standard of protection while accounting for differences in the way that our marriage legislation is framed.
In conclusion, we are doing all this in an awful hurry. We have not had time to debate the details properly, but by tying the regulation-making power to the 2013 Act, so that the provisions must be equivalent or similar, we are simply being consistent. In all the debates that took place in 2013, we at least had the time to consider these matters. We must trust that we got the balance of rights more or less right. The same balance should be afforded to and apply in Northern Ireland.
Lord Hayward
I was to trying to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I thought I would be polite and wait for him to conclude. Just to clarify, in my earlier response I did not make it absolutely clear that the reason for the difference between “must” and “may”—although I am sure it will not affect his intention to pursue the debate—is that one is an enabling power and therefore “may” is standardly used in those circumstances.
Lord Morrow
That does not diminish my real concern here. I have to be frank and open with the House—and that is why I am saying that “must” rather than “may” should apply.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, it is a fairly good general rule that, when we are faced with legislation that is the sort of dog’s dinner that no reasonable dog would look at—complex and everybody has misunderstandings, with comments that they cannot accept this bit or that bit—the legislation is fatally wrong. When Parliament gave devolved rule to the people of Northern Ireland, it was a clear act. Now we are saying, “If you are not using it, we are going to take it back and use it for you”. The only honest way to go about that is to repeal the Act that gave devolved government and take over in an honest manner. To do it like this is a mess—and I will oppose this mess because, in all my experience, when legislation is as complex and muddled as this, it is fatally flawed.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hayward and other noble Lords, and the other amendments associated with it. The House will recall the skill with which my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston took through the equal marriage legislation in this House, and it is good to see her in her place as we debate this amendment.
Since 2013, I have, on several occasions, called for the extension of same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland, and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Hayward has taken up the issue with such skill and determination, strongly supported by others across the House who share our particular interest in gay rights, including the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who is in her place today.
I take a simple, unionist view. People in Northern Ireland ought not to be deprived of this human right, which is now firmly established in Great Britain. I do not think that the unfortunately named Sewel convention should, on this matter, deter this Parliament from exercising the right, which it undoubtedly possesses, to legislate in a devolved area. Before its collapse, the Northern Ireland Assembly had reached a majority view in favour of reform, and opinion polls in Northern Ireland show that public support for same-sex marriage is running at much the same level as in the rest of our country.
It should be remembered that it was this Parliament that decriminalised homosexuality in Northern Ireland, after a courageous Ulster Unionist, Jeffrey Dudgeon MBE, had brought a case at the European Court of Human Rights. That legislation in this Parliament came 15 years after gay consenting adults elsewhere in our country had ceased to be treated as criminals. Let not gay people in Northern Ireland have to wait so long for the right to marry if that is their wish.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I have added my name. I commend the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who spoke about the issues clearly and in detail.
I have followed these debates for a number of years and, for me, this is a matter of human rights, on which we have clear laws. It is also a matter of respecting diversity. I have known several same-sex couples who have suffered from not being able to make a deeply felt commitment to each other through marriage. Many of these couples have deeply felt religious faiths. As I recall, at the most recent Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, a number of Members who support equal marriage were elected. I think that 55 out of 90 Assembly Members have declared that they would vote to introduce marriage equality.
Marriage equality has enjoyed clear and growing majority support among the Northern Ireland public over many years, as various surveys have shown. The recently published Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey shows that 68% of people—70% including don’t-knows—support legislation for same-sex marriage. Amnesty International has produced a well-thought-through document on this, saying that the UK Government and Parliament are in a weak position as long as the ban on same-sex marriage continues in part of the UK.
The timetable proposed will allow for a statutory public consultation in Northern Ireland and provide sufficient time for the Government to make the necessary changes to regulations. I do not accept that this is being done in a hurry. The amendment will allow for the law on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples in Northern Ireland to be brought into line with other parts of the UK, thus addressing the Human Rights Act compliance concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank. This is an issue that we should grasp firmly now and I firmly support these amendments.
Lord Brennan (Lab)
My Lords, I had occasion to take part in the same-sex marriage legislation in this House with one objective at the time, which was to balance the opportunity for people of the same sex to marry with the liberty of those of religious belief who disagreed that their Church or belief should be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage within their religious context. This was an extremely important element of that legislation.
The religious liberty exception, which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seek to introduce into this Bill, was embodied in the original legislation, which this House passed through a Conservative Government. It has worked in the sense that I know of only one case where somebody has alleged discrimination against a religious practitioner in relation to same-sex marriage, which did not succeed. Why has there been only one case in six years? It is because the Act, when finally passed here, struck a reasonable balance between the two different interests. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, basically incorporate into this legislation and, by amendment, into the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, the protective provisions of our existing statute.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, concern has been expressed about the future of Northern Ireland. I have been very impressed by noble Lords’ concern about affairs there—it compares very favourably with the lack of interest shown by Members in another place. When these subjects were debated, there was only sparse attendance there, yet hundreds took part in the Divisions. It was quite to the contrary here in the House of Lords, which is a tribute to this upper House of our national Parliament. There has been interest on all sides.
I speak as a strong devolutionist, who feels that it is the only way forward for Northern Ireland. I live among a mixed community of nationalists and unionists, and I know exactly how they feel. I must warn that I am concerned about the deterioration of the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland at this moment. It is not getting much publicity, but I certainly sense it around the Province. Therefore, I ask all Members to treat with great caution the idea of our national Parliament imposing legislation on the people of Northern Ireland on a devolved issue that should be retained by the Assembly at Stormont.
I recognise what my noble friend Lord Empey has stated: many issues in Northern Ireland have been delayed for too long, in education, health and other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, agreed with him. He is himself a great devolutionist, but he made the point, quite correctly, that we are drifting towards direct rule, which is a problem. This is a very dangerous political move for this Parliament to make, because I know exactly how the nationalist people in Northern Ireland will react. They will say, “This is the English politicians imposing English standards on the people of Northern Ireland”. That will be the reaction, and it is not a winning formula.
This form of à la carte direct rule is not the answer. We must remember that under the Belfast agreement, where an Executive and Assembly at Stormont fail, there is not just one alternative—namely, direct rule—but a second alternative of the Government calling for a new election to the Northern Ireland Assembly. That may be the way forward, and should that happen—should the Government make this decision—we should recognise that the amendments before this House have within them a conditional timescale. I hope the Minister can answer this question: if these amendments are subject to a timescale, and if—in consequence of the failure of the political parties in Northern Ireland to create a new Executive and Assembly—the Government call for new elections to the Stormont Assembly, how will that affect the timescale in these amendments?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, I was pleased to be a signatory to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and I am grateful to him for introducing it in comprehensive detail. We have had to move at some speed, but considerable work has gone into trying to ensure that we have an amendment that is fit for purpose and delivers the intention: to bring Northern Ireland into line with the law passed for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, says. Elections may be one way of resolving this deadlock and something we may have to resort to. I am not so sure that, on this issue, parties in Northern Ireland will necessarily regard this as something imposed on the people of Northern Ireland by English politicians against their will. The evidence is that opinion in Northern Ireland has moved into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not just talking about opinion polls, but specific expression.
Lord Kilclooney
On that point, the noble Lord must recognise the political feeling within Northern Ireland. In one respect, he is right in his conclusion, but in another respect, he is totally wrong. Sinn Féin will certainly say that it is opposed to direct rule, and that it is opposed to matters being imposed on Northern Ireland.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I do not dispute that whatsoever. I am taking the specific issue of same-sex marriage, and on that, Sinn Féin politicians have said that they would welcome this Parliament passing a law to introduce same-sex marriage. Indeed, politicians, leaders and leading politicians of every party bar one have done so. Had the Assembly been sitting, possibly without the use of a petition of concern, it is clear that the law would have been changed. That is also a reason why in the talks, one hopes that the future of the petition of concern will be addressed so as not to block the will of the majority even within Northern Ireland, never mind externally. On this issue, parliamentarians in this House and the other place are perhaps on somewhat stronger ground than they are on the other issue—which we will come to later—in terms of the opinions within Northern Ireland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, says, the world is changing, and it is changing rapidly. We have not even begun to discuss the issues of gender and gender definition, which are causing considerable controversy right now. However, this issue has in many parts of the world almost become a settled, recognised fact. It is not just about gay rights and the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Although there are far too many countries, particularly developing countries, where the law is way behind the reality, otherwise, the reality is that it is now accepted; it is a custom. It has moved quickly, but acceptance is pretty widespread. It is a fact: people meet people who are married and who are gay. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said that it has happened in his own family. We have to recognise that the gay community in Northern Ireland—the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, gave personal examples of friends of his and people from his rugby club—are trapped in a situation where they can see that marriage is readily available elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in the Republic of Ireland, across Europe, but not in Northern Ireland.
While Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures made some questionable challenges to the European Convention on Human Rights, it is arguable—and likely to be a resolution of the Court, if it has not already done so—that the right to a civil partnership and, indeed, a marriage for same-sex couples is a human right. If that is the case, if such a ruling were to be made, the United Kingdom Parliament would have the responsibility to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have their human rights. It would be better to do it before we had such a ruling, and on the basis that there is a clear will within Northern Ireland for this to happen; and many have said that they expect this Parliament to deliver it.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I would draw to the noble Lord’s attention the fact that assertions by English politicians about the opinions of the Northern Irish are no substitute for actual knowledge asserted by vote. It is no good saying that the polls have changed and showing how big they are, because polls—particularly in elective and political matters—are often proved wrong. I hope he will not put more weight than he already has, and in fact, I hope he will put less, on asserting—other noble Lords have done the same—that we know what the Northern Irish think and we know what is good for them, so we will do it. I am very unhappy about all of this, and I shall shut up now, because I was not able to come in for the beginning of the debate, but I am deeply unhappy about what is going on.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I think the noble Lord is misinterpreting what I said. I was quoting what had been said by Northern Ireland politicians and talking about how the Northern Ireland Assembly had voted. I am not talking about opinion polls, but about votes and the expressed views of political leaders in Northern Ireland—not my opinions but their opinions. I am simply reporting them to the House, and I suggest, on that basis, that it is not about opinion polls; it is about the clearly expressed views of political leaders in Northern Ireland and votes in the Northern Ireland Assembly when it was sitting. In that context, in a sense, the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives are asking us to pass this law.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, given that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has raised the question of whether people from this side of the water ought to be ruling on what happens in Northern Ireland, I will say something as somebody whose accent betrays them as coming from Northern Ireland.
First, it is absolutely clear from the voting record of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly that attitudes on this question have changed definitively. When the Northern Ireland Assembly was meeting, it passed, in 2015, by a majority, its wish for same-sex marriage. But this was blocked by the procedural device of a petition of concern—a device not put in place for these kinds of issues, and which in fact has been so overused that it is now being questioned altogether. We must understand that, had that device not been used, we would not be debating the issue now because it would already have been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Secondly, as I listened to the debate in Committee, a number of noble Lords said—it has been repeated again this evening—that we have to be terribly careful that we are not seen as people from this side of the water imposing a view on people in Northern Ireland, particularly, the sentiment was, on nationalists and republicans; it is quite difficult for Unionists to complain terribly about it. We need to understand how much the situation in Ireland has changed, not over the last five or 20 years, but over the last two, three or four years. There have now been referenda in the Republic of Ireland on both the abortion and same-sex marriage questions. Both have been passed and the legislation has been changed. We now have a Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland in a same-sex relationship. It is not an issue any more.
Sinn Féin’s response, after the referendum was passed, was to say that this should now happen in the north. So, while folk here might say, “We are talking about harmonisation with the rest of the United Kingdom”, Sinn Féin will say, “We are looking at harmonisation with the rest of the island”. It has been clear that that is what it wants to see. On lots of issues that the party does not agree with it will use a different analogy, but this is clearly party policy and something Sinn Féin wants to deliver. So, I think it highly unlikely that there will be the difficulty that Members suggest—particularly that it might in some way create a degree of instability for the peace process or attitudes to the Good Friday agreement. That might have been the case five, 10 or 20 years ago; I do not believe it is now, at all, because the situation in Ireland as a whole has changed dramatically. We could go into why it has changed. It has changed because the position of the Churches and religious establishments has dramatically collapsed, north and south of the border, for reasons not totally dissociated from this element of human behaviour.
Having said that, an important case has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow: that, because there are anxieties, there has to be a degree of confidence that the position of those in religious organisations, whether celebrants or members, will be protected. Whatever the legalities of the permissive use of the word “may”, there is a case for ensuring that the word “must” is used to give a degree of confidence to those who are anxious about the changes that have taken place. So, I do not have any anxiety that passing this in this Parliament will somehow create a great problem in the relationship with nationalists and republicans; they were keen to vote for it in 2015 and even more so now, post-2018. But there is a case for addressing the anxieties of those who feel that a mere “may” is not a sufficient protection for their concerns; I acknowledge and support that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I also very much support that, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said. It is not so much a matter of particular legal qualification, but it is a fact that this is a very important aspect of how people feel about the legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, it has worked well here, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, will find it possible to overcome the difficulties of lawyers and do what is necessary to secure this.
I also believe it would be proper for this sort of regulation-making power to be subject to consultation in Northern Ireland. If, as we have just heard, the position is that people there wish for this, consultation will show that. It is extremely important that what is proposed has the merit of being supported by consultation in Northern Ireland itself.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
My Lords, I have no doubt whatever of the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, or of anyone else who has spoken in support of his amendment. I trust he will acknowledge that there is no lack of sincerity among those who speak on behalf of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Morrow. He said that the world is changing. A number of Members of your Lordships’ House have had a religious vocation in life. When it comes to my religious belief, while we say that the world is changing, the word of God on which I base my belief says that although,
“Heaven and earth will pass away … my words will never pass away”.
It does not change with the passing of time.
The point that my noble friend Lord Morrow has brought before the House is very serious. I see the clear wording in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and I come back again to the word “may”. When I was in public life, as a councillor for 37 and a half years, and as an elected representative in the other House for 25 years, a lot of emphasis was placed on putting “shall” and “must” into legislation. When “may” was put in, it was drawn to the attention of the governing party in those years that this did not create certainty. The amendment says that the Secretary of State “may” make a provision that the Secretary of State considers “appropriate”; in other words, “may” at the whim of the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State, irrespective of who it is, decides not to give that protection, there is no protection, according to this legislation, should it be passed by your Lordships’ House this evening.
That is a very serious matter with serious implications because it gives the idea that this is discretionary, not mandatory. I therefore honestly have to say that many of my colleagues would have no confidence in the manner in which this has been presented at this time. I have listened carefully to what other Members of this House have said and I believe they acknowledge that there is a problem here. Acknowledging the problem is one thing, but if it goes into legislation and the wording is not changed, that is what we are left with. Then, of course, it goes to a court. What did Members of the other House really mean when they put down the word “may”? Did they simply leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State or did they say that it went deeper than that?
Protecting religious freedom and religious belief in the United Kingdom is vital. We cannot lose our religious freedom, our civil and religious liberty, which was fought for and which people died for. I do not believe we should hand it away. Therefore, I make a solemn appeal to Members of your Lordships’ House. Forget about who tabled the amendment; forget that it is my noble friend Lord Morrow. Think carefully about what it means. I appeal to the House to accept that what he says is a protection that must be given to people of religious belief in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for the way he introduced this amendment and for addressing the comments made by the noble Lords from the DUP. I am sure the Minister will repeat the assurances he gave. All noble Lords are right; there has been a considerable shift over time in what society thinks about these issues. I do not think Northern Ireland is any different from any other part of the UK in that regard.
As a general point, in Monday’s debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, spoke of her recent marriage. As Members of this House from all three political parties, and quite possibly the Cross Benches, have done, she took advantage of the same-sex marriages Act that this House passed under the superb guidance of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—who could forget her descriptions of her relationship with George Clooney? Members of this House have taken advantage of that legislation and we congratulate them on their marriages.
I struggle with the idea that something that has been fundamental to my life—a marriage of 40 years—should not be available to colleagues who choose to love somebody of the same gender as them. I also struggle to understand why somebody who lives in Northern Ireland should be treated any differently from somebody who lives in any other part of the UK on their ability to marry and share their life with the person they love.
The amendment from the House of Commons was deficient in some ways, but the fundamental principle was that there should be equality in the law across the UK on or before 21 October 2019. What we have before us today gives effect to that. It was taken on a free vote in the House of Commons and it is a free vote, a conscience issue, in this House as well. It passed in the other place by a majority of 310. That is bigger than most majorities we get even in this House. In time-honoured way, what has fallen to your Lordships’ House is to tidy up the amendment that came to us, dealing with any technical deficiencies and the details and definitions. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, Conor McGinn in the other place, and others who have worked on this.
In the other place, the Minister’s colleague the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, John Penrose, confirmed that he sympathised with the amendment, but said it had deficiencies. I will come on to those. He voted in favour of it, with that statement that it was both politically and legally impractical. The changes required are those that bring it in line with current England and Wales legislation and deal with the practicalities of when it can be delivered.
Consequential policy issues arose. For example, the original amendment did not address issues such as pensions, the conversion of civil partnerships and gender recognition. The replacement clause picks up on those and prompts the Secretary of State to consider them when making regulations. As has been heard in your Lordships’ House tonight, the original clause did not address issues related to freedom of religion and religious expression, allowing religious institutions to opt in, rather than being compelled to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
The Government—I hope the Minister will confirm this; I expect him to—and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, have been very clear that any legislation relating to Northern Ireland will mirror the legislation already in place in England and Wales and will address the very concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Morrow. Extending the period in the legislation will give Ministers and their officials time for a little breathing space to engage with relevant stakeholders and get to grips with those issues. That is the right way forward.
We often refer to amendments passed in this House as a victory for common sense. With the majority of MLAs and Members of Parliament having backed the extension of same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland, tidying up this amendment to address the points and concerns raised is not just a victory for common sense but a victory for love.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, this is a historic moment. I am struck. Let me begin in an unusual way, with a quote from Sara Canning, the partner of Lyra McKee. She made a statement to Theresa May, saying that:
“I wanted her to know that Lyra and I had a right to be treated as equal citizens in our own country. Surely that’s not too much to ask?”
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for tabling Amendment 11, and doing so in a manner which addresses the technical deficiencies in the initial amendment from the other place.
I have heard comments on a number of issues tonight. I do not make a habit of quoting scripture, but I will tonight; I think it is important to do so. I quote 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, verse 7:
“Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance”.
The majority by which the other place made its decision was quite significant—a majority that my party can now only dream of. It is a reminder that, had the Executive re-formed in the past, this matter would have been taken forward in Northern Ireland. That is the important part to stress, but we cannot overlook what has arrived from the other place.
I will touch on a number of the issues raised, because it is important to do them justice, but I will do this slightly the wrong way around. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, raised the issue of religious protection and religious freedom. He is right to do so, because there needs to be an understanding among all faith-based groups in Northern Ireland that they will not be compelled to act against their faith, their religion or even their opinion.
