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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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 th