However, I come back to how we seek to move this forward. The question centred around the words “may” and “must”. I need to drill down into that to make sure this is fully understood. The words “may” and “must” are not about the protections or the fundamental realisation of them. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. That is not in doubt, not debated and not disputed, and will not be in any way eroded by anything we do here today—full stop. It is important to remember that all the legislation will comply with that and ensure we move that forward. Absolutely at the heart of this must be a belief in Northern Ireland that faith-based groups will not experience some sort of prejudice because they express their faith in fashions which do not recognise the situation today.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said only the other day, she would not wish to get married somewhere where she did not experience that love. Marriage is not a confrontation with other religions or an attempt to undermine them. Marriage is not an attempt to do any of those things at heart. It is, at heart, about love; that is the important thing we need to stress.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hayward for moving forward in this fashion. I commend his speech to the House; he has done most of the heavy lifting that I would have had to do. He has done justice to the task of addressing a number of technical deficiencies. It will be important to recognise how these will play out in Northern Ireland. This is an issue where we need to be as careful as we can be.
I need to stress that I do not have any concerns with Amendment 11 as now drafted. The dates in there will be a challenge—I put that front and centre—but we will meet those deadlines, by hook or by crook. I apologise to the officials who we will look to for this, but I am making that commitment. The reason the timelines are as they are is to recognise that this is not straightforward. When we looked at some of the aspects of same-sex marriage and civil partnership elsewhere in these islands, we recognised that they carried challenges to other pieces of legislation, which needed to be addressed. That is why we need a timeframe of nine months post Royal Assent. The amendment necessitates that we move faster than that. However, this is the truth of it, as we recognise some of the stumbles and challenges which have been experienced elsewhere in this kingdom and learn from them. It is important to draw on the experiences in Scotland, England and Wales, which should help us. Addressing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, I say that it is important to stress that we are looking at an opt-in process. One would not be compelled to act against one’s faith or strongly held beliefs.
I am aware that this provision will not be welcomed in every quarter of Northern Ireland, just as it was not welcomed in every quarter of Scotland, England or Wales, but, as other noble Lords have said, time has moved on. It is time to move this one on. A message is being sent to Northern Ireland. I wish this had been done in Stormont; it would have been stronger had it been done there. I would much rather not be standing here doing it, but it needs to be done. We are acting on a very clear instruction from the other place, having recognised that the instruction required certain adjustments, for which we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, will recognise that we are not seeking to undermine in any way the religious freedom or the conscience of anyone in Northern Ireland who holds a faith dear. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, will not press his amendments, and that we can move forward with Amendment 11 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what has been said around the House this evening. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It was remiss of me at the beginning not to thank the staff of the Bill office for their assistance. They have been very busy of late—I suspect they are busy all the time, and this is just a normal day for them—but they were very gracious and helpful.
Some noble Lords, including the Minister, have quoted other people. I had intended to say more, but I am not going to. I am not going to say his name, because he does not come from the same side of the political spectrum as me, but I want to quote one of our well-known politicians, known to everybody in this House:
“In Northern Ireland, we have a tendency to look at who is saying something rather than what is being said”.
I trust and pray that, tonight, your Lordships’ House will not be guilty of the same. It is my intention to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
If Amendment 12 is agreed to, my successor will not be able to call Amendments 13 and 14.
Clause 9: International obligations in respect of CEDAW
Amendment 12
Baroness Barker
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report are implemented in respect of Northern Ireland.(2) Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (attempts to procure abortion) are repealed under the law of Northern Ireland.(3) No investigation may be carried out, and no criminal proceedings may be brought or continued, in respect of an offence under those sections under the law of Northern Ireland (whenever committed).(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make whatever other changes to the law of Northern Ireland appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or appropriate for the purpose of complying with subsection (1).(5) Regulations under subsection (4) must, in particular, make provision for the purposes of regulating abortions in Northern Ireland, including provision as to the circumstances in which an abortion may take place.(6) Regulations under subsection (4) must be made so as to come into force by 13 January 2020 (but this does not in any way limit the re-exercise of the power). (7) The Secretary of State must carry out the duties imposed by this section expeditiously, recognising the importance of doing so for protecting the human rights of women in Northern Ireland.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make any provision that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in view of subsection (2) or (3).(9) Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly.(10) In this section “the CEDAW report” means the Report of the Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1) published on 6 March 2018.”
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I hope we can continue in a similar vein on this next set of amendments. I rise to move Amendment 12, and to speak to Amendments 19, 21 and 24, which are in the same group. Noble Lords who have followed this Bill closely will know that in the House of Commons, Clause 9 was carried by a majority of 332 to 99. Its purpose is to ensure that the human rights of women in Northern Ireland are similar to those in the rest of the United Kingdom on the matter of abortion. There was an overwhelming majority in another place for the rights of those women to be respected.
The reason was quite clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, has often reminded us, abortion is legal in Northern Ireland—but it is legal in some of the most restrictive terms in the world. Consequently, the ways in which some of the laws have been interpreted have meant that, for example, in the last year only 12 women have been able to have an abortion in Northern Ireland, and, as noble Lords will know, up to 1,000 women a year have to resort to coming to other parts of the United Kingdom—if they can afford to—in order to receive the healthcare to which they are entitled.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled on abortion law in Northern Ireland, stating that the present-day legislative position in Northern Ireland was untenable, intrinsically disproportionate and clearly in need of radical reconsideration. The court also stated that the existing law was incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to private family life. It was against that background that, in another place, the Member for Walthamstow, Stella Creasy, sought to insert into this Bill an obligation on this Parliament to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, are compliant with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which told the Government in February 2018 that abortion law in Northern Ireland breached human rights.
An amendment was put forward, the substance of which was accepted by the Government—but it was said that the amendment was deficient. Since the addition to the Bill was made in the Commons, there has been a process of discussion between the Government and those who put forward that proposal about how the expressed will of the Commons should be carried forward—and, in particular, what regulation-making process should now being undertaken in Northern Ireland be to implement that Bill. That has resulted in the amendments before your Lordships this evening: Amendment 12 and the consequential amendment.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, forgive me for rising at this particular juncture, which I would not normally do; I will return to the wider debate once it has completed. I think it is important that I respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and her important questions and provide some information to the House that may inform the debate as we progress.
The noble Baroness asked several questions that I wish to give some clear answers to. The first was on the consultation—that it should focus on provision, not on law, enabling women to access rights, rather than restricting them. A period of consultation is the right thing to do and would ensure people in Northern Ireland and all relevant organisations can provide input and views. However, I want to be clear: consultation would not be on the question of whether this should be done, but only on how CEDAW’s recommendations can be implemented in Northern Ireland. As to the question of human rights compliance in the regulations, let me absolutely clear: in setting up the new regulatory regime and relevant non-legislative matters, we will comply fully with our human rights obligations.
To answer the question of how we would meet our requirements if we publicly consult on measures that would restrict access to abortion, any consultation will not be about restricting abortion. It will be about how, in practical terms, to establish a new regulatory regime that fully delivers on the CEDAW recommendations. I confirm that the Northern Ireland Office is clear that human rights commitments mean that women will never be forced to disclose rape and that a consultation will not lead to this. That is a very important question. The CEDAW recommendations set out that abortion must be provided in cases of rape and incest, but not how this should be done. This will need to be considered carefully, given the sensitive and distressing nature of these circumstances. In doing so, the health and well-being of women will be first, foremost and paramount in these considerations.
Reference to the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and the obligations on the medical professions is an important consideration. That is why in developing proposals to meet the CEDAW recommendations, we will give the most careful consideration to issues such as rape and sexual assault; and why it is important that we make these proposals in discussion with medical and other organisations, which understand and support women who have endured these horrors.
On the question of why consultation itself has to be carried out under Section 75, the equality duty under that section requires designated public authorities in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Office, to,
“have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity”,
in relation to the nine equality categories, and to the desirability of promoting good relations,
“between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion”,
and racial groups when carrying out their functions in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland equality scheme notes that consultation is usually undertaken over a 12-week period but that in exceptional circumstances, it can be reduced to a period of eight weeks or less. In any case, our equality scheme requires us to consult on the equality impact assessment at the appropriate stage, so consultation in one form or another will be required.
We also undertake to ensure that consultations will seek the views of those directly affected by the policy reform: the Equality Commission, representative groups of Section 75 categories, other public authorities, voluntary and community groups and other groups with a legitimate interest in the matter. It is our strong preference that, given the significant reform Clause 9 seeks to achieve—creating a decriminalised and, instead, a medical-model regime for the provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland—we undertake a consultation period of between eight and 12 weeks. We appreciate that there is existing evidence supporting the type of case for reform; that includes legal judgments, domestic inquiries and international reports. But these do not set out a clear path forward that can be directly translated into regulatory and other measures. That is why consultation is required.
Generally, there is a strong argument for consultation in terms of making good public law and a reduced risk of future legal challenge, which I cannot emphasise enough. I am sure that my colleagues on all sides would agree that we must ensure that the reform is correct, for the health, safety and well-being of the women affected, and that it is appropriate to provide clarity regarding the safeguards in place for the medical profession. That brings up the conscience concept.
I can confirm that the Government will work expeditiously between now and 21 October 2019 to ensure that we take all possible steps to be ready to implement changes if the Executive are not restored thereafter—let me get that right: restored before. The whole thing could hinge there, so let me reread that sentence to avoid any dubiety. I can confirm that the Government will work expeditiously between now and 21 October 2019 to ensure that we take all possible, necessary steps to be ready to implement changes if the Executive have not been restored by that time.
If it is accepted that a consultation has to be carried out under Section 75, can I confirm that the substantive point will be how women will obtain access to abortion and not whether they should be able to do so? I want to be absolutely clear: consultation would not be on the question of whether this should be done but only on how the recommendations of CEDAW can be implemented in Northern Ireland. How will this be reflected in a drafting process and consultation? The consultation will make it explicit that we are consulting on how to deliver CEDAW recommendations most effectively, not on whether we should be taking forward this reform. We will want to engage with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to ensure that our consultation is drafted in the most effective way, to ensure targeted engagement on how we propose to proceed. I hope that this information is helpful to the House.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 12, 19, 21 and 24 but if I may address what the Minister has just said, it was helpful that he clarified the position. I suspect it may well have shortened the debate significantly as well. I draw much comfort from the way he said that the consultation will not be about whether to do it but only how to do it. As I understand it, it will be about the details for giving effect to the wish expressed in the amendment, not about going back to first principles on whether one should move ahead. That is very important and I welcome it.
I am slightly puzzled by one point. The Minister explained why he wants a longer period for the consultation process on this amendment than he urged on the same-sex amendment. It seems to me that if one can do it on the same-sex amendment in a certain timeframe, one could also do it on this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister might clarify that. Having said that, I welcome the assurances he gave us and repeat: we are not looking at whether but how to implement. That is crucial.
I want to say one or two things briefly because the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, covered a lot of the points. Over the years, many of us have been lobbied and approached by women from Northern Ireland and, before its referendum, from the Republic who were desperate about the situation in which they found themselves. We heard the most painful stories of women who had to travel alone to Liverpool for an abortion, as they could not do it in the comfort of their own homes. We heard stories of doctors fearful of giving advice because of the criminal law, and the story of a mother who was subject to the law because she had produced abortion pills for her daughter. These are painful stories.
I should say that I am an active member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly; indeed, I chair one of its committees. We have been looking at abortion and I wish I could give the House the full details of our report. We produced our committee’s report some time ago. It would normally go to the plenary before being adopted and going into the public domain. However, one DUP member of the committee did not like anything in the report, so we said to him, “Okay, produce an alternative version and we’ll publish it”. That took some time and the result is that although I have our report—in fact, I have his as well—I am not really at liberty to go through it in detail because it is not yet public property. It still has to go before the plenary of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. That is proper, otherwise we would have an interesting report. Of course, that report may well be redundant by the time it is approved if all these measures go through.
However, we still discovered some useful things in producing the report. We talked about the human rights of women and the rights of healthcare professionals. We also talked about whether it should be illegal for doctors to give the advice that they can anywhere else in this country, and so on. I am afraid I am not at liberty to say more, except that we took a lot of evidence. We took evidence in Liverpool, London, Belfast and Dublin, so we got a broad range of opinions on both sides of the argument. I am bound to say that the majority of the committee were persuaded by the strength of the arguments, which are centred on this amendment. This is not something that has just come to me; it is based on a lot of the work that we put into the report, which will see the light of day before too long.
I repeat that I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. I have one point to put to him. Ideally, I would like the timetable for this consultation to be the same as it is for the same-sex marriage consultation. If the Minister can clarify why one is longer than the other, I would be grateful. We look forward to a quick resolution of this terrible dilemma, which faces so many women in Northern Ireland.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I think the House knows that I was the person who piloted the Abortion Act 1967 through the other place. I begin by thanking the Government, and this Minister in particular, for their readiness to respect the overwhelming vote in the House of Commons recently to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line. I was slightly puzzled by the fact that although the Government made the commitment to put right what they saw as deficiencies in the drafting in the Commons, that has not happened, and we have no government amendments before us today. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that is so. I am assuming that we will now go forward and that after the consultation there will be effective introduction of a statutory instrument. Presumably that is what the Government have in mind to change the law in Northern Ireland.
It is worth reminding the House that the 1967 legislation started in 1966, here in the House of Lords. I drew a place in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills and picked up the Bill that had already been passed in this House—it was this House that pioneered the legislation, not the House of Commons. Although we made substantial changes to the Bill, it started here and it is worth reminding ourselves of that. I shall quote something that I have quoted very often. Dr John Marks, when he retired as the secretary to the British Medical Association in 1992 after 40 years, said:
“Looking back over these forty years, it seems to me that the event which has had the most beneficial effect on public health during that period was the passage of the Abortion Act”.
That is a remarkable thing for a senior medic to say, but it is a tribute to this House that that happened.
Three things have changed substantially since the 1967 legislation, which I want to draw to the attention of the House. The first is that in 1967, in terms of the European Union, we were the pioneers in legislating for abortion. Other countries had not done it. One outcome was that, immediately after our law was passed, we started to get some traffic from other European countries. People were coming into Britain and Britain was being portrayed as the abortion capital of Europe. The press was full of stories about taxis at Heathrow Airport bringing women here. This was a great embarrassment to the Government at the time and, frankly, an embarrassment to me as the author of the legislation, but that is what happened. What has changed since 1967 is that the rest of Europe has changed its legislation and has in fact gone ahead of the 1967 legislation. Most European countries have based their law on it being a woman’s right to choose up to the 12th or 13th week of pregnancy. That is very different from the Abortion Act 1967.
I want to stress that a very important document that influenced me and a lot of people at the time was the Church of England report Abortion—an Ethical Discussion, by far the best treatise on the morality of abortion that I have ever read. It influenced my own church, the Church of Scotland and the Methodist Church and I think it influenced opinion in European countries as well. Most of their legislation is based on the belief or doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church put forward right up until the late 19th century, which said that the soul entered the body at the time of animation or quickening. That was the fundamental reason that the European countries introduced this law making a distinction between abortion up to the 12th or 13th week of pregnancy and thereafter. It is very different from the Abortion Act 1967, but it is a fundamental change. Now, of course, the latest country to join in is the Republic of Ireland, so Northern Ireland stands out quite distinctly as having no abortion at all compared not just to the rest of the UK but to the rest of Europe.
The second thing that has changed since 1967 is the composition of the House of Commons. It is very difficult for us to remember that back in 1966-67, when we were debating this legislation, there were only a couple of dozen women MPs in the Commons. One of them was the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who was in her place earlier today. She gave great support to the legislation, but there were only a couple of dozen women. Now there are a couple of hundred women, and that is why we have had this overwhelming vote in favour of changing the law in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the women MPs—Stella Creasy, Diana Johnson, Sarah Wollaston and Rupa Huq in particular—who have promoted this cause. It is a fundamental change since 1967.
The third change since 1967, perhaps the most significant, is the fact that in 1967 we were legislating on the only method of abortion, which was surgery. Now, of course, we have the two abortion pills and that has made fundamental difference to how abortion is treated. In Northern Ireland, because of the lack of law, we have had changes in the administration, first in Scotland and then in England and Wales, allowing women from Northern Ireland to come and use the NHS facilities on this side of the Irish Sea. More than 1,000 did so last year but, frankly, this is not satisfactory. We cannot expect every woman who requires or wants to consider an abortion to have the time and the money to travel across the Irish Sea to use facilities in Scotland or England and Wales, but 1,000 have done so. The fact that these pills are available on the internet but, as has been said, at some risk given the state of the law, has led to an appalling situation where people in Northern Ireland can buy the pills on the internet and run the risk of running counter to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, which is the Offences against the Person Act 1861. That is why we are right to consider making this change now.
All the medical bodies support the change, including the Royal College of Obstetricians, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Midwives. In recent weeks we have listened time and again to the fact that the people and politicians of Northern Ireland do not wish to see a statutory trade barrier down the middle of the Irish Sea, and they are surely right about that. However, what we have at the moment is a statutory social barrier down the middle of the Irish Sea, and that is why we are right to remove it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have amendments in this group. I tabled a manuscript amendment, which I think, in light of the Minister’s comments, is probably not necessary. I did it because the sense from the Committee was that Northern Ireland should come into line with the rest of the UK and we should be dealing with a level playing field.
I did it also because the CEDAW recommendations go a little further than the current Abortion Act 1967, in which abortion is limited to up to 23 weeks and six days. After that, there is a requirement to report if an abortion has been undertaken for severe foetal abnormality, reported on the form HSA4, stating the grounds and the diagnosis, because that falls outside the remit of the current Act. I did it with the consultation listed, because I am aware that the medical workforce in Northern Ireland is already in a pretty critical state and anything that jeopardises doctors going into general practice and risks people not remaining in general practice further imperils the overall healthcare of the population there. I hope that people bear that in mind in terms of the time required for consultation.
I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for having spent a lot of time discussing this with me. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who is not in her place. There has been a lot of discussion about this. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, with whom I have also had discussions. It is a credit to all of them that we have been able to have very open discussions about these complex issues.
I had a conversation with the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who said that I may quote her today. She has been involved in education programmes to help doctors and midwives understand. She pointed out that they need time, but that attitudes change when people understand how to implement and put the needs of the woman first. She would like the CEDAW changes to come in, because she and her college are in favour of them. However, the House needs to be aware that those changes go further than the current Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, spoke so elegantly just now and on many occasions over the years.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, this is a strange Bill, and it seems to get stranger as we go along. Clause 9, we were told, was not workable. As the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, the Government indicated repeatedly that they were going to bring amendments which would remedy the defects in Clause 9. What we have now, I am afraid, is equally lacking in clarity, although it contains more subsections.
I will say at the beginning that this is not a Bill in a situation of grave emergency. There are no human rights judgments that require action by the Government in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly—and even if there were, there would be no obligation on us to act. We do not always act in accordance with the Supreme Court. I do not know how many of your Lordships have sat and read the CEDAW recommendations in this report. They are interesting, in part, because proposed new subsection (2) states that we will repeal Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, but it does not seem to deal with all the consequences of that. I will come back to that later. I look forward to hearing why there is no government amendment that would really put it right.
I will ask the Minister some questions about proposed new subsection (1) in Clause 9. Recommendation 85 requires the repeal of the Offences Against the Person Act. They require some form of legislation to enable abortion, and a moratorium on the application of criminal laws concerning abortion. What does this mean? Does anybody know what it means? It is obviously separate from the Offences Against the Person Act. What is the difference, and to which criminal laws does it refer? I wonder whether it refers to the Criminal Justice Act 1945, of which noble Lords will be aware, which prevents infanticide. Will the Minister tell me exactly what we are doing as we legislate to give effect to recommendation 85(c) on this moratorium on the application of criminal law.
There are many other issues in recommendations 85 and 86 which we are adopting wholesale. I am not sure whether all noble Lords are familiar with them. Some of them are a bit odd. One says that there must be access to contraception freely. In Northern Ireland we have something which possibly does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. We have free prescriptions for everyone. No mother, no matter her personal circumstances, is precluded from getting free any contraception that she requires.
I do not want to hold back your Lordships too much. Proposed new subsection (2) seeks to abolish the Offences Against the Person Act. Have noble Lords considered what this means and what they will vote for? It means the removal of all restrictions—as I understand it—on any abortion for any reason at any time up to 28 weeks. The most recent medical information which I have been able to find tells me that babies born at about 22 weeks of gestation had a 50% survival rate in 2008. Medical science has advanced considerably since then, so that even smaller babies are surviving. Will we have a situation in Northern Ireland, even for a few months, where abortion on any grounds, in any place, for any reason, without any protections is available? I suggest that that is not safe and I will come to the reasons why later.
It is not the law here, where abortion is available only up to 24 weeks. We know that about 30 babies a year aborted in that situation are born alive—presumably because some doctor failed to make sure that it did not happen—and they are left to die. I am not sure that Northern Ireland wants that situation, even for a matter of months. What will the regulations that give effect to proposed new subsection (2) actually do? We do not know. They may be very much wider than the laws which apply here. Is this what your Lordships want? The laws which apply here are now regarded by many as unsatisfactory because of the advances in medical science and the care of children.
There is no limitation at all on the scope of the regulations in Amendment 12. Although we do not know what the regulations will do, or how they will do it, we know that for months there will be no requirement for abortions to be performed in a safe place, and no legal protection for the freedom of conscience of practitioners—a huge issue for them.
I will not articulate all the defects, but perhaps I will give one more. In the situation which will result from Amendment 12, Northern Ireland will become a rather more perilous place, particularly for pregnant young women whose husbands or families want them to have an abortion for whatever reason when they do not have the time, space or capacity to say no.
Parliament is currently considering domestic violence legislation. Abortion is one of the major issues in the world today. It is a major issue here in the United Kingdom. Article 39 of the Istanbul convention—the convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—requires us to have a criminal provision to prevent forced abortion and to deal with it as a criminal offence. The Offences Against the Person Act is used in that connection. For example, a man who wanted his wife to abort the baby that she was carrying was convicted under that Act of putting abortion pills into her drink to ensure that she would abort.
I am trying to say that I accept that noble Lords are well intentioned, but there are huge gaps in Amendment 12, which are dangerous for women in some ways. We have had 16 hours to look at the amendment; it should have taken much longer and we should have allowed proper consideration of these matters, in the normal manner. Even if your Lordships are still minded to ignore the Sewel convention and all the other issues relating to devolution, legislating for lacunae, as Amendment 12 does, is possibly irresponsible.
Brett Lockhart QC is a leading member of the Bar in Northern Ireland. He said that the absence of regulations between October and January would be legally chaotic and would have significant implications for quality assurance, et cetera. Moreover, the extent to which the current guidelines would have any impact on the new legal situation remains entirely unclear. Can the Minister assure us that there will not be legal chaos in Northern Ireland for months—and possibly longer if things go badly wrong in the process of trying to get this together? I ask noble Lords not to rush into legislating in this way. It cannot be said to be fit for purpose.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, in speaking to the suite of amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and her co-signatories, I want to engage with two points. The first relates to due process and how we must understand these amendments in terms of the broader approach adopted by Westminster to the Bill. The second relates to the impact of the amendments themselves. In approaching the amendments, we must remember that the Bill has become distorted as a result of our dispensing with constitutional due process. That was seen in the dispensing of scope and the insertion into a Bill of matters that should have been the subject of Bills in their own right—a Bill that was subjected to fast-tracking and without regard to the recent vote of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The issue of scope is raised in the amendments but, to understand its significance, we need some context. It is noticeable that, in the other place, two amendments were laid that sought to change the law on abortion. Proposed new Clause 5 sought to create a new regulation-making power for the Minister with respect to changing abortion law in Northern Ireland. Proposed new Clause 10 required the Secretary of State to use powers already invested in her through Section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make regulations on abortion with special regard to our international obligations. The clerks ruled that both amendments were outside the scope of the Bill and should not be selected because they sought to change the law on abortion. The Speaker, however, caused great shock by dispensing with this advice and selecting proposed new Clause 10, although he did not select proposed new Clause 5. Although proposed new Clause 10 was not in scope, proposed new Clause 5 was more seriously out of scope in that it would have created a new, independent, free-standing regulation-making power with respect to abortion.
Proposed new Clause 10—now Clause 9—is actually more out of scope than it need be on account of its flawed drafting. Properly drafted, it should require the Secretary of State to make orders rather than regulations. Those orders could have been used to address problems that the Member for Walthamstow articulated when making her speech; for example, regarding prosecutions. Subject to the identification of suitable powers, orders could require a much more restrictive approach to prosecutions or police involvement and, on the same basis, the making of subordinate legislation to give colour and detail to such matters as information, detailing the circumstances in which the termination of a pregnancy can occur. Amending Clause 9 to bring it within the scope of the Bill would also have the benefit of giving the Bill more integrity because it would sit much better with the abortion requirements in Clause 3(8), which require that a review of abortion law in Northern Ireland be conducted and that proposals for changes in the law be considered. This is entirely incongruous with any attempt to read Clause 9 as introducing a radical change in the law.
Lord Alderdice
I remember, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, may remember as well, that many years ago, on Belfast City Council, when it was proposed that the Brook clinic be able to establish itself to give advice to young women on a range of issues, including where they might have to go for abortions, my own party was supportive of the clinic. Then two older, rather socially conservative unionist councillors stood up. I imagined that I knew what they were going to say. One of them was Alderman Tommy Patton, and the other was Councillor Frank Millar. Both were solid, working-class men with impeccable loyalist credentials. Both of them said the same thing. They said, “I have come back too many early mornings from the shipyard and from my work and seen young girls bleeding in back alleys. If the Brook clinic coming to Belfast makes sure that never happens again, I am voting for it”.
The situation has changed a great deal in many ways, but not in every way, and we are dealing with one of the ways it has not changed—the legislation on abortion. The mood on abortion, however, has changed dramatically in Northern Ireland, even since the 2016 vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Not only has the Supreme Court declared that the United Kingdom is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the position of Northern Ireland on abortion, but political party views have also changed.
It is true that the Democratic Unionist Party still takes the same position—indeed, a position upon which it imposes a party whip, which it is entitled to do. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, will know that, as a former chief whip of the party. The position of Sinn Féin, however, has changed quite strikingly, because when there was a referendum in the Republic of Ireland it changed the position. It said, “No, we are going to impose a whip on our party members to say that, whatever their conscience—and they are entirely entitled to have it—as public representatives they should vote for a change”. What Sinn Féin wants, of course, is a change to harmonise the law in the north with the law in the rest of the island.
It is also the case that the position of the SDLP—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, will know this because her husband was a representative of the SDLP—has changed in that, while the party maintains the same position as party policy, it has opened the door for members who are elected representatives to speak to their own conscience on the question. The leader and the deputy leader and other significant colleagues have decided that in all conscience they can no longer support the party’s position on this issue.
The Ulster Unionist Party has also allowed it to be a question of conscience, and the Alliance Party always has, although the overwhelming majority of members and elected members vote for abortion in reasonable circumstances when the opportunity arises.
The situation has changed in Northern Ireland. As I said on same-sex marriage, I do not believe that most people, including in the nationalist community, will look on legislation here as being an imposition from this side of the water. Many will look on it as a harmonisation of legislation between north and south. That is why I ask the Minister, when he speaks about consultation, to ensure that the consultation does not look just at how far there is harmonisation with legislation on this side of the water but at how far there is harmonisation with legislation in the Republic of Ireland. This is not an idle question, because one thing that has not been mentioned when there has been talk about young women having to come to this side of the water for abortions is that the Health Minister in the Republic of Ireland, when the referendum was held and the legislation was changed there, said that they were prepared to welcome young women who needed to have abortions to come across the border.
Those who live here have no idea what an extraordinary change of position that was. The idea that young women in the north might be going south for abortions is almost incomprehensible to those of us who grew up in Northern Ireland. It just shows how hugely the situation has changed. We need to facilitate that change of attitudes. It is not a question of people being forced to have abortions. It is the opportunity to do so when it is needed. It is usually a very painful business emotionally. It does not do for us to make it any more painful or difficult. That is why I support the amendment but ask the Minister to ensure that in the consultation it is not just a question of harmonisation within the UK but harmonisation within these islands.
Lord Elton
I do not question that things have changed a great deal, but I do say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Commons do not send us instructions and our function is not to concur with them. They send us proposals for legislation, and they seek and consider our views on them, and our views are important. There is a momentum behind this proposal. It is driven by enthusiasm. It has an enormous backing in the House of Commons. But we still have a duty to see that it is fit for purpose.
What worries me, and should worry your Lordships, are all the things that the noble Baroness has just referred to as to how in some ways it will make things worse. It will allow children to be born who will then have to be left to die. I mention the most emotive of these, but there are many. It seems to me that we should not simply give in to a pressure to get things done quickly and do them wrong; we should do them perfectly. In my view, your Lordships should consider very carefully whether we should not adhere to our function and our traditions and take the time to ask the other place to consider whether in fact what has been shown to be wrong can be put right.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, some parties have whips on the issue of abortion; some parties take it as a matter of conscience. I support the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in many of the things that she has said.
The Minister said earlier that there appear to be many experts on Northern Ireland. I am not going to pretend to suddenly have become an expert on Northern Ireland. I want to touch on two things. One is my surprise that a Bill that was supposed to be about Northern Ireland’s Executive formation appears to have become a Bill that goes far wider—as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said in introducing his amendments earlier—to matters of life and death. Clearly, Amendment 12 comes into that category.
On Monday the Minister told us that there was an instruction from the House of Commons. Like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I was surprised to hear about this instruction. Given that we have a very clear indication from the Commons that they wish the issue of abortion to be brought into this Bill, and there clearly appears to be a view across the Chamber that any consultation should be on how, not whether, I have a set of concerns that I would like the Minister to address, many of which have been touched on.
The Minister said that the consultation will be completed by 31 October. We have three months. He is shaking his head. I was going to raise my concern that, if the consultation is being done over the summer, who is going to be consulted, how are they going to be consulted and is there adequate time? A related question is: if there were to be a general election and purdah, that would wreck any timing, so could all that be taken into consideration?
The amendment raises many questions. It would appear that it could allow abortion up to 28 weeks. While 22 weeks is perhaps the lower end of viability—the Minister is shaking his head again but if he can give an indication of what will be proposed it would be helpful. Is it expected that the laws will replicate in their entirety those in Great Britain? Will there be provisions on freedom of conscience? What scrutiny will there be? In line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, will there be an affirmative vote?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
My Lords, I know that this debate is going on somewhat—I notice some faces that are dismayed that it is doing so—but I had an appointment tomorrow morning with a consultant in the Royal Victoria Hospital which I had to put off to be here for this debate tonight. Therefore, I do not think it is an inconvenience for people to deal with such an important issue as the life or the death of a child or to spend time debating it properly.
We must bear in mind that this Bill is being rushed through the House, as it was in the other place, and that there seem to be a number of experts in the wings who know what people in Northern Ireland think. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, told us how things have greatly changed. Yes, they have changed because the noble Lord has left Northern Ireland and come across the pond.
Lord Alderdice
Is the noble Lord referring to a change for the better in regard to that particular point?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
I am making no comment whatever. I had a long personal relationship with the noble Lord in the Northern Ireland Assembly—we spent many happy occasions together—and I am not making any personal aspersions on him. I am stating a fact.
Many noble Lords’ authority for much of what they have said is that the Northern Ireland Assembly voted for same-sex marriage and that a petition of concern was used against it, and that is the reason it was stopped. But it is amazing that they are not using that argument now. They are not appealing about what the Northern Ireland Assembly did in its last vote two years ago because it does not suit their argument. The Northern Ireland Assembly took a stance and, by a large majority, voted not to change the legislation. I wait for the Front Benches of both parties to say, “Let us listen to the Members of the Assembly. They made a decision and we have, as it were, a democratic authority to take this forward”.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned my party’s policy and its members being whipped to vote for it. Without apology, let me explain why. It was because we put it in our manifesto. We put it before the people and they voted for us. I know it is strange for a party to actually stand by its manifesto—today it seems you say one thing to get elected and then do the opposite when you get elected—but I will not apologise, nor will my colleagues or my party, to anyone in this House for standing by the promise we made to the electorate and asking them, on the basis of it, to vote for us—and they did. They made us the largest party in the Assembly. I will take no lectures from someone who says, “We dismiss the DUP because they whipped their members to vote for it”.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said that the SDLP and Sinn Féin have changed. If the House believes that, why does it not agree with the statement in Amendment 16 that the Secretary of State must,
“consult individually with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the proposals of the regulations”—
ask them if they have changed their mind? This is being rushed through before they have the opportunity to say, “We have not changed our minds”. The majority of the elected Assembly are still standing by what they believed before. If this House believes they have changed their minds, it should support the amendment which allows them to be asked rather than make the decision before they are asked.
The 59th report of Session 2017-19 of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill is important. It states:
“Given the very wide-ranging nature of the powers, including the power to amend primary legislation, and the politically sensitive nature of the provisions, we firmly believe that the negative procedure does not offer an appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny and that the affirmative procedure should apply instead”.
It continues:
“Neither clause”—
that is on same-sex marriage or abortion—
“requires the Secretary of State to consult bodies and interests in Northern Ireland before making the regulations … However, we accept that imposing such a duty would be incompatible with the timescale for making the regulations”.
It then makes the recommendation:
“We recommend that both clauses should be subject to the affirmative and not the negative procedure”.
It then states:
“We find the Minister’s reason for retaining the negative procedure, namely that it was ‘the clear will of the House of Commons’, wholly unconvincing”.
That was not written by me or any of my noble colleagues but by the distinguished members of that committee. I ask Members of this House: do we dismiss them too?
The issues we have been discussing today have tremendous moral implications for our nation, especially in Northern Ireland. I am sad that, at a time when we need spiritual leadership, there is a Bench that is completely empty and its members are not present to give us that spiritual leadership on issues which have major moral implications for the people of the United Kingdom.
I trust I am not reading too much into it but, when the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, sat down, I noticed that the Minister was immediately able to read off detailed scripts to answer all the points that she raised in the debate. It is interesting that all the answers were immediately given rather than the Minister waiting for help at the end of the debate. It makes one believe that much of what we are going through has been carefully choreographed and all we are being allowed to do is to go through the motions of being able to speak. However, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak for the unborn child and to say that they have a right to live, and not to be told that they should die.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but I would like to ask about two matters in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has said. Yesterday was my first sitting on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on to which your Lordships have kindly placed me. The noble Lord is right: the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others mentioned the determination of our committee in not looking at the policy or the moral issues of the two clauses before your Lordships’ House but looking at the technicality of whether this is good legislation, and whether it is properly drafted and is not going to cause problems with existing legislation as we go forward.
On the question of the need for an affirmative rather than a negative resolution, as a member of that committee, and as that is our report’s main recommendation, I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would confirm what his view is of the committee’s report with regard to the need for an affirmative resolution. Perhaps he could also give some indication, in the light of that and his previous remarks about the legislation as drafted in another place, of whether he is minded to introduce government amendments in line with the recommendations of the committee, if only to correct what he himself has identified as flawed legislation.
That is a purely, if you like, techy contribution to this debate, because it seems to me, after 27 years in this building, in both Houses, that good legislation is our job—that is what we are required to do—and if we do not do it properly, there are consequences. It is not unknown for courts to ask, “What was the intention of Parliament at the time?”. There is nothing worse for a court case than not to be absolutely clear what Parliament intended when we legislated. That is what we are sent here to do, so we have to get it as technically good and as legally correct as we possibly can.
My second point to my noble friend the Minister is a more personal one. I am not against abortion, although I would certainly like to see the upper limit for abortion come down. I agree—I have seen 22 week-old infants in prem baby units survive, and it is time for an adjustment there. However, that is not the matter of this debate. I have heard one or two contributions tonight which I am not absolutely clear about, on this matter of 28 weeks in Northern Ireland. Can my noble friend confirm whether, if this goes through, it will be compatible with the rest of the country or whether in fact there will be some differential in Northern Ireland? The thought of 28 weeks fills me with horror.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, this is a conscience issue and a sensitive one and, certainly on these Benches, it is a matter for a free vote. Nevertheless, we are also faced with the fact, as the noble Baroness just said, this is not necessarily the ideal way to legislate on this issue. But we are not in an ideal situation: we have no Assembly, we have growing pressures for change, and we have the view of the House of Commons, which wants change. Therefore, effectively, these amendments are trying at least to move forward to implement the will to address the issue.
When one looks at the statistics of 12 abortions being allowed in Northern Ireland and more than 1,000 women travelling out, it is patently clear that there is an imbalance that needs to be considered, at the very least. It is not just the conscience issue; we are facing the basis of a probable human rights issue. We have had the guidance of our own Supreme Court that we could be in breach of the European convention, and there is a case that we are awaiting a judgment on, which might confirm that fact. As I have said on a number of occasions, if that is the case, the United Kingdom Government and Parliament will be obliged to ensure that we comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. It would of course be much better if it were done in a way that is managed by the elected representatives in Northern Ireland—that would be the preferred way to do it.
Finally, on the idea that those Members should be consulted individually, it seems that the best way to consult the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly is for them to convene the Assembly and consult themselves. If that was the case, we would not have to continue with these amendments at all.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the noble Lord ends on a note I would have started on. I think all noble Lords would far rather these decisions were taken in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Many of us, over many years, have supported devolution and campaigned for it, and some of us have been direct rule Ministers working towards establishing the institutions. The noble Lord strayed into another debate later when he talks about Amendment 16, which is not in this group. On that issue, the best way to consult Members of the Legislative Assembly is for them to sit and conduct their business so that they can take these decisions.
I shall pick up a couple of points from the debate. One was the issue of these amendments not being in scope. I have to say that my experience of the Table Office and the clerks of your Lordships’ House is that they are sometimes infuriatingly proper. I can think of many a discussion that my team and I have had where we insisted that something was in scope, but there was no way the clerks would shift if they said it was out of scope. I therefore urge your Lordships’ House to recognise that if we have an amendment before us, it is because it is in scope.
Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, on a point he raised earlier from my own experience as a Minister. He was slightly suspicious of the Minister—
Lord Morrow
When we talked about amendments being “outside of scope”, we were talking directly about the other House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
This House has no remit over what the other House says is in scope, but I am sure the clerks and the Speaker would act in a similar way. Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord McCrea—
Baroness O’Loan
I always thought that the scope of the Bill was articulated in its Long Title, which in this case does not refer to abortion. Therefore, I do not quite understand why there is such a rejection of the question of whether these are proper matters for the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I refer the noble Baroness to the Companion and the Standing Orders of the House: if an amendment is accepted by the clerks, it can only be accepted if it is in scope of the Bill.
I will try again to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, who sounded quite suspicious of the Minister. Drawing on my experience as a Minister, if I was responding to a debate, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House, if I was going to be asked questions, I would always ask those who had them, “Can you let me know them before?” If you are to have an informed debate and make an informed decision at the end of it, you need to be able to answer those questions. That is something I do regularly for Ministers to this day when I speak at this Dispatch Box. If there are questions I want answers to, I do not want the Minister at the end of the debate not to have had time to find them—I want them during the debate. It was courteous of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to let the Minister know what those questions were so that he was able to inform today’s debate and let us know the answers. It is good practice and helpful to your Lordships’ House to have that made available to us.
On the matter itself, we have had a long debate about whether abortion is appropriate and whether people support or oppose it, and so on. That is not what is before us today. The House of Commons, on a free vote, as it is in your Lordships’ House, voted by 332 to 99 on an amendment to say that there should be safe and legal abortions for women in Northern Ireland, as there are in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is an obligation on Parliament to act, under international and domestic law, to assure such access to free, safe and legal abortions.
If we rejected this today, it would not cut the number of abortions at all. At the moment, as a result of the laws in Northern Ireland at present, we see over 1,000 women and girls from Northern Ireland travelling to England and Wales—and now, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to the Republic of Ireland. However, we also find—this is one thing that worries me enormously, particularly as technology moves on—that women risk their life and liberty by illegally buying abortion pills online, which they then take without any medical expertise or support, and they will often delay seeking care if there are any complications. In doing so, they risk their life and their liberty—they could go to prison. Today the Minister is trying to give effect to what was agreed in the House of Commons.
I will say something about the Minister’s comments in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. His explanation of and reassurance on regulations was welcome. There have been concerns about this issue, and he dealt with it with enormous sensitivity. He will understand that some were sceptical about the reasons for having a longer timescale—the point my noble friend Lord Dubs made—than for same-sex marriage. I think he was clear, but can he reiterate any of the points on why that is the case?
We know that there are strong opinions on this and that this is a matter of conscience for everybody. Everybody in this House should respect that it is a matter of conscience for everybody, and we all have to abide by our conscience.
Lord Elton
Is the noble Baroness not going to take any notice at all of the fairly fatal criticisms, in some respects, made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and there is some distance between us; we do not agree. As I pointed out, this is a matter of conscience and we should all respect other people’s views. We have to do what we believe in our own conscience to be right.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I have a large number of pieces of paper. If you will forgive me, I will just assemble them into an order I can make sense of.
As it was at earlier stages, this has been an emotive and thought-provoking discussion. I spoke earlier to, I hope, help the debate to be informed. On choreography, I always welcome people giving me the questions beforehand, because it helps me work out the answers. It really is as simple as that; it is not collusion in any sense. It may well have been that I gave the noble Baroness answers she did not like, but the point was that I knew at the outset what the questions would be.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, began his contribution by asking why the length of consultation could not be the same for abortion as for same-sex marriage. There is a relatively simple explanation for that. On same-sex marriage, we have established precedent in England and Wales, and in Scotland, that can be built on in a straightforward manner. What we seek to do in Northern Ireland is quite different; there is no roll-across regime we can borrow from. As a consequence, the new elements of that will require a fuller consultation. We cannot equate the two consultations, because they seek to consult on quite distinct and different elements.
I welcome the thought-provoking contribution today from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She raised the issue of conscience. I know that a number of Peers have been concerned about the conscience element. As I did during previous discussions, I stress again that the conscience element must be at the heart of this. We cannot compel any practitioner to act beyond their own conscience. We must make sure that that is understood in the guidance that will be issued thereafter to all those involved in this process; that is absolutely critical.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, raised a number of issues. If she will allow me, I will do my best to do justice to them. The first, which I think I touched on the last time we discussed this, was the Sewel convention. The important thing to recognise is that under normal circumstances we shall use the Sewel convention, but I do not think there is any doubt that we are not in normal circumstances. The Sewel convention in this instance will not apply.
The question that I suspect my noble friend Lord Elton, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others will raise is that of what happens during that limbo period when we move away from where we are now but before we have brought into play the functioning abortion regime. It is important to stress that, although we are looking at the 1861 Act and the elements we shall remove from it, during this limbo period the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 will still apply. Section 25 will still apply; this makes it a criminal offence to destroy any life of a child capable of being born. That will apply during that limbo period, until we have got to the stage where we have the newly functioning regime.
Baroness O’Loan
To what period does that apply? My understanding was that the legislation said “twenty-eight weeks”. I just want to clarify that.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
There seems to be some discussion on this, but I have the answer to that as well. There is some debate on the exact number of weeks at which a foetus will be viable, but it is around 22 to 24 weeks. The important thing to stress here is that we are not repealing that Act, and there will be no period during which there will be any sense of an opportunity or free-for-all for that aspect to be in play. It is important to recognise that. We cannot have that misunderstood as we move through.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
The Minister was talking about 22 to 28 weeks; then he said “the foetus”. A child born at 22 weeks who lives—that is happening; as a minister I have seen and visited many little ones born at that time—is not a foetus but a child.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
In response to the noble Lord, I am a scientist. On occasion I will use scientific words, and on this occasion I just did. That was snippy. I am sorry; that was not my intention. Forgive me for that, but frustrations can come out in debates such as this.
As we look at these matters, it is important to try as best we can to be as sensitive as we can. I fully understand the point raised by the noble Lord. There will be a range of views across this House on these matters. It is right that we understand and respect those. As we move this matter forward, we seek to give effect to the legislation as it progressed from the other place. The important part that I need to stress—it is important for me to do so and be understood—is that the date within the Barker et al amendment, as currently drafted, would cause the Government some difficulty, because we would be unable to deliver the very consultation we have discussed within that timeframe.
Baroness Browning
I am sorry; I must be missing something here. Can my noble friend just explain to me why it is that if this amendment proceeds the timescale for the foetus is not the same as in the legislation in the 1967 Act? Foetal viability—whether it survives—is gauged only after the foetus is born and becomes a child. What does 22 to 28 weeks refer to? I have not been able to find it in any of the words on any of the papers available tonight.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It is important to recognise here that we are not discussing the 1967 Act at all, I am afraid. That will not be moved across in any way. Right now, we are looking at a new regime that will be constructed in Northern Ireland. In answer to the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about why the consultation period is longer, were we moving across the 1967 regime we would, in truth, be able to do this a little more swiftly. We would be doing so on the basis of established precedent and rules that exist within the current scheme. However, we are not doing that. The instruction we received from the other place was quite clear.
There is this question about why there are no government amendments to move forward on this matter. The simple answer to that is that, at present, we have received an instruction from the other place—
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Let me answer my noble friend Lord Elton. If we are not able to move it forward, it will not be just an instruction—he is quite right—but the law. That is different, because it will be the law that will move forward, and we as a Government will struggle with that deliver what we need, which is a safe and secure system that places women at its heart. We will not be able to do so in the time limit we have set out, and that is the reason we have a problem. My noble friend Lord Elton, is absolutely right: we are not talking about an instruction. This is a law that will come into force, which we will have some difficulty trying to maintain and will potentially allow itself to be opened up to further judicial interrogation and review. Ultimately, this will do a disservice to honourable Member in the other place who has tried to move this forward in the manner in which he has.
Lord True
This is a minor point, in some ways, but it is fundamental. Nothing can be law unless both Houses agree to it, so while this is not agreed by both Houses and assented to by the monarch, it is a law in the making. I am concerned about the process here, as I referred to in an earlier debate. It is not desirable. In the light of that, in a fast-track process we must have clarity. This has been asked by various Members in this House: what is the guarantee that there will not be a case in Northern Ireland where a child—or foetus, if the Minister likes—is aborted after more than 24 weeks in the period after the passage of this law? What is the guarantee? What is the safeguard in law? What is the case law on the subject? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will able to advise the House before Third Reading.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The challenge that my noble friend sets me is a difficult one. I cannot give a guarantee in that regard because I am not in a position to control the situation in Northern Ireland nor the medical profession. It is beyond my ability to do so. What I have said is that before we have been able to bring in the necessary elements of the new regime, there will be a period during which we will be bound by the established earlier Act from the 1940s which will give the confidence that we are not seeking to undermine in any sense the practice that has gone on there. But we have to recognise that during that limbo period, health practitioners, doctors and others will not be in receipt of guidance from us because we will not be in a position to draft that guidance by that point and that will be the reality that we will face. It is not one, unfortunately, that I can answer or offer or afford any guarantees on.
Lord Empey
It might be helpful to the Minister to be aware that, in the Assembly of 2007 to 2011, the then Health Minister redid the guidance to give clarity to the profession. It proved not satisfactory to the profession at that time and work commenced on doing it again, but the mandate ran out before it was done. Perhaps it might be helpful if the Minister asked the officials to look that up because there is uncertainty and that is very disturbing. The guidance was the problem in the past. It is not that the Assembly never looked at the abortion issue because it did, but it did not succeed in getting agreement that was acceptable to the professions.
Lord Alderdice
As someone who had to work with the guidance before the legislation came through— and this is for reassurance to colleagues—I know that the problem was that the medical profession had to work without guidance for a long time. What happened was that the guidance was introduced partly to satisfy—
Baroness Barran (Con)
I remind the noble Lord that we may speak only once at this stage.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I heard the noble Lord, if that helps, so I understand the point that was about to be made. I welcome that and appreciate it, as indeed I appreciate the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Empey. There is no doubt that, as the consultation process unfolds, these elements will be drawn on. We cannot simply ignore them.
It is important to ensure that the regime that we bring in to Northern Ireland is human rights-compliant—that is absolutely at the heart of this—and that within those human rights remain elements of conscience and freedom of expression which we also spoke of earlier when we spoke about same-sex marriage. The amendment would also see the repeal of Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, together with putting in place a moratorium against current and future investigations and prosecutions, which will decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland, allowing terminations to take place where they fall within the framework of other existing protections and laws.
As this change will come in before the details of the new medical regulatory regime are finalised and that scheme is introduced, to mitigate the risk of abortions being carried out in circumstances that would fall outside the prospective regulatory scheme, we will ensure that appropriate measures are put in place, such as guidance issued by relevant Northern Ireland bodies, to provide legal clarity for the people affected and for the medical profession. Therefore, in answer to my noble friend Lord True’s point, our ambition is for this process to be recognised—and it will be a significant change—but to allow each step to take place in a carefully considered legal manner.
In putting in place the new regulations, it is only right that a period of consultation is taken forward, not on the question of whether this should be done but focusing on how it will be done and to seek views on the proposals for how best the recommendations of CEDAW can be implemented in Northern Ireland. That is our purpose. We appreciate that there is existing evidence supporting this type of case for reform, which we have spoken about before, such as legal judgments, domestic inquiries and international reports. We recognise those and have heard that case.
We will need to think very carefully about how we implement the CEDAW recommendations generally, including how we meet the recommendation to provide an exception in cases of rape and incest, which will require very careful consideration of the sensitive and distressing nature of these circumstances.
We will also consider all the necessary other amendments which may be required as part of the introduction of the new abortion regime. We will carefully consider the impact of Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, including whether any amendments are required as part of the changes made elsewhere in legislation. The Government will work expeditiously between now and 21 October 2019 to ensure that all possible necessary steps are taken, but I return to the fact that I am still struggling with the ultimate deadline in the amendment. It is also important to stress at this point that our ambition is to try to realise this in a safe and secure manner for the women of Northern Ireland. That is the guiding point of this.
I was asked a question about abortions at 24 weeks. We can guarantee that no abortions will be carried out over 24 weeks. In this limbo period, it would be an offence under the 1945 Act as these would indeed be deemed to be viable, and would be children. I say that in response to the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. After the new regime, we would not introduce legislation that allowed later abortions than are taken in England or Wales. We would seek harmony.
Baroness O'Loan
I am sorry. I need clarity on this. It is very important. The Minister just said that, under the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 it would be a limit of 24 weeks. Is that what was said?
Baroness O'Loan
But the Criminal Justice Act would need amendment to get to 24 weeks.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Not as I understand it, no. It would not. If I am incorrect, I will happily correct the record.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I will attempt to be helpful. I think the focus on the 28 weeks comes from the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, which gave the number of weeks as that when we had the debates on the Act from the noble Lord, Lord Steel. As I understand from the Minister, the 1945 Act—which I am not familiar with—talks about viability and his solution to that problem was guidance that viability would have occurred by 24 weeks.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Baroness. That is very useful indeed. I ask my officials in the Box to remember that.
In drawing these remarks to a close, I am also conscious of the remarks about the affirmative procedure. I would be minded to accept that if things came forward in a fashion that would allow me to do so. As we are potentially at an impasse, I turn my attention directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. We can discuss the date of the amendment before Third Reading in the hope that we can find that common ground. Returning to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I say that we may also be able to consider that as part of a common approach on the affirmative procedure.
I appreciate that this has not been an easy debate. I am fully aware—as a number of noble Lords have said—that this matter appears not to come under the title of the Bill. However, I return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that these procedures have been deemed to be in scope. Indeed, I will go further and say that criticism of the other place in this regard is deemed to be out of order in this House.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
When I spoke before, the noble Lord indicated that he would respond on the issue of consultation.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness wants a piece of paper that has now become buried in the strata on my desktop. It is important that we now recognise the reality of the time we have. The holiday period primarily limits our ability to begin any serious consultation. We will have to design it carefully. We anticipate being able to initiate such a consultation in the early autumn. In an ideal world, we could see it being 12 weeks but we may be able to pull it forward to eight. We have to recognise thereafter that simply doing a consultation is not enough: we have to consider its elements. We are not able to deliver the outcome of that by the October date.
Oh, I have the piece of paper with the questions that the noble Baroness asked—forgive me. I think I will be able to answer the affirmative vote question, which we can take forward at Third Reading, if that is possible. The question of freedom of conscience rests within our human rights commitments, to which we remain committed. The guidance must be very clear that no doctor, health practitioner, nurse or anyone else will be compelled to act beyond their conscience or beyond their tolerance in that regard. She asked about events. I have no idea what is going to happen, but we must plan in a smooth and careful manner. I am not looking forward to any serious election issues; I hope that does not happen.
That touches on the answers to the questions, I think. On that basis, I look across the divide to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in the hope that she is willing to consider it.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—for their contributions. It is extremely important that we have discussed these matters in the fashion that we have. At this late hour, I do not intend to say anything in great detail. I thank the Minister for the very thorough way in which he has addressed questions from all sides of the House. He has managed to put to rest a number of fears.
There are just three matters on which I need to respond. The first concerns Amendment 19A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. In the light of comments—not least those of my noble friend Lord Steel—I hope that she will understand why it would be inadvisable to go ahead with her amendment, and I hope that she will not press it.
The second and key point, made by a number of noble Lords, was whether there would be an interregnum in which there would be no regulation whatever on abortion in the Province. The answer to that is quite clear: there will not be. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said about what the Government intend, there are the professional ethics of bodies such as the RCOG, the RCGP and the Royal College of Midwives. Those bodies have backed this amendment but they have professional standards to which they must adhere. There is also general guidance in general medical law which would be unaffected by any of this.
Thirdly, I say to the noble Lords who pointed out the anomalies between different Acts of Parliament in relation to 24 or 28 weeks that that makes the case for updating the law, and this is an occasion on which we could do so. I take the Minister’s point about his problem with the deadline in my amendment, and I hope that we might be able to discuss that between this stage and the next.
This is an important matter and we have had an important debate. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, because Amendment 12 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 13 or 14 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Hayward
“Regulations: procedure and supplementary 1
(1) Regulations under section 8 are to be made by statutory instrument.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 8 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(3) A power to make regulations under section 8 may be used to make different provision for different purposes.(4) Regulations under section 8 may make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or saving provision.”
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 section 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) consult individually with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the proposals of the regulations; and(b) lay a report before each House of Parliament on the outcome of the consultation held under this section, including the number of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly in favour of and against the regulations.(3) The second condition is that 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)(b).”
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, in moving Amendment 16 I shall speak also to Amendment 16A. Amendment 16 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay; Amendment 16A is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. In speaking, despite the result of the last vote, I make it plain that I intend to divide on these amendments.
Our amendments have a simple intention: to address the very real democratic deficit that underpins the Bill. As we all acknowledge, there has been no consultation with the people of Northern Ireland about this Bill. They have not had a say. While I accept that the Bill as originally drafted was necessary, it seems that the way it has been fast-tracked has had the unfortunate and destabilising effect of enhancing the democratic deficit which is so obvious when one reads the Bill, dealing as it does, in many cases, with transferred matters.
The uncertainty about all this is somewhat demonstrated by the vote we have just had. The reality is that we still have an Infant Life (Preservation) Act. It is not repealed by this Bill. Therefore, the period of 28 weeks to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred is the period in that Act, and the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 makes that the offence. That is why the period will be up to 28 weeks, not 24 weeks. I accept that the Minister was unaware of this, but that is the situation. There is an awful lot of uncertainty around this Bill, as I said in my previous speech.
In normal circumstances, we would have had a minimum of 31 days to consider this Bill. We have had seven days since Second Reading and we received the final marshalled amendments today—I think I got the last one at 12.44 pm. I do not know how your Lordships feel, but I think it is very difficult to grasp the implications of the various amendments to this now very complex Bill. That is demonstrated by our last exchanges.
In my previous amendment, I focused on the provisions in this Bill that have the scope to change the law on abortion and same-sex marriage. I listened to your Lordships and decided to narrow my focus to abortion, for the simple reason that the Northern Ireland Assembly debated same-sex marriage and voted on it by a majority, and it was then blocked by a petition of concern. Given that the matter was effectively passed by the Assembly, I felt it was unnecessary to include same-sex marriage in this amendment.
However, it continues to be my view that abortion is a transferred matter which, having been rejected by a significant majority of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016, really should not have been dealt with in this very rushed manner. It does, after all, go against the advice of last week’s report from the Constitution Committee, which said:
“We reiterate our concern about the routine nature of fast-tracking legislation relating to Northern Ireland. It is constitutionally unacceptable save for exceptional and urgent circumstances”.
The letter to the Prime Minister, which I drafted with the noble Lord, Lord Eames, has attracted a remarkable response from right across what is sometimes described as “our divided community” that has been extraordinary to see. More than 19,000 people have now signed the letter to the Prime Minister. That would be the equivalent in England, Scotland and Wales of half a million people responding over the weekend, which I do not think has ever happened. We are asking the Prime Minister to withdraw the Bill—because of the uncertainties demonstrated in your Lordships’ House and to which I have referred, and because it is such significant law—or, at this very late hour, to support Amendments 16 and 16A.
In proposing new Clause 10 in another place, on abortion, which became Clause 9 in our Bill, I am conscious that the honourable Member for Walthamstow spoke of the importance of devolution. She said:
“New clause 10 is carefully crafted to respect the fact that, at the moment, we do not have an Assembly. If there were an Assembly, it could step in and deal with the criticisms that have been levelled at us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/19; col. 182.]
Although the Assembly is suspended, and we do not have an Executive, we still have 90 Assembly Members. Without in any way changing the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, our new amendment provides a means whereby it can be given effect in a way that better demonstrates respect for devolution, which, as the honourable Member for Walthamstow says, is important. It also demonstrates respect in this House for the constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland.
This is democracy. I believe passionately, as do 19,000 others—and the number is growing all the time —that if Northern Ireland is to be treated with respect on this important devolved matter, MLAs must be given a say. If noble Lords turn their back today on the 90 MLAs, and deny them this rule, they will effectively be saying, “Let’s go back to direct rule”. As someone who lives in Northern Ireland, let me tell the House that the people have no wish to go back to direct rule.
The Minister talked about consultation, initially in terms of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, the equality consultation requirement. That is a statutory requirement. The Government have no option; there has to be a Section 75 consultation. All the policies and everything else will have to be Section 75-proofed. The Minister indicated a much wider consultation.
I have so many questions about this Bill that we need to consult about. It is not just about what your Lordships are proposing. Amendment 12—now new Clause 9, I guess—is completely lacking in detail. I do not know what abortion law will look like when your Lordships are finished with it. I do not know whether it will be like Irish law, which is drafted, so the Government of Ireland have said, to limit abortions in most cases to 12 weeks, or whether it will be like your Lordships’ legislation, the Abortion Act, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks, and allows the abortion of people with a disability right up to birth. I do not know what your Lordships are proposing to impose on the people of Northern Ireland. That is a very important deficit in what is being put before the House today, and the product of a very rushed process.
We have MLAs and we trust and vote for them; it is imperative that the Bill is the subject of some negotiation with them. I think the House knows, having listened to this debate, that far too many questions—what the time limits could be, how that could work, what the impact of doing this or that would be, how the royal colleges will respond and how we would provide—remain unanswered. This is not, in my experience, how your Lordships normally make legislation—in a way that precludes proper consultation. There are fundamental principles of constitutional law at play here.
I want to take your Lordships to two homes just very briefly. In the first are a couple who are very happy and expecting their first child. They are told that the child has Down’s syndrome and they are counselled to have an abortion. They have that abortion, grieving desperately that they must have it, but do not feel they could manage a child with Down’s syndrome. Having had the abortion, they are then told that the child did not have Down’s syndrome. It happens. The second home is that of a friend of mine who was told that their baby had anencephaly. Again, abortion was counselled. They did not have that abortion. They decided they wanted to bring their baby into the world, say hello to it and keep it safe for as long as possible. When their baby was born, it did not have an anencephaly. The science—and the way the Abortion Act happens in England and Wales—is not perfect, and we need to think very carefully about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
Most of your Lordships come from England, Wales and Scotland. There are a few of us from Northern Ireland, but we are very few in your Lordships’ House. Your Lordships live in jurisdictions with more conservative laws than would be suggested by the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW conventions, so I looked at what your Lordships and Parliament have done in the past. What are the moments now regarded with profound embarrassment? One, I found, is the imposition of the poll tax on Scotland before the rest of the UK, even though everyone knew that opposition to the poll tax in Scotland was particularly strong. Possibly the best example was when parliamentarians from the rest of the UK imposed a Bill on Wales, against the opposition of practically every Welsh Member of Parliament—just as was the case in the House of Commons last week—and quickly created the Tryweryn dam in the early 1960s to provide water for Liverpool. Both instances became driving forces for nationalism—think about that in the context of Northern Ireland—and are now regarded in Westminster, I believe, with some embarrassment, and public apologies have been issued.
I do not think your Lordships want to author a similarly black moment in the history of the union. That can all be redeemed by voting for Amendments 16 and 16A. I commend the amendment to the House with my three parliamentary co-signatories and my 19,000-plus compatriot co-signatories. This is an amendment that we cannot allow to pass unamended—the stakes are too high. I beg to move.
Amendment 16A (to Amendment 16)
Baroness O’Loan
“(4) Section 9 comes into force on whichever is the later of––(a) the date prescribed in any other provision of this Act; and(b) the date on which the conditions in subsections (5) and (6) are met.(5) The first condition is that the Secretary of State must—(a) consult individually with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the proposed repeal under that section; and (b) 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 the proposed repeal.(6) The second condition is that a majority of the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly support the proposed repeal as stated in the report laid before Parliament under subsection (5)(b).”
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the amendment is long and has been circulated, so with the leave of the House, it will not be read out in full. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’ Loan, has already spoken to it, perhaps she could move it formally.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 16 with a good deal of consideration. First, when the Bill was introduced by the Government, it was absolutely plain that its scope did not embrace either same-sex marriage or the abortion provisions. In that situation, it was also introduced as a Bill that required dealing with by a very quick procedure.
We have already dealt with same-sex marriage, which was already passed by the Assembly at Stormont, but this provision is quite different because it was dealt with by the Assembly at Stormont and voted against. Our friends from Northern Ireland—the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for example—have assured us that things are different. I was honoured to be a Minister in Northern Ireland for 10 years, but that was rather a long time ago. I have no doubt that things have changed quite a lot in a number of ways, including the fact that I no longer have any responsibility for it.
Lord Lexden
May I ask my noble and learned friend, if a majority of Members of the Assembly are against the proposed reforms in the consultation, should that then halt the change?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I sincerely hope that that will not happen: that is the reason we have put it on the basis of the majority being in favour of the change. If we were to ask them and they were against it, that would be a real slap in the face for devolution. I have enough confidence in the Government’s consultations, and I believe the result would be so reasonable, that I expect the majority of the already elected Members of the Assembly to support this. Otherwise, it creates quite a difficult situation so far as devolution is concerned. We still have devolution—devolution to Northern Ireland is there at the present moment, it has not been withdrawn—so I think it is right to acknowledge and hope that the result of the negotiations and the regulation will be acceptable to the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Eames
My Lords, throughout this evening, in all our debates and the important decisions that have been taken according to our custom and the way we work, there has been, like in a theatre, a backcloth to everything we have done. I believe that even at this late stage, referring to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, we need to put on record what has been clearly exposed tonight: that we have been rushing through matters of supreme importance to the country from which I come. Our representatives feel very deeply that the questions being asked tonight, although they cover very important issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, were not what we were really questioning. What we were really questioning tonight was the theory of devolution, which from its infancy was geared to give us, within the United Kingdom, the local relevance and integrity that we hoped would emerge. So, in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, at this late stage, I suggest to the long-suffering Minister that he take back that which I refer to as the tapestry, which in fact surrounds everything we have experienced in the Chamber today. What is being asked about devolution, and how can we correct it?
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, turning back to look at the Bill, one should remember what its purpose is. It was to put provisions in place to enable an Executive to be formed. Under existing legislation, there is a period of time in which that has to happen. It is then a question of prolonging that time. Essentially, the Bill was providing more time for this.
There was no surprise about that. This is the fourth or fifth time that there has been a need to provide legislation. People knew that this was going to come and, from the way in which the talks are taking place between the parties in Northern Ireland, they would have had a fair idea of the likelihood of carrying this legislation. There was nothing urgent about it. Nothing surprising had to be done. There was the possibility of putting the legislation into motion at an earlier stage. If someone then came along and tried to hang additional things on it, there would be time to consider them properly.
We have not had the chance to do that. When one considers the matters that have been looked at today, and compares that to what would have happened if, instead of being a Bill relating to Northern Ireland, it was a Bill relating to Scotland or England, would it have been handled with the same speed, without looking carefully at what the problems might be? There was no serious concentration. We had a Committee stage, but it did not function as a normal Committee, as we can see by the limited number of things that were mentioned.
It was not proper legislation and there was no justification for handling it in that way. With more time, we might have had better debates and been able to tease out some of the things that were causing even the Minister difficulty to work out. Noble Lords will notice that what I am saying has been said repeatedly by Committees of this House: this procedure is flawed and ought not to be followed again. I wonder if there will be any change or if we will just plough on, hoping that an Assembly or Executive are formed and scrambling at the last minute to put them together.
In the course of this debate, noble Lords have referred to devolution and their desire to see it restored in Northern Ireland. If devolution does function again, it would mean that our 90 Assembly Members would be able to return to Stormont to discuss and debate things and consider what they are doing. However, they cannot do that as things stand. Assembly Members themselves cannot form the Administration. Legislation would need to be enacted if Westminster wanted immediately to bring the Assembly into existence for some limited purpose. Some of us have suggested doing that, but I have not seen any willingness on the part of the Government to encourage the Assembly to function even on limited matters.
A very limited consultation is suggested here. It says that the Secretary of State must,
“consult individually members of the Northern Ireland Assembly”.
That is set out in a very bare way. Nobody has talked about the details of the consultation or how thorough it would be. It simply refers to speaking to Members of the Assembly and to considering and reporting on their views. That is a very small step to take in finding things out. I do not know what the outcome will be. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, spoke vigorously earlier about the changes of views that he has detected. If that is the case, no doubt it would be reflected in the views that Assembly Members would give to the Secretary of State if she phoned them up and asked them what they think. It would be an easy step to take and it might help to restore some of those Members’ self-respect. People do not appreciate just how traumatic their situation is: they were elected to serve in an Assembly but are unable to do so, and they have nothing else besides general activities to turn their hand to because they have no way of influencing the powers that be.
This is a modest measure to try to get a degree of consultation. Of course, the Minister spoke earlier about consultations on particular matters being conducted over several months. In that timescale, he could easily get in touch with the 90 Assembly Members, see what their views are and let us know. That would be a good step forward, coming as it does at the end of the evening.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I will make three brief points. First, if I were a better historian, I would be able to tell your Lordships when the parliamentary procedure that brought the Bill to this House in this state was more or less outlawed. It was called “tacking”: the Government would bring in a Bill and the Opposition would let it pass only if they could stick on other things that had nothing to do with it. That is what has happened here; it should not happen again.
Secondly, what emerges from this is that it is urgent to get the Assembly sitting again. I hope that, behind the scenes—they are certainly not doing it in front of us—the Government are straining every nerve and sinew to persuade Assembly Members to get together and do their job. One obstruction to that is the Good Friday agreement itself; perhaps, timidly but carefully, we should start looking at whether it can be amended without cataclysm.
Thirdly, it is clear that there is a total democratic deficit in what is being proposed. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, her two co-signatories and the 19,000 signatories of her letter all propose that, even if they do not get together, Assembly Members should for once express the views of the Province, to great betterment.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I wish to add brief words of support. It is a disgrace that this steamroller legislation is going through the House. It is quite appalling and it must never happen again. It is not about direct rule. We do not have devolution. What the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and her two co-signatories propose is very simple. Time without number, I have advocated calling the Assembly together. All the Assembly Members could be invited to Stormont and seen individually by the Secretary of State and her fellow Ministers within the space of a single day. That would be something, at least.
Analogies are never exact but the noble Baroness was right to refer to the poll tax. I happened to be the chairman of an art gallery in Edinburgh at the time of the poll tax; I went up there every month for two or three years. I was one of two Conservatives to refuse to vote for it in Scotland; I am always proud of that because it was an appalling way to legislate. This is even worse. I will support the noble Baroness’s amendment for that reason.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I speak in defence of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to which my name is attached. Since the commencement of this debate at around 4 pm today, I have received some 500-plus emails on this issue. I suspect that I am not unique in this respect. I suspect that others are finding the same response, and I think that this demonstrates that people are exercised, and there is real concern about what your Lordships’ House does this evening.
The way in which this Bill has been handled, the way in which scope has been dispensed with and the way in which huge issues have been inserted into a fast-track Bill designed for completely different purposes is deeply distressing to many people in Northern Ireland. When this Bill entered your Lordships’ House we expressed huge concerns about the way in which scope had been dispensed with. This problem has been massively compounded by the events tonight and the passing of the Barker amendment.
We are now looking at a situation where abortion is legal up to 28 weeks, while in GB the limit is 24, for any reason, including disability and gender, so we will have imposed on us a definition of viability that is 50 years out of date, a situation where abortion clinics will be able to set up in Northern Ireland from the end of October, and people in England will be able to travel to Northern Ireland to get abortions that are not available at home.
Does this House really want devolution? Do we want to give it any chance of success, or are we saying, through our decisions here tonight, that we would prefer that devolution did not exist? I suspect that that is the interpretation that many will put on it. It seems that this House wants direct rule. If the answer is no, then the case for Amendments 16 and 16A is simply overwhelming. How, in a context where we have 90 MLAs, can we change a key area of devolved policy over their heads when we have the opportunity to engage them?
Despite the fact that we are now in the school holiday season in Northern Ireland, with many people away, the letter of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has gathered some 19,000 signatures. That represents a UK population equivalent of more than half a million. That could not be overstated. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has already made reference to that, but I make no apology for repeating it.
Of all the amendments that we discussed today, many of which are dominated by people who do not come from or represent Northern Ireland, let us be very clear, this amendment has more co-signatories than any other, thousands of them, and almost all come from Northern Ireland. It will be very important to reflect on the message that will be sent today if noble Lords vote against this straightforward amendment.
What will we be saying to the people of Northern Ireland? What would Parliament be saying to you if, by virtue of parliamentary arithmetic, it was able to impose something on your part of the UK, and despite being given the opportunity to give your elected representatives a say, chose not to do so?
I am aware that some say that engaging the Assembly is not relevant because it is not a matter of votes but of human rights. That argument, however, simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Of course, human rights are engaged, but the idea that they trump consideration and sweep away all others is ultimately a recipe for replacing parliaments with courts. The truth is, as the Supreme Court has made very clear, there is no general international human right to abortion, so the debate is not with me on that issue but with the Supreme Court.
Moreover, on CEDAW specifically, the expert legal opinion of Professor Mark Hill QC is very clear that the pontifications of the CEDAW committee are not binding and that the CEDAW convention does not even mention abortion and does not have standing to read it in. Lest anyone should say I do not care about human rights, I care about them passionately. I am not sticking my fingers in my ears and saying that there is not a human rights discussion to be had here. That is not the point I am making. The Supreme Court may issue a declaration of incompatibility on one very narrow aspect of our law as it relates to abortion and babies with very serious disabilities. In 2016, when the Assembly voted not to change the law in any way, it did so pending an inquiry on fatal foetal abnormality, which was published after suspension and recommended legal changes narrowly on this particular point.
The idea, however, that amendments passed tonight are the answer to that problem is absurd. These changes open up abortion for any reason up to 28 weeks. There is no case for that in any binding, proper, international legal instrument. In fact, the Supreme Court has indicated that Northern Ireland’s abortion law is compliant with international human rights obligations in relation to disability generally because there is no human right to abortion on the basis of disability. The idea, therefore, that Northern Ireland has to settle for this approach to abortion because of human rights is plainly wrong.
Some people might like to adopt an approach to human rights that says that this is necessary, but it is not mandatory. In this context, if we are serious about breathing confidence into devolution and respecting Northern Ireland, we must engage MLAs as proposed by these amendments. If the Supreme Court makes a binding declaration or if there are other human rights developments that necessitate a legal change—indeed, if there are any other developments that necessitate a change—the Northern Ireland Assembly is capable of making those changes.
In this context—particularly given the manner in which Northern Ireland has been denied constitutional due process hitherto in terms of the dispensing of scope and the insertion of major issues in a fast-track Bill on the decision to move Northern Ireland from having the most restricted abortion law in the British Isles to having the most liberal, such that it will make the laws of the home jurisdictions of those who press these changes on Northern Ireland look conservative—it is only right that, first, before any repeal of primary legislation is agreed MLAs are consulted, and if a majority agree, repeal can proceed; and, secondly, draft regulations are sent to MLAs and, if they agree, that again can be laid before Parliament.
I urge noble Lords to vote for devolution and to support these amendments.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, has described the case for the amendment and the consultation that would follow. It is overwhelming. I agree with him and I shall vote for the amendment.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I find this disappointing. I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, was the subject of the previous amendment but, never mind, we occasionally stray from one amendment to another.
Let me deal with the substance of it. If we were talking, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has on previous occasions—although not tonight—about making use of Members of the Assembly to make general comments about policies in Northern Ireland, we would be in a different place. However, what we see today, under the pretext of giving the Assembly a new lease of life, is the picking out of one issue in the Bill and saying, “That is the way in which we should move forward”. If we want Members of the Assembly to be consulted, they should be consulted over the whole range of policies, rather than us picking the one policy which noble Lords do not like and saying, “We will proceed on that basis”. This is the wrong way to go about it and the principle of consulting the Assembly is negated by wishing to do it only in this partial sense.
We have already discussed the previous amendment and voted on it. I understand that feelings are strong—I respect them even if I do not agree with them—but it is quite inappropriate at this stage to deal with this sort of amendment. If Members of this House want to bring the Assembly back in some form another, let us talk about it—let us do it properly—not pick on abortion as being the pretext for doing it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The noble Lord will of course have in mind that the Assembly voted in favour of same-sex marriage. However, that is singled out, simply because the Assembly voted against it before. Therefore, if we are to respect devolution, in view of the suggestions that things have changed completely, it should be given a chance to say so.
Lord Dubs
I am afraid that I do not follow the thrust of that argument. We are talking about something that we talked about in the previous amendment. I am saying that we should not talk about giving the Assembly the powers on one issue; there are other issues in the Bill but nobody has suggested that we talk about those. In any case, I believe that the situation in Northern Ireland has changed quite a lot. I do not like bandying public opinion polls around, but the latest figures I have from the 2018 Northern Ireland Life and Times survey, which is equivalent to the British Social Attitudes survey, are that 89% of people in Northern Ireland believe that women should never go to prison for having an abortion, 82% believe that abortion should be a matter for medical regulation and not criminal law, and 71% believe that it should be a woman’s right to choose whether to end her pregnancy. I believe the situation has changed, and we cannot simply say, “The Assembly did that some years ago”. The argument in this amendment was that we should consult Assembly Members now; I say, not if we are dealing with one issue only. We should consult them on everything and bring them back to life that way. I am sorry, but I am not happy about this amendment; it is simply time to have another go at the previous amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, in the previous set of amendments, the Minister talked about consultation. In his response to this set amendments, could he explain what role would be envisaged for the Members of the Assembly in that consultation?
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 16 and 16A. We have already heard how understandably upset the people and the politicians of Northern Ireland are at not having been consulted about our imposing massive changes on them on such hugely sensitive issues. But what we have not heard are the views of disabled people in Northern Ireland. For the simple fact is that, if the Bill becomes law, human beings in Northern Ireland with conditions like mine will suffer the death penalty for the crime of being diagnosed with a disability before birth.
I asked my noble friend the Minister several questions in Committee on Monday; he answered not one of them, so I will have another try. First, can he tell me what consultation has been carried out of people with Down’s syndrome or their families in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister prides herself on the Government’s professed commitment to equality, so perhaps my noble friend the Minister could tell the House what effort the Government have made to establish how people with Down’s syndrome and their families in Northern Ireland feel about the prospect of human beings with Down’s syndrome being aborted and denied their equal right to exist? I would be very happy to give way if my noble friend would care to answer.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Absolutely. This remains, at present, a fully devolved matter, and that consultation would be undertaken by the devolved entity. At the present time there is no devolved entity, and that consultation has not been undertaken by those MLAs or by the restored Executive; it is not there. We have been able to move this matter forward only since the instruction of the other place only a short time ago.
Lord Shinkwin
I thank my noble friend for his answer. In that case, I hope very much that he will accept Amendments 16 and 16A, since he has just emphasised his commitment to consultation.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I would not normally stand up at this point, but it is important to note that the consultation envisaged in the early amendments, which have already passed, would have that full consultation because disabled people in Northern Ireland are a protected group.
Lord Shinkwin
I wonder whether my noble friend could possibly help me with this question. Could he tell me why—
Baroness Smith of Basildon
May I suggest that if the noble Lord wants the Minister to answer questions, he makes his speech and the Minister answers at the end? That would be a courtesy to the House, and more helpful.
Lord Shinkwin
The question is actually directly related to the House, so if I may I will continue.
I wonder if my noble friend, or indeed anyone in the House, could tell me why—I can quite understand why the noble Baroness would perhaps not like me to ask this question—as someone who was born with a disability, I am good enough to sit in your Lordships’ House, but this Bill suggests that someone diagnosed before birth with a disability such as mine in Northern Ireland would only be considered good enough for the incinerator. Because that is the brutal message of this Bill: if you are diagnosed with a disability before birth in Northern Ireland, you will not just be worth less than a non-disabled human being; you will be worthless—you would be better off dead. What a dreadful message for this House to send the people of Northern Ireland, without even having consulted them in advance.
As a disabled person, I am used to people feeling sorry for me, but today it is I who feel sorry for my party. What a desperately sad position this Bill puts my party in. Not only does it make a mockery of any pretence at government neutrality on a matter of conscience; it also enshrines inequality in law for Northern Ireland—and all this without consulting the people of Northern Ireland or their MLAs. How ironic that this is happening just before we celebrate a quarter of a century since my party, the Conservative Party, introduced the Disability Discrimination Act, which championed disability equality.
Perhaps saddest of all is the legacy the Prime Minister leaves if this Bill becomes law—a legacy of discrimination and death. Instead of ending burning injustices, if this Bill becomes law she will be leaving office after the creation of one of the biggest burning injustices imaginable.
Earlier this evening, my noble friend the Minister read out part of a letter to the Prime Minister concerning the amendments on same-sex marriage. I will do the same, only mine is a letter to the Prime Minister from more than 500 people with Down’s syndrome and their families. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister has it in his briefing pack—perhaps not. This is what they say:
“Theresa May, do you really want to look back at your time in Parliament and see one of your final acts being to introduce a change in the law that would be discriminating against our community and likely lead to many more babies with Down’s syndrome being aborted in a time of equality”.
How do they know the likely death toll for Down’s syndrome diagnosis? They know because in England and Wales, 90% of human beings diagnosed before birth with Down’s syndrome are already aborted. Indeed, while the last 10 years have seen amazing advances in medicine and technology, they have also seen a 42% increase in abortion of human beings with Down’s syndrome.
So, the writing is on the wall. If human beings diagnosed before birth with disabilities such as mine were wild animals, they would be given endangered species status and protected by law. But we are only disabled human beings, so instead we face gradual extinction. That is what this Bill imposes on Northern Ireland, without consultation.
I close with two questions for my noble friend. He is rightly respected as a leading advocate of LGBT rights and I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on her recent marriage and to wish her and her wife every happiness. Love is love. It is a wonderful thing, as is the personal and societal security, stability and happiness that flow from it. My point is this: I would never presume to invalidate anyone’s love for another human being, including by denying them the right to get married. But why, then, do my noble friend and the Government use this Bill to invalidate the most fundamental right of all: every human being’s equal right to exist? For that, ultimately, is what this Bill does, and without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland or their MLAs.
My last question is this. Recent reports in the media suggest that the day is fast approaching when a predisposition to same-sex attraction can be established before birth. Yet there will be nothing to prevent abortions on that basis, although another reason would presumably be given. Would my noble friend stand at the Dispatch Box and defend the right for people to make such a choice, or would he stand with me and say that such discrimination would be unacceptable and wrong? If, as I hope, he would join me in opposing such discrimination, how can he possibly defend such discrimination against human beings whose only crime is to be diagnosed with a disability before birth?
It is no less unacceptable and wrong for us to impose such inequality on the people of Northern Ireland without their consent. It is vital that, at the very least, that consent is secured by introducing a requirement that a majority of MLAs support regulations before they are laid before Parliament. I urge noble Lords to support Amendments 16 and 16A.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, that was an extremely impressive speech and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, but it was surely a speech about Amendment 12, not Amendment 16.
Baroness O'Loan
It has been said so often: Amendment 16 is an amendment to Amendment 12.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Amendment 16 is entitled:
“Requirement for majority of MLAs to support regulations”.
I confess that I have huge admiration for Amendment 16, because I wish that I had thought of it when we were considering the question of possible prorogation and a crash-out deal with no consultation with Parliament. It is a wonderful thought that we could have written a prescription like this into the law, which would have required the Prime Minister to ring me up and ask, “What’s your view?”, and then work out whether there was a majority in both Houses for and against the crash out.
Actually, it does not make sense. Individually consulting Members of an Assembly that is not meeting does not make sense, I am afraid. It is of course open to the Secretary of State to consult whomever she wants, but to prescribe that she can proceed only if a majority consulted on the telephone or the internet agree is an absurdity.
I also remind those speaking to this amendment that the Minister made it absolutely clear that the consultations would be not about “whether” but about “how”. A number of the speeches that have taken place on Amendment 16 are more appropriate to Amendment 12 because they seem to assume that the consultations will be about “whether” and not about “how”.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
My Lords, when I spoke earlier about consulting Assembly Members, I was told I should be speaking to Amendment 16, so I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, knows that I am speaking to the relevant amendment on this matter.
This legislation has been rushed through. We are told that everyone supports devolution and everyone wants it but there seems to be a great fear of hearing what the 90 Members of the Assembly think. We were told in our debate before that the Assembly Members had changed their minds. The last time they voted, the vast majority voted against abortion. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, told the House that things had changed dramatically. In fact, he went through the parties and said they have changed their views. How he knows that, I do not know. There is a way to find out—we could ask them, and this House would be led not by false information but by fact. Why can we not ask?
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is very interested in the protection of refugees. I say to him that I am very interested in the protection of the unborn child. I think that the child that has no voice in this House is worthy too. We have been lectured about rights and this being a matter of human rights. Is there a hierarchy of rights? Has the child no rights or fewer rights? Therefore, we want to legislate on a hierarchy of rights. I suggest that this is an opportunity to find out, genuinely and earnestly, what the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly feel. They have been used in this and the previous debate—we are legislating because the Members of the Assembly wanted to legislate. Now we are told that we do not know. We know that they voted against this legislation and we are going to legislate anyhow. I suggest that that is double standards and does nothing to credit this House.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in introducing this amendment acknowledged that it is effectively an amendment to the previous amendment that was carried. She also gave some anecdotes about people who were told to have an abortion. I do not believe that anybody in this House believes people should be told to have an abortion or that there are practitioners who would do that. We are talking about the right to choose on the basis of evidence. Indeed, we could have other stories of the consequences for some women denied abortions and the suffering that they have gone through. I do not think trading suffering really adds to the debate. There are fundamental differences of view. I respect that but let us recognise that we will use the arguments to support one side or the other.
What is being asked here is that the Assembly should be consulted. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said that we are talking about the theory of devolution. The problem is that we are not; we are talking about the practice of devolution, which is not being practised in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords from Northern Ireland need to reflect on the fact that the people of Northern Ireland need an Assembly so that devolution can happen. If devolution is not happening, they will have to suffer the debates that they are complaining about now. That is the consequence and the reality of not having devolution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the previous amendment was about when and how—it was about the timing; it was not about whether it would happen. Amendment 16 is clearly about providing a veto in relation to the previous amendment. Proposed new subsection (3) in the amendment says:
“The second condition is that the relevant regulations under section 9 may only be before Parliament if a majority of the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly support the regulations”.
That is a clear veto. It is possible that a majority of Members would support the regulations, because opinions have shifted. I accept that. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I worry that there is something uncomfortable about picking Members off one by one, possibly in a secret consultation as opposed to a plenary Assembly where votes, debates and opinions are discussed and recorded and accounted for in public. If the Assembly Members are to be consulted on these issues, then reconvene the Assembly and they can decide.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, it has been a long debate and it has ranged rather wide of Amendment 16A. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said that Amendment 16 was an amendment to Amendment 12, but that is not correct. In fact, Amendment 16 would insert a new clause.
Baroness O'Loan
My understanding, having talked to the clerks, is that the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, becomes Section 9, and this amendment then seeks to amend it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Amendment 16 actually proposes inserting a new clause, but that is slightly irrelevant. We have had a debate on Amendment 12 and are now looking at the requirement to consult MLAs. There is something slightly uncomfortable about this. I am certainly not opposed to consultation. I think that the best consultation that we could have on this issue would be more than consultation. I would want to see the Assembly up and running and making these decisions itself—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made. It is not just a question of taking consultation on one issue in isolation; what is really important is the process of governance, where issues are weighed against each other, talked through and looked at in detail along with other information. I fully—100%—support local decision-making and the local responsibility that goes with it, but that is not what we are talking about here.
In some ways, we are almost talking about imposing a double lock on the Government. The amendment that they want to consult on—the new law, as it will be—requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive. Therefore, only in the absence of an Executive would the Government be able to bring forward regulations. However, it would seem somewhat strange to then say, “We haven’t got an Executive. The Government must take the decisions, but we’ll go and consult them anyway”. That seems almost like a double lock, preventing the Government taking any action at all while the Assembly is not sitting.
If that principle were imposed across the board, it would be very difficult for there to be any governance on any issue in Northern Ireland. It would be inappropriate to put the Government in that position when the Assembly has not sat for well over two years. Therefore, despite what I think are good intentions behind the amendment, I cannot give it any support.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, in many respects this has been a longer extension of the earlier debate. I almost wish that someone had asked me a question at the beginning so that I could have stood up then. In fact, the MLAs will be consulted as part of the ongoing consultation envisaged with the stakeholders. However, the difference is that they will not get a lock on that, which would mean that only a majority could help us move forward. Therefore, the views of the MLAs will be taken and heard but they will not be a determining factor in arresting progress on this amendment. It is important to be aware of that as we make progress. It is also important, as I said when we discussed this issue a longer time ago, that the scope we are discussing is the scope we have received from the other place. The criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons, and those issues, are deemed out of order in the Companion. We have to accept that what has arrived here is something that we can act on and take forward, which we must do.
It is important to stress, throughout each of our discussions on this wider question, that the Government are not seeking to take forward an abortion amendment. We have received from the other place a clear statement, by a clear majority, on a conscience issue and a free vote. For good or ill, in response to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, the Prime Minister, in this instance, would be able to exercise her conscience in the same way as anybody else in that House. This is not the UK Government’s policy, nor is it the policy of my party, but responsibility rests with this Government to ensure that what we are able to do in moving this matter forward is safe, sound and secure. That responsibility rests with us, and that is what we have sought to do in engaging with all noble Lords throughout this process—to ensure that we are able to deliver on that.
The discussion has ranged more widely than the question of consulting with the MLAs. I do not wish to extend the debate significantly in this direction, given that one of noble Lords’ concerns has been the scope from the other place, but I will touch on a few elements. By any definition, we have to accept that the situation in Northern Ireland is dysfunctional. The devolution structures that have been put together are not working. One can argue that the structures are at fault, or that the problem rests elsewhere, but the problem we face now is that the outcome is the same no matter which you decide is responsible. The situation that we face is serious, and I do not think there is a single Member in the House tonight who would not wish to see these matters taken forward by an Assembly and an Executive in Northern Ireland. For reasons that are all too apparent, however, certain parties in Northern Ireland are not able to deliver against that instruction. That is a great shame, as we probably all agree. We all recognise that noble Lords sitting here at this late hour should not be taking these matters forward in this fashion, but we are doing so because of a failure and a fault in the system in Northern Ireland
As the people of Northern Ireland look at what we are doing here, I have a sneaking suspicion that they are sick and tired of all politicians, of all rank and measure. They are tired and weary now because they seem to be in a situation where politicians are all over them when it comes to an election, then—lo and behold —seem to disappear when it comes to the heavy lifting. They now see all politicians of all parties, of all ilk and all places, in exactly the same way. That is a terrible situation to be in, and we need to restore the confidence and trust of the people of Northern Ireland in the elected system. We need to get the Executive up and working, and get this moving forward, but that is not what we are able to do through this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has made a passionate speech this evening, and she has received a number of emails in response to a particular letter. I am sure we all have a large number of those in our inboxes now, but the number of emails needs to be judged against the population of Northern Ireland. The population is 1.871 million, and we need to recognise that the passion of those who have responded should be applauded, but it is not a means by which we can determine the view or the will of the people of Northern Ireland; nor should we consider it so. It is an important measure, but it is not in itself an adequate measure.
The amendment before us now broadly says that the MLAs must be consulted and their response to the consultation will determine what happens next. We cannot accept the amendment, but I stress that the MLAs will be consulted, and I can go further by ensuring that MLAs receive an update on each of the aspects that noble Lords will be updated on as a consequence of the earlier amendments from the other place. If your Lordships are so minded, we can ensure that MLAs receive exactly the same information that comes from the reports we have commissioned, or are about to commission, to ensure that they are fully abreast and aware of all of these aspects. We will do all we can to engage directly with the MLAs to ensure that they are fully aware of each step. I have no problem with committing to do that now, but I cannot have a lock placed on progress on this matter. That would place the Government in the invidious position of having been, both from the other place and through our own vote this evening, in a clear position, but then having to say that they must await the views of MLAs. We cannot have that, I am afraid; it would not be appropriate. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness O’Loan
My Lords, I have listened with care to everyone who has spoken. I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments. I will address a couple of issues before I give noble Lords my decision. There is a democratic deficit. The Minister is right: people are tired of politics. That is why I did not expect a response to the letter which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and I drafted, yet the responses continue to come in.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, very briefly, it is easy to say that people are tired of politicians; that is the usual trick when debating. But in the most recent election in Northern Ireland, the politicians got a turnout of a higher percentage than five years earlier.
Baroness O’Loan
I thank the noble Lord; I am in his debt.
There is a democratic deficit. Noble Lords have acknowledged it throughout this debate. They have all acknowledged their unease at the way they have found themselves forced to do this and they have stressed the unacceptable nature of what they have been obliged to do. Despite that, our people still want a voice. While discomfort has been expressed here about what has been said, there is huge discomfort in Northern Ireland about the imposition of abortion by Great Britain on a people who do not want it. The context is that we are talking life and death issues. That is the difference about abortion: it is the life and death issue of a child, in respect of which, as noble Lords have said, the Assembly had a clear view.
We face Brexit. We started with Brexit this evening and we will end with Brexit. It would not be good to do this to a people who do not want it without at least consulting their MLAs; it would be too reminiscent of the bad old days. Of course, we are all aware of the subtext: that Sinn Féin had two red lines to coming in to the talks, which have now been removed. Sinn Féin may come back but not, I suspect, before this Bill is passed and implemented.
There are so many uncertainties around this Bill. I think the Minister has forgotten about the Istanbul convention; I hope he will come back to me on that.
I ask noble Lords to do as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has said: to respect, in so far as we can, the devolved Administration. Our peace in Northern Ireland was very hard won. We still have fears, troubles, bombs and shootings. I ask noble Lords to give a voice to the MLAs in Northern Ireland by supporting this amendment. I do not intend to withdraw it; I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Victims’ payments
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under the law of Northern Ireland which provides for one or more payments to be made to, or in respect of, a person who has sustained an injury as a result of a Troubles-related incident.(2) The first regulations under subsection (1) must be made before the end of January 2020 and come into force before the end of May 2020.(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision as to the eligibility criteria for payments under the scheme which may, in particular, relate to—(a) the nature or extent of a person’s injury;(b) how, when or where the injury was sustained;(c) residence or nationality;(d) whether or not a person has been convicted of an offence.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the reimbursement of costs incurred by a person in connection with an application under the scheme (whether or not the application is successful).(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision—(a) for determining the amount of any payment;(b) for payments to be made in respect of past periods (including periods before this Act was passed);(c) for payments to be reduced or repaid (in whole or in part) in specified circumstances;(d) about the treatment under other legislation (for example social security legislation) of payments under the scheme.(6) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (5)(b) so as to ensure that where—(a) a person is eligible under the scheme as the result of an injury sustained by that person before the scheme comes into force, and(b) the person makes an application within a period specified in the regulations (which must not be less than the period of two years beginning with the day on which the scheme comes into force), the person is entitled to a payment to reflect the amount that the person would have received had the scheme been in force since the making of the Stormont House Agreement.(7) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about—(a) the administration of the scheme (including provision establishing a body or conferring functions on an existing body);(b) the funding of the scheme by money from the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland (whether by virtue of grant funding from a Northern Ireland department, the appropriation of money by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly or otherwise);(c) the sharing of information between public authorities for the purposes of the scheme;(d) evidential matters;(e) the procedure for the making and deciding of applications (including provision imposing time limits);(f) appeals and reviews;(g) information, advice or assistance in relation to the scheme or payments under it.(8) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision conferring a discretion on a person.(9) Regulations under subsection (1)—(a) may include provision amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by an Act of Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation, and(b) in so far as made in reliance on section (Regulations: procedure and supplementary 2)(4), may also include provision amending or repealing provision made by an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of the Scottish Parliament.(10) In making the first regulations under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to any advice given by the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland.(11) In this section—“injury” means any illness or injury (whether physical or mental);“the Stormont House Agreement” means the agreement made between parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland on 23 December 2014;“Troubles-related incident” means an incident involving an act of violence or force carried out in Ireland, the United Kingdom or anywhere in Europe for a reason related to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland or to political or sectarian hostility between people there.”
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Minister has demonstrated the patience of Job with the House this evening and I commend him for that; we are enormously indebted to him.
In moving Amendment 17, I will speak to associated Amendments 18 and 23 in my name and those of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Bruce, to whom I am most grateful. I thank the Minister and his officials for working with us to enable these amendments to be accepted by the Government and to establish, for the very first time, a system of payments for a pension which severely injured victims of Northern Ireland terrorism should have had a very long time ago.
My understanding is that the crucial words,
“through no fault of their own”,
that were in my original amendment in Committee on Monday cannot appear on the face of the Bill, on the advice of parliamentary counsel, because they are not sufficiently legally precise. For the avoidance of any doubt, I ask the Minister to confirm for the record that the intent and purpose of,
“through no fault of their own”,
remains in the Bill as amended, especially in Section 3(d), covering whether or not an applicant has a conviction for an offence. Will he also confirm that it is his intention that the regulations and the eligibility assessment procedure to come will abide by the “no fault of their own” principle, which I think was supported right across the House? Can he also further confirm that “offence” means a terrorism-related or serious criminal offence, not some unrelated minor or summary offence that could have happened, for example, long ago in youth?
Those of us who have had the privilege to meet the remarkable men and women who, despite the most horrendous injuries imaginable, have reconstructed their lives, will know just how important this breakthrough is. I thank your Lordships’ House for the steadfast way in which the principle has been supported over the last 18 months or so. I understand that the mechanisms to deliver the pension will take some time to set up, but the date for it to be operational—May 2020—has to be the very last date. Will the Minister confirm that heaven and earth will be moved to make payments as quickly as possible? These individuals are no longer young, and some could possibly even pass before 2020.
This modest but essential measure is long overdue, and it is right that the Government have recognised that by agreeing payments to be backdated to December 2014, and through the Stormont House agreement on these matters, meaning that many recipients could be due many thousands of pounds; at least they have that to look forward to. I was heartened that the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, spoke positively about the proposal in the debate on Monday. I trust that his colleagues in the other place will follow his lead. Indeed, if working devolution is to be restored before 21 October, I hope there will be no attempt by anyone or any party, on whatever pretext, to try to overturn what we have done here in this Parliament. That would be unthinkable when Parliament—and before that, Stormont—have together, completely and shamefully, failed these people for so many years. At long last, we are today bringing some relief and justice to people who have suffered for so long.
In concluding, when I spoke to my amendments on Monday, I said that we are a civilised society and we do not turn people away from services that they need provided; for example, by the NHS and the Victims & Survivors Service in Northern Ireland. However, this pension is not a service; it is a recognition of the horrific harm done to men and women through no fault of their own. They have endured, and continue to endure, almost unimaginable pain and suffering through no fault of their own. They do not ask for sympathy, let alone pity; they ask for our recognition for what they have gone through, and help to live independent lives with dignity. I am glad that we can play our part in making that a reality by agreeing this amendment this evening.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, as a signatory to this amendment, I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on the work he has done on this and on taking this opportunity to bring it to a conclusion—and, I hope, by negotiation with the Minister to have a clause that will be acceptable.
I want to back up what he has asked the Minister to say on the record about the “no fault of their own” determination. A ministerial statement on it would be enormously valuable and I know that the Minister understands that. I think it would unite the House. This is one amendment where everybody has recognised that we have waited far too long and that these people, many of whom have died, and their dependants really need this. This is one situation where perhaps one thing that nobody wanted to happen—namely, this legislation—has nevertheless opened a window to do another which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, should have been done a long time ago.
Lord Eames
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment. I could keep the House sitting for hours to tell your Lordships of people I know who have suffered terrible injuries to mind, body and spirit. I simply want to back up the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and hope that the Minister will give the assurances we have asked for.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, as the fourth name on the amendment I pay my tribute not just to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who has led this campaign with real, dogged determination, but to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. We have worked together with other colleagues and we all are extremely grateful to the Minister, who has met us on a number of occasions. He has listened carefully and, far more importantly, acted.
It is crucial that in every piece of literature distributed, and in every announcement made, those words,
“through no fault of their own”,
are emphasised time and again. So long as that is done, I am confident that we will maintain the unanimity we have so far enjoyed. We have had two long and quite difficult days. There is no one who is happy about the suspension of devolution or about the hurried manner in which we have to deal with this legislation. But there has been one bright, shining light: this amendment and the Minister’s response. We should all be extremely grateful and thank him most warmly.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, my noble friend Lord Hain’s amendment has our full support.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
My Lords, I once again listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, as he introduced this amendment. On reading it, I was rather alarmed that the words,
“through no fault of their own”,
which were evident in our previous debate and which he has repeated, were missing. I would certainly not accept that anyone who was injured through fault of their own—in other words, terrorists—should be allowed to receive a pension. That would be not only an insult but an absolute shame. I know that it would certainly be deeply hurtful to those across the community who have been terrorised and injured through terrorist activity.
I will therefore listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to this, because that was the proviso which meant so much to me when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on the previous occasion. He pointed out that the pension was a recognition of the great harm done to men and women through no fault of their own. We need to keep that right in front of us, so that there is no misunderstanding as regards any judgment that may follow or any judicial review that is done, with people saying, “What did the House mean by this determination?”.
As far as the other place is concerned, I think the noble Lord is long enough in public life to know that my deputy leader and colleagues in another place will carefully scrutinise the Minister’s words and then, no doubt, vote accordingly.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on his persistence. I come back to the point that a number of victims appeared in the local press in Northern Ireland today and one theme went right across. Yes, they would welcome recognition through a pension—we often forget that a lot of these people have been unable to earn a proper living and provide for their retirement because of their disabilities, physical and mental—however, they would all be horrified if the people down the road who caused those injuries were to get a benefit out of this process.
I am not a lawyer but I understand that one of the critical things when people take the Government to court over a piece of legislation is what the intention of Parliament was when the debate was being held. The Minister can clarify that, of course, because his statements will be part of the evidence in any case. I also ask him to give some thought to the use of terminology in the criminal injuries compensation legislation in this part of the United Kingdom. I believe that the word “blameless” appears in that legislation, so it is the eligibility, together with the fact that mental health is to be taken into account, as well as physical injuries. That is much more difficult, because the service availability to provide that kind of backup and assessment is in short supply, as we heard repeatedly earlier today. We do not want people with genuinely severe mental health problems to feel that they are second-class citizens in all this, so that has to be taken into account. The key thing is to ensure that it is blameless; that people cannot then find some loophole to climb in and get money, which would be rewarding them for their evil deeds.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I am very happy to speak on this and I will get right to the point. I am very happy to confirm for the record that the intent and purpose of,
“through no fault of their own”,
is the principal criterion by which we will ensure that victims secure their pension. We will also ensure that all eligibility criteria procedures abide by the “no fault of their own” principle. I hope that these words will stand alongside any interpretation of the Bill as it passes from our House to the other place. I recognise the “blameless” comment as well: we need to recognise that concept that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, put into the discussion. This is to ensure that those who have suffered through no fault of their own, not by their own hand, and who are survivors of a difficult and troubled time, are able to secure a pension now. That pension will be backdated to December 2014, so I hope that for some there will be a serious lump sum. I hope that that money can do some good.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for bringing this before us, for pushing it and for keeping us on track all the way through. I think noble Lords who have been part of those discussions will agree that it is through his leadership that we are where we are today. I would not normally do this, but it is also important that I praise one of my officials, Chris Atkinson. He has been instrumental in helping move this matter forward: without him, we would not be where we are today, and I put on record, from all of us who have been involved, how critical he was to securing success. On that basis, I am very happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Hain
In thanking the Minister, I also thank his official, Chris Atkinson. I also place on record what is, I am sure, the view of the whole House that the WAVE Trauma Centre, which has campaigned for this for 10 years, deserves to be acknowledged for what has been magnificent persistence: I think we should pay tribute to it.
“Regulations: procedure and supplementary 2
(1) Regulations under section (Victims’ payments) are to be made by statutory instrument.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Victims’ payments) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(3) A power to make regulations under section (Victims’ payments) may be used to make different provision for different purposes.(4) Regulations under section (Victims’ payments) may make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or saving provision.”
Baroness Barker
“Regulations: procedure and supplementary 3
(1) Regulations under section 9 are to be made by statutory instrument.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 9 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) A power to make regulations under section 9 may be used to make different provision for different purposes.(4) Regulations under section 9 may make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or saving provision.”
“Reception of unaccompanied refugee children in Northern Ireland: regulations
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 provide for the reception of unaccompanied refugee children in Northern Ireland in accordance with that section.(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsection (3).(3) 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 Dubs
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief given the hour. I think most Members of the House will be aware that the Government, under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, have a commitment to take unaccompanied child refugees from Europe. The Government say that there is a limit to how many we can take, because English local authorities do not have enough foster places. That is in dispute. What is not in dispute is that people in Northern Ireland are willing to make arrangements to take unaccompanied child refugees. I have talked to people in Belfast and Derry and they say yes.
The problem is that, until now, because there is no functioning Executive, it is not possible for anything to happen, because the civil servants who make the decisions have not felt it possible to agree to take unaccompanied child refugees. I think most people in Northern Ireland, with their traditional hospitality, would be sympathetic. It would be good for British policy. The Home Office would welcome it and, above all, it would be great for some of the child refugees trapped in terrible conditions on the Greek islands, in northern France and elsewhere.
I hope the Government will accept the amendment or at least the principle, so that something can be done to help these children and that Northern Ireland will step up to the mark in the way that other parts of the United Kingdom have already done. I beg to move.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 20A. I want to be brief, not because this subject is not deserving of a full debate, but because I have listened carefully to the previous debate and feel that the issues have been adequately covered. There must be a clear distinction—I know the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has pointed this out very clearly—between the victim-maker and the victim. Consideration of government proposals in the past has been coloured. I said that in the debate on Monday. There is dissatisfaction with people generally, but in particular with those who are campaigning for victims.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It appears that we are still on Amendment 20, which needs to be debated before we consider Amendment 20A.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I follow the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has frequently drawn attention to similar issues. I have no doubt that, as part of the United Kingdom, if it is a decision of the country to try to help people, it is reasonable that that is spread out as evenly as possible. However, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the structures of local government, in particular, in Northern Ireland are radically different. Local authorities have no locus in this at all. There are health and social services boards, a housing executive and housing associations, but their funding would have to come from Stormont. That is the conundrum we are confronted with. It is not that there is any lack of hospitality or willingness to play a part in a UK-wide problem. The structures are radically different, and all the social services and housing issues are funded through Stormont and not through local government. Members have to be aware that that is why there is an issue here.
On housing, as I said earlier with regard to welfare mitigation, part of the problem is that we do not have the appropriate housing units in many cases, so we rely heavily on voluntary organisations, Church organisations and others. However, there has to be funding stream for them to deliver their services and offer help. Members must understand that that is why we have a difficulty. It is not as if we can go to Sheffield or Coventry City Councils, which can provide services; I hope that Members understand that. We have Syrians and other such people coming to our shores from distressing situations. People are happy to rally round them, but getting funding flowing has to happen via Stormont. That is the obstacle in our way. Perhaps the Minister can address that in his response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has been a consistent champion for child refugees in promoting their interests. I am very grateful to him for his continued commitment to such an important issue, which I know he has discussed with my noble friend Lord Duncan as recently as May. He deserves a reply. It will have to be fairly brief, which I am sure the House will be relieved to hear, but I hope that it is not too brief.
As the noble Lord will know, the UK has contributed significantly to hosting, supporting and protecting the most vulnerable children, including those affected by the migration crisis in Europe. Since the beginning of 2015, the UK has received asylum applications from 12,756 unaccompanied children. In 2018, we received 2,872 such applications—15% of all such claims in the EU. We are the third largest intake country of all the EU member states. I must pay tribute to the vital work of local authorities in looking after these children and providing them with the day-to-day care that is so crucial in enabling them to rebuild their lives.
The Government remain committed to relocating the remaining children up to the specified number of 480 under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. The Home Office continues to work closely with local authorities and strategic migration partnerships across the country. We remain very keen to receive offers of further placements.
As with other amendments, this amendment cuts across devolved matters. The relocation of children is also dependent on the availability of appropriate local authority care placements. I took note of the speech and comments of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on housing. In Northern Ireland the delivery of most of the required services, such as health, social care and education, is devolved.
The intention behind the proposed new clause is to provide for the allocation to Northern Ireland of children brought to the UK under Section 67. Of course, it is right that the ability to do so should exist; however, such a clause is not required. The regulations that it requires would duplicate existing ones in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and the Transfer of Responsibility for Relevant Children (Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2018; they are therefore unnecessary. Whether Northern Ireland health and social care trusts accept children under Section 67 of the 2016 Act is very much a matter for Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, this is an important issue and, given that we are talking about children here, it is important that we, working with Northern Ireland, get this right. I would be happy to continue to discuss and explore our approach to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. For those reasons, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I appreciate the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I am aware that this would be done not through local authorities but through the health boards in Northern Ireland; I did not want to go into too much detail about that so that I could be brief. The issue concerns unaccompanied child refugees; it is not about housing but about finding foster parents who are willing to have children placed with them through the health boards. It is therefore a fairly simple proposition at one level.
I just hope that there is some way we can unblock this, because I think we are well short of the 480 that the Government have capped under Section 67. There are children in a terrible situation in northern France and on the Greek islands. I thought that if we could just unblock this a bit and give the Northern Ireland people a chance to say, “We have some foster parents here who are willing to take a couple of child refugees,” we could move forward. That is all I am asking.
On the Minister’s assurance that we are going to take this further by discussion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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, in speaking to the amendment standing in my name, I am very conscious of what has been said on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, but the definition of a victim in Northern Ireland has been a vexation for some 13 years now. Consideration of government proposals in the past was coloured by people’s dissatisfaction people over an unfair definition of a victim.
I shall not repeat in detail what I said in Monday’s debate, but I urge the Minister to give due diligence to this issue. I know that, when responding to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, he made it clear that this matter would be actioned, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, gave considerable reassurance that his definition of a victim is not a victim-maker. In our estimation and strong opinion, the two cannot be conflated or confused. We draw a distinct difference between those who were victim-makers and those who were victims. If this House and the other place do not deal with this, as I said when I served notice on your Lordships’ House today, this issue will not go away. However, it is not my intention to move my amendment in light of what was said in the earlier debate and the clear assurance given that victims and victim-makers are two different people.
Baroness Barker
“(1) Except as mentioned in subsection (1A), this Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.(1A) Sections 9 and (Regulations: procedure and supplementary 3) extend to Northern Ireland only.”
Lord Hayward
“(2) Except as mentioned in subsection (2A), this Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.(2A) Sections 8 and (Regulations: procedure and supplementary 1) come into force on 22 October 2019, unless an Executive in Northern Ireland is formed on or before 21 October 2019 (in which case they do not come into force at all). (2B) For the purposes of this section an Executive is formed once the offices of the First Minister, deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are all filled.”
“(2) Except as mentioned in subsection (2A), this Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.(2A) Sections (Victims’ payments) and (Regulations: procedure and supplementary 2) come into force on 22 October 2019, unless an Executive in Northern Ireland is formed on or before 21 October 2019 (in which case they do not come into force at all).(2B) For the purposes of this section an Executive is formed once the offices of the First Minister, deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are all filled.”
Baroness Barker
“(2) Except as mentioned in subsection (2A), this Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.(2A) Sections 9 and (Regulations: procedure and supplementary 3) come into force on 22 October 2019, unless an Executive in Northern Ireland is formed on or before 21 October 2019 (in which case they do not come into force at all).(2B) For the purposes of this section an Executive is formed once the offices of the First Minister, deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are all filled.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, before we move on to the statutory instrument, which is our next business, I should say a few words about the Third Reading of the Bill. The Public Bill Office will now need some time to reprint the Bill following the changes that the House has agreed this evening. Once the Bill has been reprinted, noble Lords will have 30 minutes to table any amendments. If I can provide a further update on timings after the statutory instrument has been dealt with, I will do so. We will now move on to consider the statutory instrument.
Electricity Capacity (No. 2) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved.
Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the capacity market is a key element of the Government’s strategy for maintaining the security of electricity supplies in Great Britain. This instrument will help maintain a strong security-of-supply position into the future. The capacity market secures the capacity required in Great Britain during periods of peak demand through competitive, technology-neutral auctions normally held four years and one year ahead of delivery. These are known as T-4 and T-1 auctions. Those who win capacity agreements—known as capacity providers—commit to providing capacity during periods of system stress in exchange for receiving capacity payments.
I will briefly provide some context before expanding on the provisions of this draft instrument. On 15 November 2018, the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled the European Commission’s state aid approval for GB’s capacity market, introducing a “standstill period” until the scheme can be reapproved. The judgment means that the UK Government are not able to award capacity agreements or make capacity payments unless and until state aid approval is obtained. The Commission is currently conducting a state aid investigation for the capacity market, and we are working with it to ensure it can reapprove the scheme as quickly as possible.
We have taken steps, through an earlier instrument—the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019—and associated changes to the capacity market rules, to maintain the operation of the capacity market, to the extent possible, while state aid approval is obtained. The steps we have taken to put in place these interim arrangements are currently subject to judicial review proceedings, which we are robustly defending. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted the continuing uncertainty for the capacity market resulting from these judicial review proceedings and from the Commission’s state aid investigation.
This second instrument put before the House today focuses on future auctions, which will not proceed unless and until the capacity market has state aid approval. This means the instrument is unlikely to be impacted by the judicial review. First, the instrument makes changes to enable the T-4 auction for the 2022-23 delivery year, which was postponed following the state aid judgment, to be replaced by a one-off T-3 auction. It will only be held if state aid approval has been received and would be held in early 2020. Secondly, this instrument makes changes to remove or reduce what might otherwise be unnecessary burdens on business in relation to credit cover.
Applicants seeking to enter certain types of capacity market unit—for example, those that are unproven or not yet constructed—into a capacity auction are required to provide and maintain credit cover. The instrument adjusts the credit cover requirements for a CMU entered into both the upcoming T-3 and T-4 auctions, to enable the credit cover obligations for both auctions to be satisfied jointly rather than separately.
It also extends the existing suspension of credit cover obligations, provided for by the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019, to the three upcoming capacity auctions likely to take place in 2020. It makes changes to ensure that when the suspension of credit cover is lifted, following state aid reapproval, existing exceptions to credit cover requirements still operate as intended. Finally, the instrument makes changes to support the participation of certain unsubsidised renewable technologies in future auctions.
The capacity market was always intended to include all unsubsidised technologies. Some types of renewable technology, such as biomass, have always been able to participate provided they are not receiving other specified low-carbon subsidies. However, when the capacity market was conceived, wind and solar required subsidy, so were not included in its technical rules. With unsubsidised renewables now a prospect, the capacity market rules have recently been amended to allow wind and solar to participate.
This instrument supports this change by requiring state support for new-build renewable CMUs, which has been declared under the rules to be deducted or repaid from capacity payments. This enables renewable technologies in receipt of subsidies—other than those which exclude them from the scheme entirely—to participate without cumulation of state aid received through the capacity market and other schemes. Alongside these regulations, we have also laid complementary amendments to the capacity market rules, which govern the technical and administrative procedures relating to capacity market operation.
These regulations are necessary to ensure the smooth running of the capacity market in the period after state aid approval is received, and to broaden the participation of renewable technologies. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I will ask the Minister some questions, and I express some surprise that, in his presentation to the House, he did not mention demand-side response, which was the subject of an intervention I made on a previous occasion, and the reason why the state aid ruling was made by the European court. As it is absolutely at the centre of the reason why this matter has not been settled and the UK Government’s proposals were rejected, the Minister owes the House a little more detail about that, particularly because, as I understand it—he made the point himself—all the paperwork in front of us today is conditional on implementation on receiving state aid approval from the EU. At the moment, that is still outstanding.
That arose from an action taken at the European Court back in 2015 by a small company called Tempus Energy, which claimed that the system was discriminatory against those who sought to reduce electricity consumption as opposed to increase electricity generation. The outcome of that was that its claim led to the UK’s scheme being sent back for a rethink.
The way it is supposed to work is that firms bid into the auction at the price they need, either to keep existing plants open to generate electricity or to create new capacity from scratch. It does not deal adequately with the situation of companies which have come forward with a commercial proposition that they will reduce overall electricity consumption. That is surprising because, in fact, overall electricity consumption is falling, not rising. The Government itself recently took account of that, having for a long time somewhat denied the relevance of it to the whole question.
Having said all that, it is surprising that the Minister has not referred to the ECJ judgment, in particular to paragraphs 203 to 207 of it, and paragraphs 27(e) and 69 of the official guidance put in support of that judgment. Has the Minister read those paragraphs, and if he has, does he think that the plain and ordinary meaning of them could in any way be construed as a simple technical reprise as opposed to an outright rejection? How certain is he that the judgment of the European Court was not, as the Minister in the House of Commons alleged it to be,
“a challenge to the nature of the UK capacity market mechanism itself”?—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/18; col. 1090WS.]
It seems that it is not very easy to make that stand up, and as regards our taking a decision today, it needs at least a little amplification and clarification.
The allegation put to the European Court was that our UK system was discriminating against those who had a commercial appetite to reduce electricity consumption as opposed to having proposals to provide generation. I hope the Minister will say that is not true and contradict the advice I have been given that, the way the system is designed at the moment, those who want to reduce consumption—the capacity supply industry—have to make sure they have a payback period in 12 months, whereas those on the demand side are given 15 years. That inequality is leading to discrimination, which means that DSR is extremely difficult to bring within the scope of the support that these regulations are intended to provide.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurances about the amount he has read and the legal interpretation of it he has, as well as something about demand-side response and getting that playing field level for all those who want to contribute to carbon reduction in the UK via the electricity market.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I know the Minister always likes to hear optimism and congratulations on energy policy from these Benches. I will start with that, in that I am pleased that renewables—I understand the caveat about unsubsidised renewables—will be able to bid for the capacity market in future. The irony, somewhat, is that the form of renewables that costs the least and is most likely to be unsubsidised—onshore wind—has been banned by the Government. I think others will speak about that area later in this debate.
The capacity market came into operation in about 2014, which to us in this House probably sounds like yesterday, but in the development of the energy market—decarbonisation and the way in which variability, storage technology and all those other areas have moved forward—there has been a big change. The question we should come back to—as well as many of my noble friend Lord Stunell’s excellently made points—is: where do we need to go with the capacity market at this stage?
In this statutory instrument we have more of the same, to catch up with what we have not been able to do because of the European Court of Justice decision. I suggest that the capacity market, which was essential back when the Energy Act put it into place, is more questionable at the moment. I ask the Minister: what has the cost of the capacity market been to date? In recent years, what percentage of annual electricity consumption has the capacity market contributed? I am trying to get an idea of the scale of this instrument’s use and how important it has been. One thing is quite obvious: I understand that there has been an auction during this period of standstill. Given that there is no panic about this, do we need this capacity at all?
I repeat my noble friend’s points about demand-side management. It has been a characteristic of energy policy that we have always prioritised supply and capital investment, following demand, rather than trying to reduce demand and looking at the demand side rather than the supply side of the equation. Will we be in a position where demand-side response—the aggregators and that side of the industry, so important to our future —is able to compete not just in the one-year bids but in the three- and four-year bids? Will that now be the case? Where are we on storage? I believe that it is still not included as a sector that can bid for the capacity market. I hope that I am wrong on that, but I would be interested to hear that from the Minister.
So my real question is: how does the Minister see the capacity market moving in the future? I would love to see in the new energy White Paper—I hope the Minister will tell us this evening when it will be published—onshore wind coming back on to the system.
In terms of this particular statutory instrument, yes, it does the business, but we need a far more strategic approach to this part of the market than we have at the moment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the House this evening. As he stated, they follow up on the Government’s Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019 passed in April. That brought forward modifications to the capacity market that would operate during the standstill period following the legal challenges to the state aid provisions. These were made on the assumption that the Commission’s and the Government’s positions were indeed correct and lawful.
These regulations continue on that assumption and reintroduce T-3 auctions to take the place of the consequentially delayed T-4 auctions, which will now take place in 2020, after which the outcomes and judgments will be known. In response to questions from your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 53rd report, the Minister’s department replied that the Commission’s investigation is expected to conclude before this winter and that delay into 2020 is very improbable, and that on the judicial review, the UK court hearing is most likely to take place in October. These auctions will not be taking place under any scenario other than a status quo achievement for the Government.
Bearing in mind that the UK’s state aid rules under the authority of the CMA will not diverge from the EU state aid rules in either a deal or a no-deal scenario, the Minister is suddenly in a strong position to declare that nothing has changed. But of course, nothing can be taken with any great certainty. That was the position in the debate on the earlier regulations. The circumstances of the T-3 auction do not differ from that position at all. It is a provisional auction in the sense that whatever is collected or potentially disbursed will be held until the EU study of its processes for defying adherence to state aid is published.
The concerns that were voiced around the House on April’s regulations are still valid as there has been no further consideration of the fact that the court judgment was not merely a matter of process on state aid but included factors relating to demand-side management in the capacity auctions. It is not a foregone conclusion that business will continue as usual. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, reminded the House of that tonight.
In response to questions regarding the department’s plan B on an adverse judgment, the Government’s reply will be that they will make necessary adjustments. But what is the department’s timing on publishing its five-year review of the capacity market under the Energy Act 2013? Will that be before any judgment, such that the review may need to be withdrawn subsequently? Is the review now ready, after the Minister in the other place stated that the Government’s intention was to publish this summer? As the capacity market is still in the same position as last April, and the UK has an 11% margin in supply, I repeat: what is the rush?
In saying that, I repeat that I appreciate that the continuity and consistency of the capacity market is important to industry, and Labour would not wish to undermine either the security of electricity supplies or industry confidence in the capacity market as an investable mechanism to drive through change, bring about cost savings and value for money.
However, in one respect, the T-3 auction proposed under this order would help clarify the trend in clearance prices. In February 2017, the T-4 auction cleared at £22.50 per kilowatt. In February 2018, the T-4 auction cleared at £8.40 per kilowatt, and the latest auction in December 2018—admittedly the T-1 auction following the court hearings—cleared at a mere 0.4p per kilowatt. Ministers have repeatedly stated that having an 11% margin on supply was an indication that the capacity market was working well. What does the Minister expect the results to be for these forthcoming auctions? Does the latest price indicate that the capacity market is not needed, that there is ample capacity and that payments will be virtually nil for standing by to supply into the market? I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about storage, and other aspects.
Labour does not oppose this order. It is important that the current chaos in the capacity market is resolved as much and as soon as possible. The regulations, although provisional, will stabilise the market, and judicial resolutions to the situation should be forthcoming shortly. Nevertheless, some serious probing is needed with regard to the future direction of policy in the capacity market.
Questions around the future of the capacity market are highlighted by the inclusion of subsidy-free renewable technologies to bid into the capacity market through this order. The capacity market was introduced to enable the energy market to transform from one based on fossil fuels to one based on new low-carbon technologies, while maintaining security of supply.
The Minister may say that it was always anticipated that the capacity market framework would allow the participation of renewable technologies at some point, so he is now confirming that this is that point. Despite any margin of supply, does the Minister expect that the capacity market will be a permanent feature? Can he clarify the difference under paragraph 7.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum whereby some renewables are excluded should they receive support from contracts for difference, the renewables obligation or the feed-in tariffs, whereas other participants receiving other forms of support can have their capacity payments adjusted to reflect other state support payments? Paragraph 7.15 states that regulation 49A of the principal regulations for low-carbon generation support is amended to allow this change.
The Minister in the other place stated on this point that onshore wind, offshore wind and solar technologies will now be able to participate, and the noble Lord the Minister has repeated that. Now that the Government believe that the capacity market is the right mechanism for achieving security of supply at the lowest cost to consumers, can he now give a further update on the position of onshore wind? As it is the cheapest source of low-carbon energy, is it now a hollow achievement for it to be allowed to bid into the capacity market when it is banned from obtaining planning permission? Can the Minister now publicly endorse that onshore wind will be allowed to bid into the CfD framework on an equal basis?
In the report Quantifying Benefits of Onshore Wind to the UK, published yesterday by Vivid Economics—a group that does scenario modelling for the Treasury—it was stated that UK customers could achieve a £50 annual saving to their bills through onshore wind being made available. Will the Minister give his assessment of this report and indicate when onshore wind may participate in the UK’s energy market?
Finally, under paragraph 7.18 of the Explanatory Memorandum, it states that other technical issues have been addressed in this order. They do not seem to be material, but nevertheless I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me with an indication of which have now been improved. With the misgivings stated, I can approve the order before the House tonight.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to all three noble Lords for their interventions and I will try to deal with as many of the questions as possible. I believe I have a certain amount of time in which to respond. I am not quite clear when the usual channels want to return to other matters but I imagine that, whenever it is, it should be seen as a limit rather than a target. Therefore, I will try to keep my responses as brief as possible, and there are possibly one or two that I hope noble Lords will accept in writing. I am thinking particularly of the last point on the Explanatory Memorandum made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
I think we are all, to some extent, singing from the same song sheet in that we all have the same clear aim of wanting to head in the direction of getting to zero carbon by 2050, as we made clear in our recent announcement. It might be that others feel that it can be done quicker or in different ways, but we are all trying to do the same thing and to see that we achieve increasing amounts of electricity generation by low-carbon means. As noble Lords will be aware, we have achieved a great deal—consumption is down to something of the order of 5% coming from carbon.
We also believe that the capacity market is the right mechanism for delivering security of supply at the lowest cost to consumers. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who asked for detailed figures on the overall costs of that over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether we could speculate about future auctions in the light of the continuously lower prices achieved at repeated auctions. Obviously, it would be wrong for me to speculate in any way about what price might be obtained—that is not what one does in advance of an auction—but it is encouraging that the price has come down. We still believe that that process is necessary and the right way to deal with these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also asked about the five-year review. I can tell him that it will be published soon. I cannot give him a precise date at this stage but I will say “soon”, “shortly” or something of that sort. However, it is certainly on its way and I very much hope that we can look at it in more detail in due course.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, particularly about the judgment of the European court and the decisions by the Commission. He said that the judgment was more than just procedural. The court identified elements of the capacity market which should have given the Commission doubts about whether the scheme was compatible with state aid requirements. That meant that the Commission should have conducted an in-depth investigation before deciding whether to approve the scheme. Importantly, however, the court did not rule that the design of the capacity market was incompatible with state aid requirements or direct that changes be made to the mechanism. We have carefully considered the matter. When I say “we”, I mean department officials and my right honourable friend the Minister for Energy. I cannot confess that I have read the detailed paragraphs that the noble Lord referred me to, but we have carefully considered each of the issues raised in the court judgments, and we remain confident that the design of the capacity market is compatible with the state aid requirements, including in the way the system is designed in respect of demand-side response.
Lord Teverson
I understand entirely the argument that a number of years are required for physical capacity to build what was originally the coalition Government’s hope that gas would come online. But what I do not understand is this: by having that exclusively for supply side, a whole area of the capacity market is denied by demand response. By the time you come around to the short-term one-year deals, where demand response can come in, you have already filled a major proportion of the capacity market. It therefore discriminates against that sector—or do I completely misunderstand this?
Lord Henley
I might have to write in greater detail, but both T-1 and T-4—the short term and longer term—deal with the point about discrimination. I might be wrong, but I will think about that and come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Stunell
I am sure that the Minister is aware that for the cost of a gigawatt of generation capacity, you could have a great deal more demand reduction capacity, but only if the right trading environment is in place. If I can offer support to my noble colleague on the Front Bench, it does mean that by the time you have built the generating capacity, the case for the demand-side reduction shrinks. The noble Lord’s argument that six months was therefore justified in the one case, and 15 years was necessary in the other, is precisely the point that the European Court of Justice felt was evidence that the European Commission had not looked thoroughly enough at the UK Government’s scheme. I would have expected him to be saying that this aspect had been reviewed in bringing forward alternative regulations to the House.
Lord Henley
Again, it might be better if I write to the noble Lord on that point. He is aware that the Commission—which we support on this—is not happy with that judgment. It needs to be looked at and, as I made clear earlier, we are working with the Commission to ensure that it has everything it needs to continue considering that wider state aid approval for the regime as quickly as possible. I will write to both noble Lords on that point. I made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I will also write with a more detailed letter on the cost of capacity auctions and the amount of capacity that has been used in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also asked about storage. Both he and I have stressed on other occasions that we see storage playing a great role in the world of energy in the future. I can give an assurance that storage is able to compete in the capacity auctions and has been able to since the outset. I have dealt with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about when we will publish the five-year review; as I said, we hope to do so shortly. That will not be the end of the process, which will identify areas of the capacity market’s design where further amendments may be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also asked about support under some schemes preventing renewables participating in the capacity market altogether, where other schemes simply deduct from the capacity market payments. It remains appropriate to exclude CMUs which benefit from contracts for difference, the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff payments, as those are the most likely and significant alternative support for CMUs participating in the capacity market. That prevents the accumulation of state aid. Less significant forms of support do not exclude renewable CMUs from the capacity market. Instead, the rules require new-build wind and solar generation to declare this support, so that it can be deducted from capacity payments. What a capacity provider is authorised to receive under state aid, in addition to its capacity payments, does not need to be declared or deducted.
I turn to a matter rather beyond this debate: our general policy on onshore wind. I can tell both noble Lords who raised the subject that I know of no plans to change that policy. We have seen great improvements in offshore wind, which has the great benefit over onshore wind of being in windier, flatter places where it is possible to build even bigger windmills than are possible on land, as I think even the noble Lord would agree. I therefore cannot offer him any hope that our policy is about to change on that.
Lastly, the noble Lord asked about the energy Green Paper, which we still hope to publish before we break for the summer. He will have to be patient for only another four or five days.
I have dealt with most of the points raised and offered to write on others. I beg to move.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Wednesday 17th July 2019
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 192-I(a)(Manuscript) Amendment for Report, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF) - (17 Jul 2019)
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, these amendments rationalise the clauses to make procedural provision in respect of each of the new regulation-making powers in the Bill, so they can be dealt with together. They rationalise the commencement provisions for each power and, importantly, they will not come into force if an Executive is formed on or before 21 October. We are also seeking to amend the Long and Short Titles of the Bill to reflect its purpose. It is now—goodness me—nearly 1.30 am and I would like to thank the staff who have helped us by staying late.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
They are appreciated. We would not be in the same fit state without them. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, good morning—that will confuse “Yesterday in Parliament”. I rise to speak to Amendment 2, which is mercifully in the same group as the Minister’s amendments. It is a small technical amendment to the amendment in my name that was passed on Report.
Its effect is to change the deadline for the regulation-making powers and consultation from 13 January 2020 to 31 March 2020. Noble Lords who were here will have heard the Minister give a very extensive exposition of the way in which his department will pursue the regulation-making powers under Clause 9 and the very tight timetable it has to work on amendments which are somewhat more complicated than those pertaining to same-sex marriage. All this is intended to do is to give his department sufficient flexibility and the small amount of time it may need if matters fall slightly behind. It is absolutely not intended to be a reason to in any way frustrate or delay for a long time the matters on which we have deliberated in some detail and with great seriousness. I hope when others watching our proceedings come to see this amendment, they will understand the reasons why it has been tabled and the spirit in which it is proposed.
I will sit down very shortly, but I want to put on record my thanks to the staff, the Opposition Front Bench and Members of the Cross Benches, who have worked extremely hard to get us to this point. Above all, I thank the Minister, who has been outstanding on this Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 5 in my name. It is a tidying-up procedure which corrects and clarifies the statutory instrument powers. To be clear, the procedures for victims’ payments and same-sex marriage remain as the House agreed on Report, which is via the negative procedure. The abortion regulations will now be made by affirmative procedure, rather than by negative procedure, and, to avoid any doubt, this amendment states that:
“In calculating the period of 28 days mentioned … no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or … adjourned for more than four days”,
so that should we be adjourned part-way through a consultation period, the clock would stop ticking, and start again when we officially resume.
The other important thing is to explain the last part of this amendment, which states that if regulations cease to have effect as a result of proposed new subsection (4), that does not affect anything previously done under them, or the making of new regulations. I shall give an example of that to clarify it. If in relation to the abortion issue that we discussed, a statutory instrument is introduced, and after that date a GP prescribes misoprostol for an abortion, they would be protected doing so during the consultation period. However, if at the end of the 28 days that statutory instrument falls, they would not be covered in prescribing on day 29, and it would not be retrospective either.
It is important to be clear, because this has been such a charged debate. I too thank everyone, particularly the Minister, for having been extraordinarily available at all times of the day and into the night for discussion and consultation. He has really tried to resolve these complex issues.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, given the hour, I thank all those who have taken part, especially those who have worked so hard on these critical amendments. It was indeed a mutual process, with the Minister, of getting us to the point where we now have a Bill that looks much more fit for purpose than when it came to us, which is precisely what we are here to do. We must thank the staff for facilitating; we apologise for keeping them all up. We have done a job of work and people can say that the issues have been thoroughly and properly debated. I also reinforce my thanks and appreciation to the Minister for what he has done and the way he does it, which is much appreciated.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, despite the danger of sounding repetitive, I thank the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Finlay.
This Bill is now in better shape than when it was received from the House of Commons. It has been a fraught process at times. I am not sure whether it is the lateness or the earliness of the hour, but as well as thanking the staff—we ask a lot of our staff to be here at this time of the morning working on these issues and are very grateful for the support that have given us—without the Minister’s conciliatory attitude and his willingness to talk at all times to everybody involved, we would not be at this stage. We are grateful to him and thank him for the work that he has done.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Before we conclude, I will my comments. I thank people who were unseen throughout my efforts—there are even members of the DUP who have said, “Keep going”. That is the different voice that one has heard. I also pay tribute to No. 10 and the PM, who have also encouraged me in the process. When I made my speech earlier this evening—or was it this afternoon, yesterday afternoon, I am not sure—I referred to people whom I knew. We should bear in mind that the changes that we have made relate so much to people whom we do not know. We will never know that we have helped a lot of people.
One of the miracles of modern technology is such that, since I referred to Rainey Endowed School this afternoon, I have had a message from another of its former members who happened to be watching us—there is a salutary warning to us all—and he has written to say thank you. He has announced to a number of people—I shall never know them and we all never will—these two sentences, which I hope summarise what we have achieved here in the last few days: “You, perhaps like me, know far too many people who killed themselves back in the 1970s and 1980s, rather than bringing shame on their families”. He then goes to say, “I was fortunate. I had another guy who lived in the same village and we kept each other sane”. Those are very appropriate thoughts for what we have achieved here in the last few days.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I will not detain us for long. I think it is important to thank certain noble Lords, many of whom are in the Chamber tonight, but particular commendation should go to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for the work she has done in helping us move towards consensus. On an issue such as this, consensus is far better than division. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with the Front Benches on the Labour and Liberal sides—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—and my own side and others to try to deliver what has been a difficult Bill, in remarkably difficult circumstances, over a remarkably short timescale, even though we have allowed for it to be extended; I think that is important. This would still be far better done by a reformed and resolved Executive in Northern Ireland, but that was not to be on this occasion. The sun will shortly rise and it will be a brave new world upon which it shines.
Baroness Barker
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Lord Duncan of Springbank
“Regulations: supplementary
(1) A power to make regulations under section 8, 9 or 10 may be used to make different provision for different purposes.(2) Regulations under section 8, 9 or 10 may make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or saving provision.”
“Regulations: procedure
(1) Regulations under section 8, 9 or 10 are to be made by statutory instrument. (2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 8 or 10 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 9 must be laid before Parliament after being made.(4) Regulations contained in an instrument laid under subsection (3) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) In calculating the period of 28 days mentioned in subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (4), that does not affect—(a) anything previously done under them, or(b) the making of new regulations.”
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Lord Duncan of Springbank
“(2) Section 9 extends to Northern Ireland only.”
“(4) Sections 8, 9, 10, (Regulations: supplementary) and (Regulations: procedure) come into force on 22 October 2019, unless an Executive in Northern Ireland is formed on or before 21 October 2019 (in which case they do not come into force at all).”
Lord Duncan of Springbank